[upstateguy]

 

  Wow is that false.  Even 24/44 sounds better than 16/44, given a proper transfer from tape.  See The Cars and The Beatles for 24/44 masters.
 
It's like saying no one ever can see more than 640x480 resolution, because you can't see it on your singular screen.  Stop it. Stop it. Stop it.  1984 called, it wants it's argument back.
 
Let's cut to the chase --- stereo PCM file -- effective bandwidth -- are you claiming you can hear a difference between 256k and 1400k, but you can't hear a difference between 1400k and 2800k, or 1400k and 5800k?
 
Listen to reverb trails. Listen to air in the room. Listen for how many voices (sounds) can be presented at once. Vocal choruses, choirs. Listen to room shape, accuracy of delays, timing cues, width, depth, even timbre of instruments -- all of that improves with higher bitrate.
 
Yes bad gear in the signal chain can mask it. If you play through laptop-level circuits then 16/44 might be all you need. But as soon as you use a real DAC with good analog, it's easy to hear beyond that. Especially if you are projecting the sound to a large room.
 
Btw -- my mastering engineer said he takes everything to 24/192 immediately upon delivery, regardless of resolution it is delivered as, and has for over 15 years now.  He then applies his processes (mainly EQ), masters the material, and then down samples and dithers to whatever resolution / format is required by the client.
 
His reason?  "There's more there there", and what some call headroom he calls air, and it's critical to the sound of the music (assuming it's not modern pop/rock squashed to all high hell).
 
When you create music from scratch in a studio it's very easy to hear these differences. Perhaps on the train with an iPhone it's not as easy, but the differences are still critical.

 
Take a 24-bit file. Convert it to lossless 16-bit / 44.1 kHz. Sounds exactly the same. Always.
 
The only reason some hi-res files sound different is because they came from a different master. Isolate the variables by converting the files yourself (to ensure you are comparing two different resolutions instead of merely two different masters) and those differences disappear.
 
As has been stated countless times elsewhere, 24-bit just adds more dynamic range, but 16-bit can already handle the dynamic range of all recordings. And frequencies above roughly 20 kHz are inaudible to humans. These things have no possible benefit in terms of audio playback.
 
If you would like to prove otherwise, simply publish a proper ABX test. Many people here can walk you through how to do so.

 
Although I've used the same technique to shoot down an argument in the past, I've come to dislike it.
 
Here's why......
 
So, OK, now you've made a claim, "Take a 24-bit file. Convert it to lossless 16-bit / 44.1 kHz. Sounds exactly the same. Always."
 
Sounds exactly the same. Always. Is that so???
 
I look forward to seeing you back up your claim using your own standard of proof, by "simply publishing a proper ABX test". 
 
Please don't link me to someone else's work. 
 
I would like to review your personal results and have a look at the files you created for the purposes of your test.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Although I've used the same technique to shoot down an argument in the past, I've come to dislike it.
 
Here's why......
 
So, OK, now you've made a claim, "Take a 24-bit file. Convert it to lossless 16-bit / 44.1 kHz. Sounds exactly the same. Always."
 
Sounds exactly the same. Always. Is that so???
 
I look forward to seeing you back up your claim using your own standard of proof, by "simply publishing a proper ABX test". 
 
Please don't link me to someone else's work. 
 
I would like to review your personal results and have a look at the files you created for the purposes of your test.

 
The burden of proof lies upon those who claim to hear a difference. I don't need to prove that I don't hear a difference.

 

[upstateguy]

 

  Although I've used the same technique to shoot down an argument in the past, I've come to dislike it.
 
Here's why......
 
So, OK, now you've made a claim, "Take a 24-bit file. Convert it to lossless 16-bit / 44.1 kHz. Sounds exactly the same. Always."
 
Sounds exactly the same. Always. Is that so???
 
I look forward to seeing you back up your claim using your own standard of proof, by "simply publishing a proper ABX test". 
 
Please don't link me to someone else's work. 
 
I would like to review your personal results and have a look at the files you created for the purposes of your test.

 
The burden of proof lies upon those who claim to hear a difference. I don't need to prove that I don't hear a difference.

 
 LOL, no the burden of proof lies upon those who make a claim.   And you claim it "Sounds exactly the same".  So put up or shut up.

 

[Jabbah]

LOL, no the burden of proof lies upon those who make a claim. And you claim it "Sounds exactly the same". So put up or shut up.

Upstateguy, the burden of proof lies with he who makes the positive claim. This is because you cannot prove a negative, ie you cannot prove a claim with a lack of evidence. The default or null hypothesis here is that there is no difference in how something sounds between the two sample sizes; those who claim that there is a difference are the only ones who can provide evidence against that.

The typical example here is the black swan problem. One guy who has only ever seen white swans says there are no black swans, another guy is sure there are black swans. They go to a river and see only white swans, does this prove there are no black swans? No. The second guy can only prove there are black swans by finding a black swan.

