Is high-resolution audio audible or not audible and a waste of data?

[Chaconne]

Honestly if you're worried about that kind of resolution, your speakers are probably the weak link by orders of magnitude.

Something I've always wondered about: Exactly how big is an order of magnitude?

 

[fpitas]

Something I've always wondered about: Exactly how big is an order of magnitude?

10x is the usual definition. Anymore it is used more loosely, especially when not in a scientific context.

 

[antcollinet]

Yes, I had already seen this interesting video some time ago. But the theme here is slightly different: we are talking about the time spread of transients when switching from signals with a high sampling frequency to a lower one and the fact that our auditory system could detect this effect in the form of an alteration of the localization of the sources in the space.

If the sample rate doesn't "time spread" the transient down to a 20kHz bandwidth, then your ears will. Your ears are bandwidth limited also.

 

[Pinox67]

If the sample rate doesn't "time spread" the transient down to a 20kHz bandwidth, then your ears will. Your ears are bandwidth limited also.

This is something that puzzled me too at first. The 20KHz bandwidth is related to the spectral analysis of the sound performed by the cochlea, to determine its "timbre". But for localization aspects, for which signal time arrival and differential time/or signal levels between ears (ITD and ILD) are important, this limit should be carefully managed. In modern psychoacoustic texts these mechanisms are well explained.

 

[fpitas]

So, everything gets filtered to a 20kHz BW by all the electronics and (especially) the speakers. But that 5uS sort of stuff still appears?

 

[restorer-john]

Oh brother. Not again. And especially after this week’s DAC, Measurement and Breakin audibility nonsense and fairytales.

Edit. And I forgot the all time favorite in yet another season of “the difference in power cables” featuring GR.

It's definitely the season for it.

 

[danadam]

But for localization aspects, for which the differential analysis of arrival time and/or signal levels (ITD and ILD) counts, this limit does not apply.

And arrival time difference in stereo channels of 16/44 can be much less than 22 or even 5 µs.

 

[Blumlein 88]

And arrival time difference in stereo channels of 16/44 can be much less than 22 or even 5 µs.

Yes the ears aren't timing transients of 5 microseconds. They are timing arrival differences. CD can do that down to at lest 110 picoseconds. Here is the longer explanation of how that works.

Time resolution of digital audio

A frequent claim by detractors of digital audio is that the time resolution is equal to the sampling interval, 22.7 μs for the CD format. This is incorrect. Although there is a limit, it is much sm…

troll-audio.com

 

[valerianf]

"I listen to music in the car"
In my car I can clearly ear the difference between Sirius radio (flat sound stage) and a CD or better Amazon Music HD from my phone.
For sure I am speaking the when the car is idle in the traffic.

 

[krabapple]

​

You joined in April 2020 and you're asking this like it's a new topic? It's just more of the same time resolution bullshot we've dealt with before.

Better you should go find a Milind Kunchur fan club to post at.

 

[krabapple]

I don't know if anyone is capable of feeling such differences. I can't distinguish a 320 mp3 file from FLAC,

FLAC is just a lossless compression scheme. What you mean is you can't distinguish 320 mp3 (a type of lossy compression at a high quality setting) from lossless PCM (which could be any of these file types: WAV, AIFF, FLAC, MLP...)

 

[Blumlein 88]

"I listen to music in the car"
In my car I can clearly ear the difference between Sirius radio (flat sound stage) and a CD or better Amazon Music HD from my phone.
For sure I am speaking the when the car is idle in the traffic.

Ewwww! Sirius radio hurts my ears. I forget, but it is some very low bit rate early codec. 64 kbps.

 

[dorakeg]

Regarding this, I have to say I don't know. I don't think its possible to tell by looking at such a short sample. In a real world scenario, the amplitude and frequency is changing all the time.

A thought experiment. Assume 2 identical albums, 1 in high resolution (say 24/192), the other in 16/44. Then we down sample the high resolution to 16/44, will we get identical data? Probably not exactly the same. Then we need to compare where are the differences and when we convert the bits into analogue wave, whats the differences? I dont expect big difference but I am not sure if some of the differences are audible or not.

