384khz?

[Macca]

More bollocks from you. The correct information is that those subjected to the music and equipment selected for the test were unable to distinguish between the two formats.
To hear the difference you need to play the type of music that is dynamic and rich in a variety of information within the track. Playing a bunch of tedious notes will sound the same at any bit level. You also need something better than an Amstrad setup. These rumoured test claims are more often than not stripped of any information on the music and equipment used.

I had to end my typing of the above abruptly due to a visitor at the door. So now back on track, I am now able to add the following to my comment:
When people do hear a difference, the first excuse that is offered against that is that the two formats were recorded differently, which is why a difference can be heard. The excuses sceptics come up with to debunk the possibility of hearing a difference are staggering.
One reason why I still listen to my CD collection going back to 1984 is because with improvements in DACs, noise levels in electronic components, and improved power supplies those old discs are slowly releasing additional information that could not be detected previously.

No it isn't bollocks it is a fact. And tests have been done with real music, not random notes or tones. This is hardly surprising since the only thing 'hi rez' can possibly offer is to reproduce frequencies that are beyond the range of human hearing, no wonder it doesn't sound any different.

I agree with you about CD being improved by power supplies etc, this is where the effort should be concentrated, not on some giant confidence trick.

[Rothchild]

The transient stuff is just plain fishy.

Simple logical test, 1 / 20,000 = 0.00005

The timing difference between one peak (transient) of a 20kHz wave and the next is 0.00005 of a second (help me out here, as I've shown my arithmetic struggles sometime, that's 5 hundred thousands of a second? 5 pico seconds?), so whilst the human ear might be very sensitive to 'transients' they can all still be captured in a basic redbook recording.

[Gazjam]

My £0.02 worth,
Just some stuff to think about.

Historically,
Its been proven time and time again that flat-earthers saying current theory is the be all and end all and theres no point thinking otherwise have been proven wrong in time?
In this case, (and speaking from subjective experience and experimentation over many years) its self limiting behaviour IMO to say it all stops at 20k...and even 44.1K.

A question to think about?
Can the human brain be affected by frequencies higher than 20K?
Not Can you 'hear' it...but is it affected by it?
Is there definative research to prove its not?
And given that listening to music is a wholly Subjective experience (cos it is), will our musical enjoyment be affected?

As to the advantage of 'higher than Nyquist' frequencies....one word:
* Harmonics.
My ears, my experience 16/44.1 can be bettered but anything higher than 24/96 is just wasted 0's.

[Macca]

But vinyl only manages , absolute best case, about an extra 2Khz over CD. RTR, which is what a lot of recordings were made on, is best case 22 KHz. So not only will you not get the benefit of these extra harmonics on those mediums either,with an analogue recording they won't even be captured to begin with. With a digital recording you still need the mics to be capable of picking them up.

And what recordings did they use as the flagships for hi rez audio when it was launched? Old Rolling stones albums from the 1970s. Recorded on an RTR with mics that probably struggled to capture 20KHz. Of course they sounded better, they painstakingly re-mastered them to sound better. Better mastering I have no issue with. Trying to pretend these recordings sounded better due to the medium was a deliberate con.

[Gazjam]

We all pick our spot Martin, and no argument here with anything you said.

Have you never heard anything above 16/44 sound better?
Even on different systems?

Theres Sorcery going in with 'old' technology like valves...
Just when your talking about recording techniques and what they were recorded on, one of the most musical moments I've had with my system was at a get together at mine, when we put on a Duke Ellington LP Marco had bought that day in Glasgow.
All valve from the mics to the recording desk to mastering..sounded absolutely sublime and very 'in the room'.
Best sound of the day...and who the feck cares what sampling rate the Engineers used!

Some of the most engaging music I have is at 320k MP3 because of the mastering.

BUT....
(and a very big but)

In the modern world, I've various versions of the same album recordings, 16/44, 24/96, 24/192 yada yada...
and honestly, to me when it gets above 16/44 it just sounds better...particularly once it goes 24bit.
Not just in a wanky hifi bollocks way, but the intent of the 'song' is delivered better.

This threads being of interest to me, so been keeping an eye on it.
With Tidal's latest 24bit MQA releases it's been good to be able to do more direct comparisons and yup, 16/44's consistently beaten.

