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

[ab initio]

 
It is never fair to rule out placebo.  It is something that effects all humans.  Even with your background you would be susceptible. 
 
Unless they are the same master (and they won't be from HDtracks), then they can sound different to varying degrees for reasons having nothing to do with sample rate or bit depth.  Convert the HDtracks to 44.1 khz, and back to original rate (96, 192khz whatever).  Then put the two files in Foobar and see if you can successfully ABX them. 

 
This is a great test. @Chesterfield, if you do this test, will you be kind enough to snip out 30 second segments from the tracks you test and share them here so others can try it too? We can all compare results at the end! Then whoever did the best buys a everyone a Narragansett.
 
Cheers

 

[bigshot]

The way to know for sure is to take one of your HD Tracks, bounce it down to 16/44.1 and back up to "HD" again, then do a blind test. Five bucks says if you do this, the difference will go away.

 

[elmoe]

  The way to know for sure is to take one of your HD Tracks, bounce it down to 16/44.1 and back up to "HD" again, then do a blind test. Five bucks says if you do this, the difference will go away.

 
Well obviously, if you do it that way the difference will go away. A 16/44.1 track "bounced up" to 24/96 is still essentially 16/44.1, there is absolutely no point in doing things this way.
 
The only way to test this out is to take a genuine 24/96 (or 192) track and downsample it to 44/96 then compare both.
 
If you take a FLAC file and convert it to 24kbps then transcode it to FLAC again, it's going to sound like the 24kbps file. If you compare that FLAC 24kbps transcode to the original FLAC, you will hear a clear difference...

 

[Chesterfield]

I'll be happy to do the test, once a methodology is resolved, provided it doesn't take an unreasonably long time. But I should say, ab initio, there's just no way you'd hear the difference on your equipment.

This is a great test. @Chesterfield, if you do this test, will you be kind enough to snip out 30 second segments from the tracks you test and share them here so others can try it too? We can all compare results at the end! Then whoever did the best buys a everyone a Narragansett.

Cheers

 

[esldude]

   
Well obviously, if you do it that way the difference will go away. A 16/44.1 track "bounced up" to 24/96 is still essentially 16/44.1, there is absolutely no point in doing things this way.
 
The only way to test this out is to take a genuine 24/96 (or 192) track and downsample it to 44/96 then compare both.
 
If you take a FLAC file and convert it to 24kbps then transcode it to FLAC again, it's going to sound like the 24kbps file. If you compare that FLAC 24kbps transcode to the original FLAC, you will hear a clear difference...

Well actually no the difference would not go away.  The most straightforward approach is down convert to 16/44 and compare to the original file.  And bouncing down to 16/44 then back should be the same.  The main advantage to going back to the higher rate is for automated comparison.  When software like Foobar or hardware DACs switch from one rate to another there are often artifacts that would corrupt the test.  So having two files at the same sample rate prevent that.  If you have another way to switch without artifacts from switching then you can use two different sample rate files.

 

[blackwolf1006]

It depends on the source. I downloaded a CD loss-less 16/44 rip and a SACD 24/96 loss-less rip of the same album and I can hear the difference in the diffrence. you will notice this a lot more on Classical and Jazz. They're some instances on a SACD rip where I hear the artist breathing patterns on air instruments. The jump from 16 to 24 is Noticeable if you have the gear that can play the files correctly.
 
Very new to this, so forgive my lack on knowledge.

 

[riverlethe]

  It depends on the source. I downloaded a CD loss-less 16/44 rip and a SACD 24/96 loss-less rip of the same album and I can hear the difference in the diffrence. you will notice this a lot more on Classical and Jazz. They're some instances on a SACD rip where I hear the artist breathing patterns on air instruments. The jump from 16 to 24 is Noticeable if you have the gear that can play the files correctly.
 
Very new to this, so forgive my lack on knowledge.

 
Are you sure the 16/44 version was from the same master or "re-master?"

 

[blackwolf1006]

   
Are you sure the 16/44 version was from the same master or "re-master?"

 
Same album and recording ripped from different source.
 
http://www.amazon.com/Night-Sessions-Chris-Botti/dp/B00005RGNE

 

[bigshot]

 
Well actually no the difference would not go away.  The most straightforward approach is down convert to 16/44 and compare to the original file.  And bouncing down to 16/44 then back should be the same.  The main advantage to going back to the higher rate is for automated comparison.  When software like Foobar or hardware DACs switch from one rate to another there are often artifacts that would corrupt the test.  So having two files at the same sample rate prevent that.  If you have another way to switch without artifacts from switching then you can use two different sample rate files.

 
Exactly, and you also run the risk that your system plays high rates differently than redbook.

 

[castleofargh]

 

  The way to know for sure is to take one of your HD Tracks, bounce it down to 16/44.1 and back up to "HD" again, then do a blind test. Five bucks says if you do this, the difference will go away.

 
Well obviously, if you do it that way the difference will go away. A 16/44.1 track "bounced up" to 24/96 is still essentially 16/44.1, there is absolutely no point in doing things this way.
 
The only way to test this out is to take a genuine 24/96 (or 192) track and downsample it to 44/96 then compare both.
 