The only way to prove there is a difference in sample size is to provide a positive ABX test to that effect. Expectation bias also has an effect here though, negative bias can affect the outcome of an ABX test whereas positive bias cannot. That is to say if you expect to hear no difference (negative bias) in the ABX test then you are likely to get a close to random result even if there is a difference, whereas if you expect to hear a difference (positive bias) you cannot generate a greater than random result if there is no difference.

As you can see, it is up to those who claim there is a difference to prove that claim. As they already claim they can hear a difference in specific examples this should be quite easy to do.

 

[arnyk]

   
 LOL, no the burden of proof lies upon those who make a claim.   And you claim it "Sounds exactly the same".  So put up or shut up.

 
It is always possible to play with words as was done above and turn a claim upside down.
 
The basic claim is that high resolution audio improves sound quality. 
 
The claim has been around for at least 20 years, and its advocates are still failing to provide a critical mass of scientific evidence that supports their claim.
 
One of the biggest tests of this claim happened accidentally about 15 years ago when SACD and DVD-A were introduced.  There were at least 5-8 years when about half of all DVD-A and SACD recordings were sourced from low resolution sources  (legacy digital, analog tape, etc.) and nobody seems to have noticed.

 

[Music Alchemist]

   LOL, no the burden of proof lies upon those who make a claim.   And you claim it "Sounds exactly the same".  So put up or shut up.

 
The only purpose of an ABX test is to verify whether a perceived difference is genuine. If there is no perceived difference in the first place, ABX is pointless.
 
If you say that you hear a difference, you have to prove it...so where's your proof?
 
As far as I know, not even a single person has ever been able to pass a proper ABX test of 24-bit vs 16-bit. This is not surprising at all, if you have a basic understanding of how audio works.
 

Upstateguy, the burden of proof lies with he who makes the positive claim. This is because you cannot prove a negative, ie you cannot prove a claim with a lack of evidence. The default or null hypothesis here is that there is no difference in how something sounds between the two sample sizes; those who claim that there is a difference are the only ones who can provide evidence against that.

The typical example here is the black swan problem. One guy who has only ever seen white swans says there are no black swans, another guy is sure there are black swans. They go to a river and see only white swans, does this prove there are no black swans? No. The second guy can only prove there are black swans by finding a black swan.

The only way to prove there is a difference in sample size is to provide a positive ABX test to that effect. Expectation bias also has an effect here though, negative bias can affect the outcome of an ABX test whereas positive bias cannot. That is to say if you expect to hear no difference (negative bias) in the ABX test then you are likely to get a close to random result even if there is a difference, whereas if you expect to hear a difference (positive bias) you cannot generate a greater than random result if there is no difference.

As you can see, it is up to those who claim there is a difference to prove that claim. As they already claim they can hear a difference in specific examples this should be quite easy to do.

 
Exactly.

 

[jcx]

you do need to add some qualifications, limiting conditions there - you can always turn up the volume in a quiet passage to hear noise of even very good noise shaped dither in 16/44
 
what's less likely is that good dithered 16 bits can be heard as different from 24 bits when system gain structure, amp, headphone sensitivity is set up to give 100-110 dB SPL @0 dB full scale for both to accommodate actual high dynamic range recordings
 
Bob Katz seems happy with good noise shaped dither 16 bits
 
http://www.digido.com/articles-and-demos12/13-bob-katz/16-dither.html
 

...The sonic result is an incredibly silent background, even on a 16-bit CD. The 0 dB line is around -96 dBFS in this diagram. 

 
 
consider recording noise floor in actual live recording in a real space with live performers, audience and mics in "natural soundfield" positions instead of close miced individual instruments - does it ever have low enough noise floor for noise shaped 16 bit to be the limit?

 

[upstateguy]

 

   LOL, no the burden of proof lies upon those who make a claim.   And you claim it "Sounds exactly the same".  So put up or shut up.

 
The only purpose of an ABX test is to verify whether a perceived difference is genuine. If there is no perceived difference in the first place, ABX is pointless.
 
If you say that you hear a difference, you have to prove it...so where's your proof?
 
As far as I know, not even a single person has ever been able to pass a proper ABX test of 24-bit vs 16-bit. This is not surprising at all, if you have a basic understanding of how audio works.
 

Upstateguy, the burden of proof lies with he who makes the positive claim. This is because you cannot prove a negative, ie you cannot prove a claim with a lack of evidence. The default or null hypothesis here is that there is no difference in how something sounds between the two sample sizes; those who claim that there is a difference are the only ones who can provide evidence against that.

The typical example here is the black swan problem. One guy who has only ever seen white swans says there are no black swans, another guy is sure there are black swans. They go to a river and see only white swans, does this prove there are no black swans? No. The second guy can only prove there are black swans by finding a black swan.

