I'm a newbie to the sound science section (say that 10x fast...lol)and I had a question. Well, more of a request for other peoples opinions (which, I hear are plentiful here on Head-Fi). I have been interested in Hires downloads for a while. I don't have much experience with them, (just a few freebies from HD Tracks) nor do I have an external DAC (yet). I do have some decent headphones/IEMs.
While I was reading over in http://www.soundandvision.com/content/hra-masses in the comment section, I read someone quoting this article: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195 which basically says a double blind test show no audible difference between hi res audio & standard (44.1-kHz/16-bit ) at "normal to loud listening levels".
Then, John Sciacca (from S&V Magazine) quoted something else from the above article:
“Virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs—sometimes much better.” This has been attributed to “engineers and producers being given the freedom to produce recordings that sound as good as they can make them, without having to compress or equalize the signal to suit lesser systems and casual listening conditions. These recordings seem to have been made with great care and manifest affection, by engineers trying to please themselves and their peers.”
I was kind of floored by these statements. I posted this over on Inner Fidelity, but I haven't received a reply.
So my question is, are the high res files so many people love really better than standard quality CDs?
If they are better, are they better because of superior sound engineering, or the higher bit-rate?
Does anybody else have any experience with a double blind test? It seems that's the only way to really measure these things.
I'd really enjoy hearing other people's feedback.