I made a short comparison from high resolution track vs high quality mp3. While I don't use any higher end stuff, just a Z3 and a good sound quality S0-18. I can hear the differences. The music is fuller with more details.

So high-resolution is not just a gimmicks. I am sure it will be even more noticeable with higher-end gears. The only problem would be where can you get these tracks. I rip mine from bluray For my personal uses

Unless you made the hi-res and mp3 files yourself from the same source, you cannot be sure that they are even the same recording. They were most likely mixed and/or mastered differently (different eq, channel mixing, dynamic range compression or limiting), and that is the difference you can hear. Try resampling your hi-res tracks to 44.1KHz and converting them to high bitrate mp3 (v0 or 320), then see if you can still hear the difference.

Read this article.
 
Many "HD" albums do sound different/better than the CD (etc.) versions, but not for the reasons many are led to believe. Any difference you hear with high-res audio is simply due to the fact that it was derived from a different master.
 
Here is a list of lossless and high-res music download sites.
 
16-bit / 44.1 kHz (aka CD quality and Red Book) is the highest resolution PCM audio you will ever benefit from. The human hearing range is roughly 20 Hz to 20 kHz. 44.1 kHz files are designed to play all the frequencies we can hear. Any higher frequencies in files with higher sample rates are inaudible to humans. The only thing 24-bit bit depth does is increase the dynamic range, but 16-bit has more than enough dynamic range to handle all recordings in existence.
 
If you convert 24-bit / 96 kHz (or whatever) PCM files to lossless 16-bit / 44.1 kHz (using a program like dBpoweramp or foobar2000), it is physically impossible to hear a difference between them unless there is a problem in your system.
 
DSD is a bit more complex and is essentially a different master anyway.
 
Most people can't hear a difference between 256 kbps AAC and lossless too, but some can.
 
Just bear in mind that you need to do two comparisons: high-res vs lossless 16-bit, and lossless 16-bit vs lossy.
 
If you perceive a difference between high-res and Red Book after properly comparing them, I have a thread for you: http://www.head-fi.org/t/738552/testing-the-claim-i-can-hear-differences-between-lossless-formats/

mindsmirror said:

Unless you made the hi-res and mp3 files yourself from the same source, you cannot be sure that they are even the same recording. They were most likely mixed and/or mastered differently (different eq, channel mixing, dynamic range compression or limiting), and that is the difference you can hear. Try resampling your hi-res tracks to 44.1KHz and converting them to high bitrate mp3 (v0 or 320), then see if you can still hear the difference.

Click to expand...

That is what I did. I ripped my bluray track in 2 HR. One is Flac 16 bits and another one is uncompressed WAV. The Flac file is 55-60mb for a 4 minutes song track, and WAV uncompressed is 100-120 mb. Then I converted those lossless into 320kbps MP3.

I couldn't tell the differences between Flac highest quality vs WAV uncompressed but from the lossless vs MP3 .... Yes!

My Z3 doesn't brand 16/44.1khz as high resolution, but 16/48khz is branded as high resolution, this....I can not tell the differences vs uncompressed file. Because my source originated on a bluray at 16/48khz..... if I can find even a better recording, I may be able to tell.

whitigir said:

That is what I did. I ripped my bluray track in 2 HR. One is Flac 16 bits and another one is uncompressed WAV. The Flac file is 55-60mb for a 4 minutes song track, and WAV uncompressed is 100-120 mb. Then I converted those lossless into 320kbps MP3.

I couldn't tell the differences between Flac highest quality vs WAV uncompressed

but from the lossless vs MP3 .... Yes!

Click to expand...

 
Yep, there's nothing surprising about some people hearing differences between lossless and lossy.

whitigir said:

That is what I did. I ripped my bluray track in 2 HR. One is Flac 16 bits and another one is uncompressed WAV. The Flac file is 55-60mb for a 4 minutes song track, and WAV uncompressed is 100-120 mb. Then I converted those lossless into 320kbps MP3.

I couldn't tell the differences between Flac highest quality vs WAV uncompressed

but from the lossless vs MP3 .... Yes!

My Z3 doesn't brand 16/44.1khz as high resolution, but 16/48khz is branded as high resolution, this....I can not tell the differences vs uncompressed file. Because my source originated on a bluray at 16/48khz..... if I can find even a better recording, I may be able to tell.

Click to expand...

 
I guess they think that extra almost-whole-step of frequency range makes all the difference 

rrod said:

I guess they think that extra almost-whole-step of frequency range makes all the difference :rolleyes:

Click to expand...

