How many bits, how fast, just how much resolution is enough?

[The Computer Audiophile]

I've as of yet to find anything in our industry to impugn this presentation on why 16/44.1 is good as it gets for us.

 

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

 

I've read that page a few time over the years and always come to the conclusion that Monty wants to have it both ways.

 

1. High resolution is actually harmful and this can be heard.

 

2. Nobody can hear high resolution and it's proven by tests.

 

 

From the site:

 

1. 192kHz considered harmful192kHz digital music files offer no benefits. They're not quite neutral either; practical fidelity is slightly worse. The ultrasonics are a liability during playback.Neither audio transducers nor power amplifiers are free of distortion, and distortion tends to increase rapidly at the lowest and highest frequencies. If the same transducer reproduces ultrasonics along with audible content, any nonlinearity will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum. Nonlinearity in a power amplifier will produce the same effect. The effect is very slight, but listening tests have confirmed that both effects can be audible.

 

 

2. Empirical evidence from listening tests backs up the assertion that 44.1kHz/16 bit provides highest-possible fidelity playback. There are numerous controlled tests confirming this, but I'll plug a recent paper, Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback, done by local folks here at the Boston Audio Society.In 554 trials, listeners chose correctly 49.8% of the time. In other words, they were guessing. Not one listener throughout the entire test was able to identify which was 16/44.1 and which was high rate [15], and the 16-bit signal wasn't even dithered!

[The Computer Audiophile]

I think you're being disingenuous. He's saying that since we can't hear high frequencies, reproducing them unnecessary. Moreover, attempting to reproduce them anyway can cause distortion in the audible range, something which is readily demonstrated.

 

Bummer you feel that way. This is a logical question given what he said.

 

 

 

1. 192kHz considered harmful192kHz ... The effect is very slight, but listening tests have confirmed that both effects can be audible.

 

 

2. Empirical evidence from listening tests backs up the assertion that 44.1kHz/16 bit provides highest-possible fidelity ... Not one listener throughout the entire test was able to identify which was 16/44.1 and which was high rate [15], and the 16-bit signal wasn't even dithered!

[The Computer Audiophile]

I understand your complaint. However, item 1 is can be. It can be demonstrated. Does not mean it will be or always is. I do think he is over-hyping this problem. I have found it to be a non-issue with any music I ever cared to listen to in fact.

 

Item 2 is no one heard a difference they could demonstrate. And in fact one of the complaints about that test is the hirez samples either weren't sourced from hirez or didn't have enough high frequency content to show differences. So another group of people trying to have it both ways.

 

Thanks for the response.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Do the saved bits matter? I live in a suburban area with 6 mbps internet near a town of 150k people. You only get close to that between 1 am and 6 am. Otherwise about half. On Sundays and holidays you get sporadic 400 k service. So no at least for some of us redbook is not yet an artefact of history. And if redbook or slightly beyond redbook is done well enough there is nothing audible to gain, then there is nothing audible to gain. An idea that doesn't market well.

 

Ah, MQA is going to be your favorite thing!

 

Only kidding folks. We now resume the originally scheduled programing.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Here is an article from way back in 2004 showing that phase is fine right up to 20 khz.

digital

 

As Abraham Lincoln famously said, "I read it on the Internet, so it must be true."