The only way to prove there is a difference in sample size is to provide a positive ABX test to that effect. Expectation bias also has an effect here though, negative bias can affect the outcome of an ABX test whereas positive bias cannot. That is to say if you expect to hear no difference (negative bias) in the ABX test then you are likely to get a close to random result even if there is a difference, whereas if you expect to hear a difference (positive bias) you cannot generate a greater than random result if there is no difference.

As you can see, it is up to those who claim there is a difference to prove that claim. As they already claim they can hear a difference in specific examples this should be quite easy to do.

 
Exactly.

 
You guys are intentionally missing the point.  I have come to dislike the smug objectivist retort of asking for proof in a way that's way too time consuming to comply with. IMHO, it's about time we found another way to get our point across.
 
Now listen guys, by your definitions, I can say that a 45rmp record "sounds exactly the same" as a compact disc, which is no different than the foofa "MA" said about 24-bit vs 16-bit. 
 
Since I am not claiming there is a difference, no proof is required, and the statement stands as fact.
 
Clearly that doesn't fly any better than 24 bit and 16 bit "sound exactly the same". 
 
Proof is needed to support any claim.  Difference, no difference or what ever the claim might be.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  You guys are intentionally missing the point.  I have come to dislike the smug objectivist retort of asking for proof in a way that's way too time consuming to comply with. IMHO, it's about time we found another way to get our point across.
 
Now listen guys, by your definitions, I can say that a 45rmp record "sounds exactly the same" as a compact disc, which is no different than the foofa "MA" said about 24-bit vs 16-bit. 
 
Since I am not claiming there is a difference, no proof is required, and the statement stands as fact.
 
Clearly that doesn't fly any better than 24 bit and 16 bit "sound exactly the same". 
 
Proof is needed to support any claim.  Difference, no difference or what ever the claim might be.

 
Oh, I thought you were claiming there was a difference. Never mind then.
 
No, you cannot prove a negative. Jabbah explained that clearly. If you say that a magical dragon exists on the moon, the burden of proof lies on you. I don't have to prove that a magical dragon does not exist on the moon. There is no point in venturing into an experiment involving proving that I don't hear a difference, because there is no difference perceived in the first place. If you want to hear for yourself how they sound the same, just convert the files and listen. I can show you how, if you need help.

 

[jcx]

you listen or you don't - most coming here already claim extensive listening - in doing a properly level matched, blinded listening test we're only asking for a little more
 
any making audible difference claims have to have the "different sounding" sources already in their possession or they are completely blowing smoke and in fact couldn't have listened with or without controls
 
 
there are issues of isolating the variable that the claimant is sure is causing audible difference
 
when its resampling, decimation, dither it becomes complicated to diy, verifying Software's correctness, optimum settings is another project too - but is really the only way to be sure of the transforms being applied to the identically mastered source
 
but this is the cheapest, easiest sort of type of test of most any part of the audio chain to do "at home" since it can be done on a PC, much of it with free software even

 

[Steve Eddy]

You guys are intentionally missing the point.  I have come to dislike the smug objectivist retort of asking for proof in a way that's way too time consuming to comply with. IMHO, it's about time we found another way to get our point across.

Now listen guys, by your definitions, I can say that a 45rmp record "sounds exactly the same" as a compact disc, which is no different than the foofa "MA" said about 24-bit vs 16-bit. 

Since I am not claiming there is a difference, no proof is required, and the statement stands as fact.

Clearly that doesn't fly any better than 24 bit and 16 bit "sound exactly the same". 

Proof is needed to support any claim.  Difference, no difference or what ever the claim might be.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. And yes, many of the objectivists male that same mistake. Seems both sides have egos to deal with.

Instead of denying the claims made by others, the appropriate response is to hold their feet to the fire to substantiate their claim. Otherwise, instead of denying the claims, simply point out that no one to date has substantiated those claims.

se

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Since I am not claiming there is a difference, no proof is required, and the statement stands as fact.

 
Since I am also not claiming there is a difference, no proof is required.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Since I am also not claiming there is a difference, no proof is required.

Aye, but you are claiming there is no difference.

se

 

[Music Alchemist]

Aye, but you are claiming there is no difference.

se

 
The burden of proof is on those who claim to hear a difference. Those who do not hear a difference don't have to prove anything.

 

[Steve Eddy]

The burden of proof is on those who claim to hear a difference. Those who do not hear a difference don't have to prove anything.

Unless my recollection is bad, I believe you said no one would hear a difference. Not just that you didn't hear a difference. And sure, if you say you personally didn't hear a difference, that's fine and there's really no onus on you to prove that claim unless someone want to call you a liar. But if you said no one would be able to hear a difference, that's another matter entirely.

se