Even after knowing the differences, we still have to test if an audio equipment will be able to reproduce the differences at audible volume. This is what I am thinking. For albums that have rapid and frequent changes in volume/frequency (perhaps an orchestra playing), I believe its possible to have difference. But for slow pieces like JAzz, solo instruments, probably not.

 

[blueone]

We have SXM in all three of our vehicles, because my wife likes it. I haven't noticed SXM audio quality is any worse than FM radio, but all of our vehicles have such noisy tires that the differences between SXM and lossless streaming from Amazon Music is pretty much undetectable to me. One of our vehicles has an over-priced B&O audio system in it, and even with that I can't get excited about differences. To paraphrase a line from an old movie, when I drive, I drive. When I listen to music, I listen to music. Music while driving is difficult for me to get excited over.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Regarding this, I have to say I don't know. I don't think its possible to tell by looking at such a short sample. In a real world scenario, the amplitude and frequency is changing all the time.

A thought experiment. Assume 2 identical albums, 1 in high resolution (say 24/192), the other in 16/44. Then we down sample the high resolution to 16/44, will we get identical data? Probably not exactly the same. Then we need to compare where are the differences and when we convert the bits into analogue wave, whats the differences? I dont expect big difference but I am not sure if some of the differences are audible or not.

Even after knowing the differences, we still have to test if an audio equipment will be able to reproduce the differences at audible volume. This is what I am thinking. For albums that have rapid and frequent changes in volume/frequency (perhaps an orchestra playing), I believe its possible to have difference. But for slow pieces like JAzz, solo instruments, probably not.

Download samples from 2L as they have multiple resolutions of entire demo tracks. Then use Deltawave that pkane wrote. It will upsample to match and compare the nulling of two files with different sample rates. Oops looks like 2L has removed their free sample download in a website upgrade.

Of course I can tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree. Does not seem to matter how many times it is demonstrated, people just want to believe more rez is better.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I've got shocking news for OP...even on "highy resolving boutique audiophile gear" you're going to have a REAL hard time in a blind test distinguishing high res from a 320kb mp3 (I'd be willing to bet nearly impossible actually). CD quality is more than enough resolution.

 

[Mr. Widget]

I've got shocking news for OP...even on "highy resolving boutique audiophile gear" you're going to have a REAL hard time in a blind test distinguishing high res from a 320kb mp3 (I'd be willing to bet nearly impossible actually). CD quality is more than enough resolution.

I have one of those systems... I'm on the fence about the higher res mp3s, but I certainly can't hear a difference between 16 bit 44.1KHz and any of the various higher resolutions.

On a related note: I'm not sure what algorithm Harman is using with their Clari-Fi circuit, but it tends to make many mp3s sound better and makes most CD or better files sound odd.

 

[JSmith]

24bit/sample and higher sample rates such as 192KHz

I think you will find this of interest, with references in the footer;

The 24-Bit Delusion

HD Music, HD Tracks, 24-Bit, 24/192, 24-bit 192KHz, DSD

www.mojo-audio.com

JSmith

 

[dorakeg]

Download samples from 2L as they have multiple resolutions of entire demo tracks. Then use Deltawave that pkane wrote. It will upsample to match and compare the nulling of two files with different sample rates. Oops looks like 2L has removed their free sample download in a website upgrade.

Of course I can tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree. Does not seem to matter how many times it is demonstrated, people just want to believe more rez is better.

Haha, true. People will want to believe that higher resolution is better....

But then, even if higher resolution is indeed better, the important thing is still the source. Eg. for 4K movies. Not even movie on blu ray is native 4K. Quite alot are actually upscaled from 2K. In such cases, there isn't going to be much improvement. I saw another thread that some of the old recordings are remastered into high resolution audio. For such cases, I doubt its going to improve anything.

IMHO, if the information isn't there in the first place, using higher resolution and increase sampling rate isn't going to reveal anything.

 

[Talisman]

FLAC is just a lossless compression scheme. What you mean is you can't distinguish 320 mp3 (a type of lossy compression at a high quality setting) from lossless PCM (which could be any of these file types: WAV, AIFF, FLAC, MLP...)

If that's why mp3 is also one of the many audio compression protocols, I simply gave an example between the two most used protocols of lossy and lossless audio (which are the ones I use)