Why would 24 bit / 192 khz flac sound any better than 16 bit / 44.1 khz flac if both are lossless (if at all)?

[reginalb]

   
Thanks!
 
I already got the "thriller" in DSD from HD Tracks ... and now seeing that it has a very good DR score I´m kind of glad I made the right decision when buying it
 
What I didn´t get so far is the DR thingy. It means dynamic range, am I right? So when there´s more dynamic in the recording (master), it´s "better".
 
The strange thing is: I can hear that the new Red Hot Chili Peppers album is really compressed (like many rock albums), but despite this fact (and the bad DR data), I really like the mix of their new album (maybe because Nigel Godrich was the engineer, I don´t know). So does this mean, not to be tooo picky about the DR data?
 
And about my other questions: Do you know if it´s better to listen to FLAC, ALAC or WAVs? Or are they all the same (if I have a good DAC)?

 
With regards to RHCP, you just can't know the counterfactual. I had an argument in the thread I quoted myself from. Some people who are (allegedly) involved in the recording industry argue that compression is good, most people like it. I don't think they're correct, and their reasoning contains that very flaw: You don't know the counterfactual.
 
I don't just not listen to music because it's compressed, I like that RHCP album. I acutally provided the HDtracks data in the DRdb, because I bought it hoping it would be a better master than the one that I was streaming from Play Music. It's not different, would I like a more dynamic one more? I think so. That doesn't mean that this one is terrible. Would it be better if it were more dynamic? You just can't answer that. I also like Californication. But I really like the rough mix of Californication. 
 
Regarding lossless vs. lossy: I personally think that you're OK with relatively high bit-rate, VBR lossy encodes. I have two copies of my library, one that's in whatever the original format I obtained was, and one where the whole thing is re-encoded with the Opus codec. They sound the same to me. 

 

[RRod]

  What I didn´t get so far is the DR thingy. It means dynamic range, am I right? So when there´s more dynamic in the recording (master), it´s "better".

 
It's more of a compression detector than a true dynamic range measurement, in that the DR for an album can be lower than an individual track, but certainly the album is at least as dynamic as its most dynamic track…

 

[noplsestar]

Thanks for your posts! Now I'm a but more wiser on that topic (and won't buy an album without checking on that DR website first)

 

[noplsestar]

Did you read that?

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/great-paper-released-meta-analysis-high-resolution-audio-perceptual-evaluation#SDpMGqCMjc1TAVkt.97

 

[reginalb]

Did you read that?

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/great-paper-released-meta-analysis-high-resolution-audio-perceptual-evaluation#SDpMGqCMjc1TAVkt.97

 
Yes, there is a thread about it, here you are: http://www.head-fi.org/t/812565/a-meta-analysis-of-high-resolution-audio-perceptual-evaluation-or-how-we-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-hi-res
 
Here's an alternate discussion on it: https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/4qoe3y/great_paper_released_a_metaanalysis_of_high/
 
and the first comment here: https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/4rjzoa/what_to_listen_for_in_high_resolution_audio/

 

[willyvlyminck]

But the whole point of SACD is that they're remastered to sound better.

That is marketing ,if they don't come up with so called new systems, sales lowering because a good cd player can last a lifetime

 

[gregorio]

That is marketing ,if they don't come up with so called new systems, sales lowering because a good cd player can last a lifetime

 
I think you are maybe getting confused. Some/Most SACDs are in fact mastered or remastered to sound better! Assuming we mean "has a larger dynamic range" and therefore "sounds better" in certain listening situations (and worse in some others). The reason SACDs are often mastered/remastered to "sound better" is because listeners were effectively constrained to a limited set of relatively high quality listening senarios, SACD players were not portable and SACDs were specifically designed not to be ripped. Where the marketing comes in is that it's easy to create exactly the same "better sounding" master/remaster (for the same listening scenarios) using the 44.1/16 (CD) format but of course the labels/distributors don't want to do that because it would undermine the cost difference they can charge for the HD/DSD format versions.
 
G

 

[Hi-Fi'er]

Truth about Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5S_DI99wd8&feature=youtu.be

 

[castleofargh]

I do like Mr Waldrep, since long ago. we share, among other things, a strong love for DSD sarcasm. but next time I'd like it if you could avoid spamming the link on several topics. spam is never cool.
 
just a little argument about the video, pono actually can sound audibly different at 16/44 if you have a headphone that extends high enough, and if the listener can still hear high freqs. because the low pass on 16/44 start way sooner in the audible range on the pono so there is an EQ difference within the audible range. so his example is less than perfect IMO even if I tend to agree with the conclusion.