Yeah, and well....with CD quality, you can't get this...unless super cd ? Did or bluray

whitigir said:

Yeah, and well....with CD quality, you can't get this...unless super cd ? Did or bluray

Click to expand...

 
Correct, you can't get 24kHz tones on CD, and you also can't hear them ^_^

whitigir said:

Yeah, and well....with CD quality, you can't get this...unless super cd ? Did or bluray

Click to expand...

 
SACDs use DSD. Refer to my provided links above to learn more.

rrod said:

Correct, you can't get 24kHz tones on CD, and you also can't hear them ^_^

Click to expand...

Lol...I accept the fact that anything over 20khz is out our our hearing ranges, but I think what really differentiate the sources = sampling rates. You can't get more than 44.1khz sampling rate out of CD, but you can get 48000 or 96000 from bluray and DVD. Now, I can't find any bluray with 24 bits 96000 sampling rate.

However I have 16-24 bits 48000 rate. I can not hear the differences between these two bit rates. But comparing from CD quality to higher quality , I can hear the music become fuller and more details. I can not tell the exact differences by words, but I can feel and hear the differences. Although they are very minimal, and you can not tell if you simply just blasting music away, unless you are paying attention, and comparing back and forth between the same track on the same gears with different quality of files.

Next time I have an idea how to review supersonic headphones quality. Those headphones which are branded high resolution !! I will play the same track to the whale or the Dolphins in Disney land. If one pull their attention and they get closer to enjoy, it is a good headphones, if they run away and vomit, it is a bad headphones

whitigir said:

Lol...I accept the fact that anything over 20khz is out our our hearing ranges, but I think what really differentiate the sources = sampling rates. You can't get more than 44.1khz sampling rate out of CD, but you can get 48000 or 96000 from bluray and DVD. Now, I can't find any bluray with 24 bits 96000 sampling rate.

However I have 16-24 bits 48000 rate. I can not hear the differences between these two bit rates. But comparing from CD quality to higher quality , I can hear the music become fuller and more details. I can not tell the exact differences by words, but I can feel and hear the differences. Although they are very minimal, and you can not tell if you simply just blasting music away, unless you are paying attention, and comparing back and forth between the same track on the same gears with different quality of files.

Next time I have an idea how to review supersonic headphones quality. Those headphones which are branded high resolution !! I will play the same track to the whale or the Dolphins in Disney land. If one pull their attention and they get closer to enjoy, it is a good headphones, if they run away and vomit, it is a bad headphones

Click to expand...

 
In this era of Blackfish and measles, I'd avoid both interaction with cetaceans and going to Disneyland, and definitely don't mix the two 

whitigir said:

Lol...I accept the fact that anything over 20khz is out our our hearing ranges, but I think what really differentiate the sources = sampling rates. You can't get more than 44.1khz sampling rate out of CD, but you can get 48000 or 96000 from bluray and DVD. Now, I can't find any bluray with 24 bits 96000 sampling rate.

However I have 16-24 bits 48000 rate. I can not hear the differences between these two bit rates. But comparing from CD quality to higher quality , I can hear the music become fuller and more details. I can not tell the exact differences by words, but I can feel and hear the differences. Although they are very minimal, and you can not tell if you simply just blasting music away, unless you are paying attention, and comparing back and forth between the same track on the same gears with different quality of files.

Click to expand...

 
If you accept that fact, you must also accept the fact that sampling rates correspond to those frequencies, and that anything above 44.1 kHz is pointless.
 
I strongly suggest reading the links I gave you.
 
How are you doing this comparison exactly? You need to take the higher-resolution files, then convert them to 16-bit / 44.1 kHz; otherwise, you could just be listening to a different mix or master of the recording, or even a different recording altogether!

music alchemist said:

If you accept that fact, you must also accept the fact that sampling rates correspond to those frequencies, and that anything above 44.1 kHz is pointless.

I strongly suggest reading the links I gave you.

How are you doing this comparison exactly? You need to take the higher-resolution files, then convert them to 16-bit / 44.1 kHz; otherwise, you could just be listening to a different mix or master of the recording, or even a different recording altogether!

Click to expand...

Like I said, I ripped out a song track on a Blu-ray Disc in different formats. It allows me to convert to different sampling rate and bit rate as well.

whitigir said:

Like I said, I ripped out a song track on a Blu-ray Disc in different formats. It allows me to convert to different sampling rate and bit rate as well.

Click to expand...

 
Interesting. So you know you properly converted the files, and you are definitely perceiving an audible difference between the formats?
 
Would you be willing to take some tests to verify this? If so, report your findings at my thread, and we can walk you through how to do it.

Time to take it to sound science.