[bigshot]

  When working with 24-bit it offers a wider range of possible values and reduced truncation of sine waves and as the noise floor is lower, it can be pushed way below -100dBFS meaning what our ears can hear is enhanced. 

 
How can it enhance what our ears hear if it is below the threshold of human perception? More isn't better if your ears can't hear it.

 

[interpolate]

edit

 

[cjl]

  When working with 24-bit it offers a wider range of possible values and reduced truncation of sine waves and as the noise floor is lower, it can be pushed way below -100dBFS meaning what our ears can hear is enhanced.

Here's the fun part: when properly dithered, 16 bit already offers a noise floor that is at -100dBFS or lower.

 

[cjl]

  ... subsonic and supersonic audio...

Hang on, now I have to worry about whether my speakers are moving through the air at below or above the speed of sound? This audio business gets more complicated all the time...

 

[kraken2109]

 
When working with 24-bit it offers a wider range of possible values and reduced truncation of sine waves and as the noise floor is lower, it can be pushed way below -100dBFS meaning what our ears can hear is enhanced. So whether all of this is a placebo effect for the masses and pseudo-science for the needlessly pedantic. At the moment my equipment isn't brilliant however touch MDF everything is very listenable and swapping it to a cheaper alternative or fashionably over-priced candy-coloured headphones, the difference will be probably noticeable to me.
 
I prefer the FLAC format whilst 16-bit doesn't quite wow me, the 24-bit FLAC format is much less sibilant and reverb/ambience has much more sonic room at least to my ears.

That's not how it works.

 

[interpolate]

edit

 

[interpolate]

Gone back to playing with lego and straws.

 

[bigshot]

Did you mean "sonic room" or "sonic boom"? Because hyper-sonic sound would definitely result in a sonic boom.

 

[interpolate]

No I think I meant Go away.
 
See that's really mature isn't it.
 
The only reason I edited my posts, so they wouldn't be constant quotable derisive comments for all the family. 
 
Just end it, the jokes over now.

 

[bigshot]

I was being helpful and offering a good punch line to the joke!
 
Well, in any case... Inaudible is inaudible, and focusing on theoretical improvements that human ears can't hear isn't going to get anyone an inch closer to getting better sound quality out of their music.

 

[castleofargh]

seems like I missed something fun.
 
 
 

 

[interpolate]

Sorry I got a bit (1-bit DSD) agitated. Bad day....For what it's worth, I bookmarked that website. 

 

[Harry Manback]

In response to: 

How can it enhance what our ears hear if it is below the threshold of human perception? More isn't better if your ears can't hear it.

 
I agree with you on the surface.  I would like to see how the following would play out however:
 
Produce an executable file that will select and playback 1 of 2 files at random.  One file would be "high res" and the other would be redbook.  Playback would be on the same equipment which is generally agreed to be capable of playing the "high res" file without downsampling.  The files would be at least an entire album in length, and preferably longer.  Over time, track how long each file was listened to.  This needs to be done over a span of at least a few weeks.  I would like to see if one or the other produces more listening fatigue than the other. 
 
I'd like to see the same done for sampled music and analog.
 
I am a software developer, and I would agree to write something to do this, if enough people would use it.  I don't want to waste the time for only 6 or 8 people to use it.
 
I agree that science backs up the Nyquist theory.  It is a fact and not a theory however, that our understanding continues to grow as time passes.  There may be facets of audiology that we stumble upon that add another measurable dimension.  I've been listening to vinyl lately, and there is something that is different that I can't put into words really.  I concede that it may be placebo, but I do not concede that analog audio may have some advantages over sampled music (along with all it's deficiencies).
 
I hope with all the attention that "high res" music is getting lately, leads to some university studies to clarify whether or not it has any useful benefits for listeners.  If it is different, that difference is measurable.  We may just need a different tool to measure and quantify any new types of differences that may be found.

 

[bigshot]

For the purposes of playing back recorded music in my home, I find that it's a LOT more effective to focus on the range of sound that human ears can actually hear. It might be interesting from a theoretical standpoint to study super audible frequencies, but it isn't going to make Dark Side of the Moon sound any better. There are always plenty of things within the audible range to work on, so it isn't like I'm lacking for stuff to optimize.
 
By the way, a long time ago, the AES did a study on super audible frequencies and sound quality. The results were that frequencies above 20kHz added nothing to the perception of sound quality. Later studies indicated that they could measure brain wave activity reacting to super audible frequencies, but there was no conscious benefit from having them or perceived degradation from not having them. To me, that means they don't matter.

 

[Thad-E-Ginathom]

 
... ... ...
 
I agree that science backs up the Nyquist theory. 
 
... ... ...

 
 
It is not a theory, it is a theorem.
 
Nothing "backs it up," it is the foundation on which the whole edifice is built. Science does not back it up: it is the science.