I think it being the subjective thing it is, with music reproduction I think you get to a point where its the 'intent' that matters more than the level of quality?
Definately a 'good enough' point, and I think it's a healthy point to hit as you can just enjoy the music and not sweat the small stuff.

[Sherwood]

My £0.02 worth,
Just some stuff to think about.

Historically,
Its been proven time and time again that flat-earthers saying current theory is the be all and end all and theres no point thinking otherwise have been proven wrong in time?
In this case, (and speaking from subjective experience and experimentation over many years) its self limiting behaviour IMO to say it all stops at 20k...and even 44.1K.

A question to think about?
Can the human brain be affected by frequencies higher than 20K?
Not Can you 'hear' it...but is it affected by it?
Is there definative research to prove its not?
And given that listening to music is a wholly Subjective experience (cos it is), will our musical enjoyment be affected?

As to the advantage of 'higher than Nyquist' frequencies....one word:
* Harmonics.
My ears, my experience 16/44.1 can be bettered but anything higher than 24/96 is just wasted 0's.

As I suggested earlier, many of the improvements attributed to HD files may be the result of frequencies just outside the standard 20-20k range or the effect of higher frequencies on that spectrum. Part of the improvement may be down to greater care and attention during the recording and mastering process. Whatever the reason, some people (myself included) perceive benefits to HD. I have been very impressed with the recordings made by Stockfish records (e.g. Allan Taylor), but would not know what the specific reasons for their normally high quality is.

Geoff

[Gazjam]

As I suggested earlier, many of the improvements attributed to HD files may be the result of frequencies just outside the standard 20-20k range or the effect of higher frequencies on that spectrum. Part of the improvement may be down to greater care and attention during the recording and mastering process. Whatever the reason, some people (myself included) perceive benefits to HD. I have been very impressed with the recordings made by Stockfish records (e.g. Allan Taylor), but would not know what the specific reasons for their normally high quality is.

Geoff

Me neither Geoff,
Too busy enjoying the benefits to ponder why tbh...
...Though I could take a semi-educated guess, but wheres the fun in that?

[Macca]

Not just in a wanky hifi bollocks way, but the intent of the 'song' is delivered better.

I'm probably more of a wanky hi fi bollox type than you though

I've no problem with 24/96 becoming a standard for playback. It takes any argument beyond doubt, if nothing else. But it is still pointless for any recording not made at that resolution. For anything else if you have the CD you effectively have a copy of the master. Of course it might be a crappy master but that's a different story.

[Sherwood]

I'm probably more of a wanky hi fi bollox type than you though

I've no problem with 24/96 becoming a standard for playback. It takes any argument beyond doubt, if nothing else. But it is still pointless for any recording not made at that resolution. For anything else if you have the CD you effectively have a copy of the master. Of course it might be a crappy master but that's a different story.

That's true. As my system has improved and resolution improved, I find that many of the albums I listen to on cd are on the margins of listenability. Its very disappointing as many of these albums carry specific memories or remind me of key times in my life. Yes, they may be masters in that they are lossless copies of the original recording, but that does not make them any easier to listen to.

Geoff

[the_doc735]

Marketing bollocks.

It solves the question as to why higher sampling rates sound better. It is well known that 96 kHz (DVD Audio) recordings sound better than 44.1 kHz (CD) recordings Odd then that when all else is equal no-one is capable of distinguishing between a 16/44.1 and a 24/192 file in blind testing then.

transients can be detected down to microseconds, the recording system needs to be able to resolve timing of one microsecond. A sampling rate of 1 MHz is needed to achieve this! There is nothing to back up this assertion. it is generally considered that humans are not capable of hearing such miniscule timing differences, and there is nothing to suggest that this can apply to music either. This is just made up on the spot.

Going from 256 taps to 1024 taps gave a massive improvement in sound quality

Really? A massive improvement? How is this being quantified? What comparisons were done? No, no need to go into any detail, I'm sold.

Just made up, back of a fag packet nonsense. Might flog some DACS though.

So, was the CHORD 64 sold on the principal of Marketing bollocks? (the '64' being the subject matter in this case)...