[interpolate]

The advantages of high-resolution audio have been demonstrated mathematically and graphically, therefore anybody able to understand these charts and visualisations can then stroke their chins and then say "I see the difference". Although can you hear any differences?
 
Take The Doors for example, by re-recording the original tapes into a 24/96 system, removing and masking any audible background noise they were able to give it a new lease of life. If you can then export this work without converting it and essentially keeping it the same, besides some mastering techniques I think that is when high-resolution audio comes into play. With a modern recording which has very little headroom other than offering more dynamics and less chance of IMD (Intermodulation Distortion) at higher levels, it should have benefits.
 
SACD has taken off in Japan where this nearly the norm. You can pick up say an Onkyo, SACD Player and a good pair of bookshelf speakers (or floorstanding if you are that way inclined) and really appreciate some of these high-resolution masters. Typically this is classical or operatic.
 
To be fair, HRA has it's place in the audiophile market and not the general consumer market until at least iPhone/iPod start supporting higher resolution formats. Lets face it...Apple do dictate the commericial market force. It's funny LG, Sony and Samsung have all supported high-resolution audio on their flagship mobile devices for over a year now. Vinyl has come back with a vengeance being pressed at 180/200gram weights.
 
It seems digital is now becoming more analogue.
 
The way I view it is, if I like it then all is good.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  The advantages of high-resolution audio have been demonstrated mathematically and graphically, therefore anybody able to understand these charts and visualisations can then stroke their chins and then say "I see the difference". Although can you hear any differences?
 
Take The Doors for example, by re-recording the original tapes into a 24/96 system, removing and masking any audible background noise they were able to give it a new lease of life. If you can then export this work without converting it and essentially keeping it the same, besides some mastering techniques I think that is when high-resolution audio comes into play. With a modern recording which has very little headroom other than offering more dynamics and less chance of IMD (Intermodulation Distortion) at higher levels, it should have benefits.
 
SACD has taken off in Japan where this nearly the norm. You can pick up say an Onkyo, SACD Player and a good pair of bookshelf speakers (or floorstanding if you are that way inclined) and really appreciate some of these high-resolution masters. Typically this is classical or operatic.
 
To be fair, HRA has it's place in the audiophile market and not the general consumer market until at least iPhone/iPod start supporting higher resolution formats. Lets face it...Apple do dictate the commericial market force. It's funny LG, Sony and Samsung have all supported high-resolution audio on their flagship mobile devices for over a year now. Vinyl has come back with a vengeance being pressed at 180/200gram weights.
 
It seems digital is now becoming more analogue.
 
The way I view it is, if I like it then all is good.

 
I already explained it to you, man. There is no benefit to higher resolution than the Red Book standard. Demonstrating bigger numbers is meaningless when it cannot possibly be audible.
 
Read this: https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[interpolate]

Supposing that is all true, why do we need to spend $100's on the perfect headphones or neutral Class-AB amplifiers? The answer is we all desire the unknown, unheard and unseen.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Supposing that is all true, why do we need to spend $100's on the perfect headphones or neutral Class-AB amplifiers? The answer is we all desire the unknown, unheard and unseen.

 
Hundreds is chump change for the perfect headphones.

 
I would honestly happily pay five figures for the perfect headphones, if they existed. I only say this because I've heard headphones that cost thousands of dollars and even they were nowhere near good enough, compared to the ideal I have in my head. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

 

[interpolate]

You can't hear beyond the 20khz or whatever your maximum hearing range might be, however you can reduce the non-linearity of a signal and increase dynamic headroom by masking the unwanted noise out of the audible range. Nobody is saying you can hear beyond that. The paper concentrates on the negatives really and only offers one opinion to what seems to be a never-ending debate.
 
Lots of things in life are needless and pointless but we still do it. 
 
And to keep things civil, thanks for your opinion. A little objectivity goes a long way.
 
My main argument would be why are studio equipment producers like Adam Audio producing high-frequency ribbon tweeters that are producing well over the hearing range. Essentially it is to reduce inaccuracies of speakers stuck in the lower frequency ranges.
 
As a hobbyist music who also likes production stuff, I find all this stuff relevant and whether we are all getting conned by a wealth of companies. 

 

[Music Alchemist]

  You can't hear beyond the 20khz or whatever your maximum hearing range might be, however you can reduce the non-linearity of a signal and increase dynamic headroom by masking the unwanted noise out of the audible range. Nobody is saying you can hear beyond that. The paper concentrates on the negatives really and only offers one opinion to what seems to be a never-ending debate.
 
