Can digital audio playback be improved by resolutions greater than 16/44.1?

Already discussed. Notice there is purposefully no mention of quality differences in the meta-analysis, only "differences". This slight significance can easily be explained by the presence of intermodulation distortion in the playback hardware caused by the stresses of reproducing ultra-sonics. This distortion has been tested to be audible, and unfortunately for the misleading commentary of the meta-analysis, it is always harmful to the quality of the sound.

I can make a call to shift us [to 24-bit], it isn't hard, but the problem is on the experiential side, it has to be right. You have to make sure things don't drop out or stop. Even with Tidal we are on the edge right now because the pipe needs to get bigger."

So he's saying that Sonos could shift to 24-bit, but then they would have trouble guaranteeing their current reliablity. They know this as Tidal is putting their technology 'on the edge right now'. Perfectly logical, given the much large file sizes involved.

It doesn't make any sense as far as the consumer stuff goes and I think that's where we are at right now.

So he's not even saying that there isn't a difference, just that it doesn't matter to consumers - in particular, potential Sonos customers, which is what they'll be mainly concerned about.

Here is a recent scientific paper that gathers together many reputable high-res audio tests in a meta-analysis. The main conclusions (taken from the abstract) are:

"Results showed a small but statistically significant ability of test subjects to discriminate high resolution content, and this effect increased dramatically when test subjects received extensive training."


The link isn't working when I tried it.

A couple of things: first, the reference to the "many reputable tests" - is a surprise. I have to come across even one for hi res that does a decent job of doing level matched blind AB, leave alone a full protocol ABX, so where are these many "reputable" tests hiding? It would be useful to see one with a complete description.

Second of course is that what does discrimination mean in this case? In addition to correctly(statistically) picking out the difference, is there also an indication that a statistically adequate/significant percent of testers also expressed a preference for the hi res version? Those that did not, or those that said either version is fine with them - if these form a large part of the sample, what does that convey?
PS: never mind the link, I found another way to the summary report. And came across para 4.2 there that lays down all the issues identified with the "reputable" tests that need to be addressed for better conclusions in future! Or did I read 4.2 wrong?

Already discussed.
Where?


The search sucks on this site. Asking where is futile.


Intermodulation distortion was identified as a potential bias in three studies that, as far as I can see, were not used in the meta-analysis. See Table 2B and the second last para of section 2.4. Studies 25, 60 and 61 do not appear in Table 2.

You are missing the point. It doesn't matter if a couple of the studies factored in IM. It matters that the meta-analysis never considers qualitative differences in favor of Hi-res music, only "differences". Therefore those that do not take IM into consideration could very well be the result of IM. But even more than that, my question was

"Do you believe digital audio, outside of mastering/production techniques, can be improved by playback resolutions greater than 16/44.1?"

Not that by the barest of margins differences can be detected when put through meta-analysis, only that it can be "improved". The study you cite, by its very conclusions, has found no improvements, only "differences". It has no bearing on this thread.

One only needs to look at the technical summation of the Reiss meta-analysis vs the press release to see what is at work here:

Paper:
In summary, these results imply that, though the effect is perhaps small and difficult to detect, the perceived fidelity of an audio recording and playback chain "is affected" by operating beyond conventional consumer oriented levels. Furthermore, though the causes are still unknown, this perceived effect can be confirmed with a variety of statistical approaches and it can be greatly improved through training.

PR:
said Reiss. “Our study finds high-resolution audio has a small but important advantage in its quality of reproduction over standard audio content."

There is absolutely no evidence in the meta-analysis that there is an "advantage in its quality". None. Zero. "Is affected" does not equate to "advantage in its quality". Mr. Reiss is lying in his PR statement. Common sense states that his cherry picking of studies to include in the meta-analysis also suffers the same bias.

And will Sonosnet cope? 32 streams (for the 32 zones) of uncompressed CD-quality data requires 45 Mbps. That should be OK on 802.11n. 24/96 music would require 150 Mbps for 32 streams. ALAC compression halves this to 75 Mbps.

One thing I'm not sure about is whether the mesh network can transmit simultaneously between distinct node pairs. Perhaps the weak link is internet speed for 32 simultaneous streams of music. 75Mbps is at the upper end of speeds now and for the near future. Mind you, anyone with 32 Sonos zones should be able to afford hi-speed internet 🙂

IMO the bigger question is what happens when 16/44 components and chipsets are no longer mass produced/cheap and all that is available for integration/assembly are hi res capable innards because that is all that is being made.

That has been the case for 15-20 years. It's not been a problem so far.

Cheers,

Keith

In that case, everything about hi res is all noise and no signal. As Sonos has clearly understood.

An attempt to link today's What HiFi article -- Sonos says high-res audio support "not on the roadmap" -- has been swallowed by the automoderator. Maybe it will emerge eventually.

An attempt to link today's What HiFi article -- Sonos says high-res audio support "not on the roadmap" -- has been swallowed by the automoderator. Maybe it will emerge eventually.

I posted it earlier but was also swallowed by the moderator but now its showing up (3 posts back)
Thanks Nick. Should have spotted that one.

The 'learning filter' clearly isn't.

EDIT: My post was just rescued.

The study you cite, by its very conclusions, has found no improvements, only "differences". It has no bearing on this thread.
You are right to point out that the study finds differences, not improvements. That is the first step. Presumably the next step is to establish why these differences are perceived, and then whether there is a preference for hi-res. It has every bearing on this thread without providing a definitive answer yet.

Mr. Reiss is lying in his PR statement.
I think it is unwise to level an accusation of lying based on a PR statement. Journalists and/or University PR Departments routinely misunderstand or misquote scientists. Dr Reiss makes no such statement in his published paper.

WHF bangs whatever drum is at hand. I don't blame them; if they did not do that they would have little to publish except official specs and photos of kit. Saying what is under review is the next great thing is what they do every month, which is what every other magazine does, to have something to exclaim about. Advertising keeps them in that mode, but even if there were no ads, how else to sell the latest issue?

Given the sound quality obtainable from Apple Music via 256 kbps AAC, I doubt there will ever be a stampede in the direction of 16/44 now.