Does HiRez really sound better?

When I listen to digital music from a number of types of files saved on my pc; whether MP3, ripped CDs or Hi Res, I do have a hard time discerning what level of resolution I am listening to at first. Given time, though, it does become apparent which music is Hi Res and which is not. It does not take me long to get tired of an MP3 file.

I think the reason people have a hard time telling the difference between low and hi resolution music files in A-B comparisons is that the brain becomes involved, and unlike a test instrument, the brain does all kinds of interpretive stuff to the sound your ears are hearing. When you listen to a few seconds of “A” and then a few seconds of “B” the brain does not have enough time or information to make a determination as to which one has better sound. But then, sound and music are two related but different things. Sound is simple and music is complex. The longer your brain listens to music the more it becomes attuned to the complexities of the music. With MP3 the complexities just are not there.

IMHO these type of A-B comparison are probably not the right kind of test. I think if you sat people down for a long period of time and did the comparisons you may find a different result.

Very interesting discussion. A few comments on other's posts.
"the critical importance... on the 'provenance' of a recording in determining the ultimate playback fidelity of a hi-resolution recording."
True; of course that applies to any recording.

"If the same multi-track reel-to-reel master tape recording/mix of a performance is used as a source for a redbook cd as well as a PCM 24 bit/96 or 192khz hi-resolution recording then, theoretically, there should be no difference..."
The basic point that the source dictates the end result is indisputable, but I would suggest that in a good system, some people will hear a difference which if nothing else, is related to the way that the ADC and DAC conversions are implemented.
"With regards to vinyl and reel to reel analog tapes, you can't put a level of resolution on them in any meaningful way, like you may be able to do with digital. Why? Because analog resolution will vary depending on the equipment used in the recording and the playback process. Not only that, there is no reliable way to measure the resolution of an analog source and equate it to any to a similar resolution in digital."
I'd take that a little further; the term resolution a complete non-sequitur with respect to digital recordings. It's sort of talking about a high current amps in terms of wattage. I think that the discussion in terms of what posters on this board are concerned about, is how does the subjective SQ of a hi-rez digital recording (or playback medium) compare to a high quality analog recording/payback medium. In the case of what the consumer can actually purchase and listen to, it's the transfer or playback medium (vinyl, disk or download) that actually matters AT THE MOMENT. With respect to future playback media that may eventually be available, the resolution of the recording technology seems to be more important.

ZD- I agree with what I perceive to be the overall bent of your comments, but criticism of quoting the NYT article is misplaced, IMO. If hi rez transfers and playback media is to become widespread, then people who get their news from NYT (or FOX!!!) will have to be convinced that it's not nonsense. Maybe that just means better marketing (or you could call it technology forcing); like pushing 4K video displays when there is essentially zero 4K media to be displayed on them.

OTOH, for hi-rez master recordings to become widespread, I think "all" it takes is for the incremental cost to be small and for artists and recording engineers to insist on it.

As to the OP, my answer so far is a resounding "sometimes". I've only heard a few and my digital playback is limited to 24/96, but based on that I'd say it most definitely can be better. But as the guy for AIX pointed out, if the original master recording is lousy or low rez, the hi-rez transfer will be, too. You can't add resolution that is not there.

If you're going from analog to digital, then theoretically, higher (deeper??) bit depth and higher sampling rate gets you a closer approximation of the original wave form (which let's not forget, is ultimately, an analog representation of the original performance). Rant over.

"02-11-15: Audioengr
Chrsh - Most consumers don't spend enough money on their equipment to hear the difference. They spend more on their cell-phones. They all claim that they have tin-ears too...

Steve N.
Empirical Audio"

I think the industry itself is to blame for that. Look at the difference in other segments of digital entertainment. Everyone seems to understand why you would buy a dvd over a vhs and a blu ray over a dvd, or a Playstation 3 to replace a 2. Same thing with computers, bigger processors, better graphics, and even cell phones and tablets. When CD was the standard, the industry chose to push MP-3's over something like SACD. It's the only segment that sold features and convenience over the actual quality of the product. And now the price is being paid for it. No one even buys iPods any more because they can just put the music on their cell phone. I know several people that buy CD's new, rip them to MP-3's and then throw the CD in the trash. The whole situation is a textbook example as to why you never devalue your own brands or products. So, as much as I would like high rez audio to succeed, I see no reason at all why the average consumer would stop downloading all their music for free.

In reading the responses to this topic, I feel we need to remember that the concept of a "white paper" has changed substantially with the decline of peer-reviewed industry publications. Once upon a time, they were written to support a conclusion regarding technical or scientific phenomena and subjected to rigorous cross-checking before publication. That model died a long time ago, even in medicine.

White papers are no longer subjected to any meaningful peer review, with the most glaring recent example being the now-debunked paper regarding vaccinations linked to autism. It is my sad professional duty to read countless white papers regarding process control instrumentation for their potential effect on the marketing of my company's products. If abstracted, every single one of them could be condensed to: "XYZ enhancement to our technology is documented to produce a beneficial result in process application at ABC company. Buy our product to achieve the same result in your company."

While I find it interesting that Goldmund produced a paper that would seem to limit their potential market expansion, hype being what it is, I still think that the paper highlights an interesting observation: Blind testing produced equivocal results. I did not back-check the studies used to support that conclusion, and am still not sufficiently motivated to do so. Audio is a hobby for me, and it is enough that I have learned what I like to hear and have found a personally satisfactory method to enhance that enjoyment over time. Specifications, white papers and the like are all essentially white noise (no pun intended). The essence is in perception.

When all is said and done, human ears remain analog transducers. They take a physical waveform (sound) and convert it into an electrical signal (nerve impulses) that the brain then decodes. The result of that process is either pleasant, unpleasant or somewhere in-between. In my case, my brain decodes some high resolution digital files as "sounding better" and others as "no noticeable difference." None of those decodings match what my brain interprets as "natural" when I reflect on the concerts I've attended. That is why I'm still married to vinyl as my reference source.

Everyone is different in how they interpret this process. We can all agree on this and that the recording process itself has marked effect no matter what technology is used as the playback source. Bad recordings are bad recordings. Good ones are good ones. We all recognize great music regardless of recording quality. Does the reproduction technology make a significant difference? That is where personal interpretation comes in. That is why we have lo fi, mid fi and hi fi gear and all of the manufacturers and hucksters that go along with it.

For me, it's all about having fun and happy listening!

If my choice is a bad recording in HiRez or great recording in lower rez I'll take lower rez.
It's not just a matter of resolution but of the entire chain while many only argue about the resolution of the final link.

If I had the option to purchase excellently recorded HiRez music that would be great but how many of these are actually available? How many will be available in the future? Are there enough people who care about this to make it economically feasible? There seems to one small faction who cares about HiRez while the overwhelming majority either don't care or are satisfied with the status quo or even less.