Lots of things in life are needless and pointless but we still do it. 
 
And to keep things civil, thanks for your opinion. A little objectivity goes a long way.
 
My main argument would be why are studio equipment producers like Adam Audio producing high-frequency ribbon tweeters that are producing well over the hearing range. Essentially it is to reduce inaccuracies of speakers stuck in the lower frequency ranges.
 
As a hobbyist music who also likes production stuff, I find all this stuff relevant and whether we are all getting conned by a wealth of companies. 

 
The burden of proof is upon those who say there is an audible difference. All you would need to do is conduct and publish an ABX test between 24-bit files and 16-bit files properly converted from them, with a 95% confidence level to prove that you weren't merely guessing. No one has ever been able to do this.
 
And anything outside what we can hear is inaudible as far as digital audio files go.
 
Transducers have extended frequency response because it helps them more easily handle the frequencies we can hear. This has nothing to do with hi-res files.

 

[interpolate]

Granted but you are putting words in my mouth as I never said they were anything to do with high-resolution files per se.
 
Fundamentally a file is made of data, which gets converted by the DAC, hardware and software. I was referring to the use of higher frequencies by high-end manufacturer's. I'm not completely convinced by your  "easier to handle"  statement but who am I to argue?
 
I think the best thing to ask is, if it doesn't matter why waste money on research and development of products. If that's the case, I should trade by FiiO player for a basic Creative one and some £20 headphones.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Granted but you are putting words in my mouth as I never said they were anything to do with high-resolution files per se.
 
Fundamentally a file is made of data, which gets converted by the DAC, hardware and software. I was referring to the use of higher frequencies by high-end manufacturer's. I'm not completely convinced by your  "easier to handle"  statement but who am I to argue?
 
I think the best thing to ask is, if it doesn't matter why waste money on research and development of products. If that's the case, I should trade by FiiO player for a basic Creative one and some £20 headphones.

 
You say you "never said they were anything to do with high-resolution files per se" yet keep talking about players and headphones as if they are directly involved. The resolution of the files absolutely does not matter. The quality of your equipment absolutely does matter. Plain and simple.
 
The issue here is that extended frequency response is the least of your concerns when it comes to the quality of headphones, etc. It has next to nothing to do with how well a headphone is designed.

 

[interpolate]

I'd go with that.

 

[arnyk]

  The advantages of high-resolution audio have been demonstrated mathematically and graphically, therefore anybody able to understand these charts and visualisations can then stroke their chins and then say "I see the difference". 

 
Theoretical advantages and clever visualizations are not at  the same as a SQ benefit.
 
For example, I remember seeing many theoretical-sounding comments and visualizations that "Proved" that digital audio couldn't possibly sound right because of the "Empty spaces between the samples".

 

[interpolate]

I was not trying to disprove anything or otherwise convince people to think one thing. Everything has a bit of science behind it. Human society dictates without a reason nobody else will agree to do something or think it.

Sound quality will always be subjective.

 

[Music Alchemist]

Sound quality will always be subjective.

 
Except this is objective. You can measure the data and demonstrate that it is below the threshold of audibility and thus impossible to hear the difference.

 

[arnyk]

I was not trying to disprove anything or otherwise convince people to think one thing. Everything has a bit of science behind it. Human society dictates without a reason nobody else will agree to do something or think it.

Sound quality will always be subjective.

 
The statement that "Sound quality will always be subjective" is not necessarily true because of the multiple definitions of sound quality.
 
Long ago (ca. 1930s) when the term "High Fidelity" was picked up by the audio industry, the idea of conformance to a stable, well-defined standard was introduced.
 
When people started speaking of "Testing audio gear", then that standard was affirmed.
 
If you define "Sound Quality" as "High Fidelity" then it is most definitely not purely subjective.

 

[interpolate]

I'm not saying they are. Studio monitors in a calibrated environment will giver high fidelity if not desirable in more typical listening environments.

Fidelity refers to a more accurate playback. Sound quality is subjective to people and their equipment etc. Imo

 

[Music Alchemist]

I'm not saying they are. Studio monitors in a calibrated environment will giver high fidelity if not desirable in more typical listening environments.

Fidelity refers to a more accurate playback. Sound quality is subjective to people and their equipment etc. Imo

 
Yeah, just depends how you define sound quality. Quality can also involve subjective aspects.