 

[Asuhra]

I create the most advanced Audio Subliminals on Earth and the thing I found long ago is that there is an insane difference between 44.1Khz and 48Khz, let alone more Khz. 44.1Khz subliminals sound very harsh, sounds are too congested also, sometimes even the volume has weird spikes after converting to 44Khz which are not present at 48Khz. 48Khz is night and day difference, much smoother sounds, more info can be put on the audio, etc. Now I'm about to venture into the 96Khz world, hoping it will take my subliminals to the next level, although they are already able to change me completely in one day at only 44.1Khz and 48Khz.
 
Also, most DACs and DAPs only go from 20hz to 20Khz Freq Range but I can tell you right now the subconscious mind can hear at least up to 30Khz and it will act on that info put above the 20Khz range.
 
It pisses me off to no end when I see every damn DAC and DAP limited to 20Khz!!!!! So freaking limiting for my work...Arghhhh

 

[gregorio]

  I create the most advanced Audio Subliminals on Earth ...

 
Are you saying you're a sound designer/re-recording mixer for feature films?
 

  44.1Khz subliminals sound very harsh ...

 
That's a contradiction! Either the sounds are subliminal, in which case one is not consciously aware of them and therefore they don't sound harsh (or any other adjective) or, they sound harsh and are therefore not subliminal, which is it?
 

  48Khz is night and day difference...

 
Of course it's not!
 

  Now I'm about to venture into the 96Khz world, hoping it will take my subliminals to the next level, although they are already able to change me completely in one day at only 44.1Khz and 48Khz.

 
It won't make any difference. I think maybe you are confusing the word "subliminal" with the word "inaudible"?
 

 
Also, most DACs and DAPs only go from 20hz to 20Khz Freq Range but I can tell you right now the subconscious mind can hear at least up to 30Khz and it will act on that info put above the 20Khz range.

 
You can "tell us right now" any old rubbish, for example "I can tell you right now" that the moon is made of cheese. This is the science forum however and unless you can substantiate what you are telling us, then it's of little worth and, if you're going to try to tell us something which flies in the face of science, then how you substantiate what you're telling us had better be quite extraordinary or it will just be viewed as some nutter spouting rubbish. For example, can you explain how the "mind", subconscious or otherwise, can "hear" up to 30kHz when there are no physiological structures in the ear capable of responding to frequencies that high?
 

 
It pisses me off to no end when I see every damn DAC and DAP limited to 20Khz!!!!! So freaking limiting for my work...Arghhhh

 
Why would that piss you off? I'm the opposite, it would piss me off no end to see a DAC/DAP go beyond 20kHz. What work is it that you do which would be limited/affected?
 
G

 

[castleofargh]

I was lost at "most advanced Audio Subliminals on Earth".
aside from wondering excitedly if I could use it for world domination, I'm really unclear on what that is.

 

[Ruben123]

I create the most advanced Audio Subliminals on Earth and the thing I found long ago is that there is an insane difference between 44.1Khz and 48Khz, let alone more Khz. 44.1Khz subliminals sound very harsh, sounds are too congested also, sometimes even the volume has weird spikes after converting to 44Khz which are not present at 48Khz. 48Khz is night and day difference, much smoother sounds, more info can be put on the audio, etc. Now I'm about to venture into the 96Khz world, hoping it will take my subliminals to the next level, although they are already able to change me completely in one day at only 44.1Khz and 48Khz.

Also, most DACs and DAPs only go from 20hz to 20Khz Freq Range but I can tell you right now the subconscious mind can hear at least up to 30Khz and it will act on that info put above the 20Khz range.

It pisses me off to no end when I see every damn DAC and DAP limited to 20Khz!!!!! So freaking limiting for my work...Arghhhh

Just to be sure, youre kidding right?

 

[fuzun]

Well, yes beyond 20khz is inaudible but they are still "energy" and they go through ear canal as well. Maybe even though we don't hear, can they make difference at the audio we perceive as stressing or making resonances some parts of brain or head?

 

[Mr Rick]

  Well, yes beyond 20khz is inaudible but they are still "energy" and they go through ear canal as well. Maybe even though we don't hear, can they make difference at the audio we perceive as stressing or making resonances some parts of brain or head?

 
Can you give me a scientific study that backs up your 'facts'?