The great sampling debate

No, not at all – but it was quite funny.

I wouldn't claim golden ears (or any other audiophile cliche), but I have listened to a wide variety of 192/24 files and find myself enjoying them even more than the lower-resolution versions. Your mileage may, of course, vary...

First let me say I am an advocate of hi-resolution studio master downloads simply because I find that some (not all) sound better than CD versions when played back through my system.

Philips and Sony, the originators of the CD, chose the 16 bit 44.1Khz format not because it was the best but because it was adequate, and could be implemented at reasonable cost using the technology which was available in 1980. When it was first introduced most Audiophiles argued that the sound quality was worse than the vinyl record and bemoaned the backward step. 25 years later they claim that no higher quality is required.  Something weird going on here don't you think?  It is pretty significant that Sony and Philips moved on to SACD and Blu-ray formats with more storage space and capabilty to support greater sample rates and bit depth.

Whilst it is true that human hearing is limited to a maximum of 20Khz PURE TONE (mine is more like 13Khz), and a sample rate of 44.1Khz is adequate to reproduce a 20Khz pure tone correctly, the statement missed two of the most overlooked and important points in music reproduction.  Music does not consist of pure tones and to reproduce the timbre of an instrument and the attack of music as well as the ambience of a live recording it is necessary that the phase relationship of overtones and the fundamental are maintained. This correlation improves with increasing sample rates. So in this instance more is definitely better.
The part of a Hi-Fi which does most to destroy phase relationships is the loudspeaker system so assuming that 192Khz sampling did improve the transient response and phasing, most multi driver loudspeakers are unlikely to reproduce it properly.

Regarding 24bit resolution.  The resolution controls how accurately the value of any given sample is measured. Technically  there is no dispute that 24 bits will give a more accurate result than 16 bits the discussion is all about whether the improved accuracy makes a difference to the perceived sound.  In the majority of discussions such as the Xiph article the need for 24bit and the need for 192Khz sample rates are treated completely separately. A case of divide and conquer.
I read the original Xiph article and I am technical enough to follow all the arguments (retired electronics/audio engineer) and I am dismayed at how selective information is misleadingly used.   Elsewhere in this thread The Emperor's New Clothes has been mentioned  and unfortunately ALL Hi-Fi has suffered from this since the dawn of recording.  Edison toured the states with his cylinder records claiming they sounded just like a real singer.  He forgot to tell the people hearing his recorded versus live comparisons that these trained singers had been recorded by his company and then were asked to "sing like the record". 

What is relevant to the argument is whether or not a Gramophone reader running a double blind test in his/her own home will reveal anything.  It may show that a particular listener can tell the difference and it is better, or worse or that some cannot tell the difference.  The varying results will depend on what source file was used and the playback equipment the listener used for the comparison.  Unless the playback system (particularly the DAC) is good enough, and I don't mean expensive, to reproduce the alleged "improved audio" there won't be an improvement. 

More importantly one listeners better, may be another's worse.  For example, I am old and my high frequency hearing is poor, my son has good high frequency hearing.  I find his Hi-Fi has too much bass and he finds that mine lacks bass. Interestingly I have measured the frequency response of both systems and mine correctly reproduces both lower bass and higher frequency treble than his.  This begs the question as to why my son doesn't think the bass is "better"  Probably because of the increased high frequency response changing the balance of treble to bass. The only thing that can definitely be said about that test is that my system produces a wider range of frequencies.
 
For double blind tests of high resolution downloads to be meaningful you need a large number of people performing the test - on the same equipment and using the same downloads.  Not all Hi-Res downloads are actually in high resolution! I have had the experience of listening to a downloaded 24 bit 192Khz recording which was derived from an old analogue recording and guess what? There was absolutely no difference – because there wasn't any extra audio information to be converted.

Without being able to do the tests I am pretty sure that Studio Master downloads will not be of advantage to the majority of listeners because the rest of their equipment is not able to take advantage.  Its like putting high octane fuel in an old low compression engined motor car - it just won't go any faster.

There is no reason why Hi-Res downloads are intrinsically more costly than low-res  The Studio produced the Hi-Res master as a step towards the low, so there is even an argument that they should be cheaper because the studio has less steps in it's process.  Yes they need extra storage space and that will cost a few pence. It takes longer to download - but the user is paying for that.
The only reason why Hi-Res downloads are more expensive is that there are not many and demand is limited because so few people have the right equipment to replay them properly.  As long as this is the case the suppliers will take advantage and keep the price up.  This situation will change fairly quickly as equipment manufacturers get access to better lower cost integrated circuits and improve the quality of mass produced audio systems and more high resolution sources become available.

We should keep the commercial aspects separated from the technical - More expensive does not mean better.  We should only make the decision on personal experience.  If you cannot hear the difference then don't bother spending the money.  This of course leaves open the question as to whether or not you would hear the difference with better equipment.

Having said all that I am happy to post the results of a hi-res / low-res comparison. Should I post in this thread or in the one Vic referred to?