2. digital
  3. 147650-111194

Forking from the cables thread to a discussion of whether hi-res is audible.....

While on the subject of embarrassing testing...

Let me preface this by saying I have invested in hi-res audio tracks, both on my server and in my Qobuz subscription. I've always felt I could tell the difference, although there are duds in hi-res just like redbook. And some great redbook recordings.

Going through this test, particularly looking at the control groups, is certainly humbling.  I particularly like the "hardware reviewers" group.

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/06/24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio-test-part-ii.html
ahofer
erik_squires
16,849 posts
 
I think if you found a DAC pre-2010 you'd have no problems at all hearing the difference.

The last DAC I had which was clearly better with high rez was the ARC DAC 8.

Several DAC's I've auditioned since then do equally well with Redbook now.
ahofer OP
225 posts
 
Could be.  The initial reason people objected wasn't because they needed extra bit depth or higher sampling to hear more, but because the filters required for 44khz produced at least measurable artifacts in the audible range.  But oversampling was the answer for that.

If you look at the link I posted, the listeners were using a range of high end equipment.  And the 16-bit resolution was packaged in a 24-bit file.
erik_squires
16,849 posts
 
@ahofer

I disagree. I've heard a lot of oversampling CD players and DACs that never sounded as good to my ears as the latest generation.

I suspect this has more to do with the quality of the clocks, as well as the use of multiple DACs per channel.

Best,
E
More to discover