If you take a FLAC file and convert it to 24kbps then transcode it to FLAC again, it's going to sound like the 24kbps file. If you compare that FLAC 24kbps transcode to the original FLAC, you will hear a clear difference...

 taking the 16/44 back to 24/96 shouldn't bring much new problems and will sound like a 16/44. but the advantage is ease of use for the test, and also making sure that we're testing the file resolution, and not the way our system handles them. on some systems there are some very measurable differences depending on the resolution it's reading. if all it takes for that system to be great is to feed him 24/96, then reencoding 16/44 into 24/96 would bring that same benefit. and instead of showing the superiority of 24/96 as a resolution, it would have shown that this particular gear is bad at handling 16/44. another system could bring some bad IMD in the audible range with 24/96 and give the same false idea that 16/44 is superior. to test gears it's ok, to test file resolution it's better to try and bypass that possibility.
 
 

 

   
Are you sure the 16/44 version was from the same master or "re-master?"

 
Same album and recording ripped from different source.
 
http://www.amazon.com/Night-Sessions-Chris-Botti/dp/B00005RGNE

that helas isn't enough to know. just like the same album on vinyl will not have received the same treatment, chances are that the hires one is also remastered.
just take your 24/96, reencode it in 16/44 and listen to both. they probably will still sound different.

 

[sonitus mirus]

   
Exactly, and you also run the risk that your system plays high rates differently than redbook.

 
Playing the Devil's advocate here.  Does this mean that the difference in quality is not the same, or are you suggesting that subtle clues can be picked up by our brains to create bias where no legitimate difference exists?  I mean, if many systems realistically sound different when playing back at a higher rate, then for those systems there could be a real improvement.

 

[riverlethe]

I actually wonder if this debate matters at a time when you can buy a 4TB hard drive for $150. It might be better to buy high res versions just to show producers that customers are interested in better sound quality than what they've been offering...

 

[Chesterfield]

I don't have a pony in this race: frankly, I couldn't care less if 24/192 is proven to be better than lossless 16/44.1 (that's why, in my initial post, when I said my HDTracks purchases sound better than CD lossless counterparts, I added "for whatever reason", leaving open the possibility of better masters). Musical memory is a funny thing--for those of us who don't have perfect pitch, it's all too brief. By "musical memory," I don't, of course, just mean remembering melody or drum rhythm: I mean remembering pitch, dynamics, timbre, soundstage, etc. For most songs, unless they're remarkably minimalist, it's a mass of information all at once. Moving on--I think it's perfectly valid to administer these tests to Joe Schmo, so long as your goal is to determine whether such file differences matter to Joe Schmo. But if your goal is to guage whether or not 24/192 is better than 16/44.1, then you need a far more rigorous methodology than any I've seen: for me, you'd need, say, 50 professional musicians--preferably with perfect pitch. I'm familiar with all the arguments--some very well informed--that say anything over 16/44.1 is pointless. I understand the scientific claims--and yet, my ears tell me there's a difference. I've long believed that, for me, bit depth was key. So I decided to put that hypothesis to the test (of course, this is hardly conclusive--just anecdotal). For me, high res music invariably sounds more polished, more mellifluous (even 16/44.1, by comparison, sounds the tiniest bit grainy). It's subtle, but, for me, definitely there. For an informal test (I use a Mac, so can't use Foobar), I scaled an HDTracks 24/44.1 file back to 16/44.1 (Coldplay's "Ink"--my wife's unusual choice). My wife played the versions back to back, switching at my request, and I noted which track I thought was which. We were in separate rooms. I spent 30 mins before the test familiarizing myself with the song. She played the song in pairs, one version 16/44.1, the other 24/44.1, ten pairs total. I "guessed" the high res version 100% of the time. I'm not offering this as proof of any kind. Maybe my DAC manages 24 bit better than 16. Who knows. As I said, I'm not going to believe that 24/192 is definitively better than 16/44.1 until a test is devised with a methodology I can respect (I don't care what Joe Schmo hears). But until then, I'll trust my own ears.

 

[Chesterfield]

Nicely said.

I actually wonder if this debate matters at a time when you can buy a 4TB hard drive for $150. It might be better to buy high res versions just to show producers that customers are interested in better sound quality than what they've been offering...

 

[esldude]

   
Playing the Devil's advocate here.  Does this mean that the difference in quality is not the same, or are you suggesting that subtle clues can be picked up by our brains to create bias where no legitimate difference exists?  I mean, if many systems realistically sound different when playing back at a higher rate, then for those systems there could be a real improvement.

Well depends on the difference.  I have a 192khz capable sound card in a desktop.  The 176 and 192 rates have extra noise.  As in  SNR of only 60 db.  And not ultrasonic noise, but noise spread evenly over the spectrum.  So with headphones that is audible, and different.  Not better. 
 
I think bigshot was referring to such or that some DACs have a different roll off rate near the upper octave at different sample rates.  Either way a sample rate could cause a genuine difference whether an improvement or not.  Now in good properly operating gear it shouldn't be a problem, and in the great majority of gear not faced with extreme loads it is the case.