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

If the HD version is just an upsample of CD quality content, then its highly unlikely that there would be significant perceivable differences. Luckily, almost all studies avoided anything like this, and potential biases were noted and discussed when any such issues could have occurred.
I agree that in the study I was able to read about, this issue isn't a factor; but in the real world HR audio is almost aways sold after remastering the recording used for the original CD. Because - I suggest - this is the only way for it to sound audibly different in the real world of normal homes and listening environments, to make people that already have the original CD, to buy it again. And so that those that do not, buy it at a higher price than the original CD that is still on sale.

I doubt that there is anyone successfully selling HR music closely allied to the kind you refer to - where both the HR and the CD are being sold at different prices, but are recorded at the same levels from the same master, and just down sampled for the CD version.

IMO and to my mind this has been a good discussion that has reinforced for me the philosophy that real world improvement in sound quality can be obtained - if required for the enjoyment of music - only via paying attention to who is doing the mastering and to speaker quality and placement/room acoustics/room response DSP. That is where there are real improvements to be found.

Of course, when the day comes that the good masterings are only available in HR format, it will be a different matter. But as of now there are no trends that indicate that this sorry state of affairs will come to pass!

If the HD version is just an upsample of CD quality content, then its highly unlikely that there would be significant perceivable differences.

the kind you refer to - where both the HR and the CD are being sold at different prices, but are recorded at the same levels from the same master, and just down sampled for the CD version.


just to be precise, in my comment I referred to upsampling of CD quality content to a high res format. This was a potential criticism of the Meyer and Moran study, and could imply that some of the stimuli used in the test was not really high resolution.
Downsampled from high resolution to CD quality is a different scenario, and the studies primarily focused on just that sort of thing.

Unable to navigate to page 3 of this thread. InSided, lol. Maybe this post will fix...

Nope. But set thread to Newest First, which does show the final page. Screwy.

I simply have to say thank you to @joshr for joining in on this conversation! It is fantastic to have someone with your familiarity of this topic and depth of research connect with such a community!

As I'm sure you have noticed, many of the most active participants of this forum have built fairly strong views on this topic (and other topics :P) and as a result, may be perceived as being somewhat .... aggressive... in their response. 🙂 In my experience everyone on here does mean well and has a deep honest interest in the discussion, and you have added significantly to that conversation.

Incidentally, Having read much (with a lot yet to read) while I appreciate what people *may* be able to do in a testing environment, I stand by my original view that in a consumer market, higher resolution does not improve audio playback in any way that makes any meaningful difference to actual listening in a real world. I go back to the discussion referenced in the What Hi-Fi article : That people don't really note differences in their regular listening between mp3s and lossless such that they are not moving away from mp3s... I currently don't see the broader population demanding moving to higher-res as I don't perceive the typical individual truly discerning material differences in a real-world application. (And this is ignoring the potential communication bandwidth challenges that I perceive make product release/updates extremely problematic at this point in time.)

Yes, Hi Rez is much ado about nothing in the lives of the vast majority of us music lovers. Primarily of interest only to those trying to make a buck off of it, which includes a lot of shady companies and the magazines which support their claims without question. Objective journalism has no place in "high end" audio reporting these days, unfortunately.

And training seemed to be such a strong variable that it appeared to override everything else. Essentially (and I'm being loose with the language here), every study where participants were carefully trained in the task showed a strong ability to discriminate, every study where participants were untrained did not.

The issue of training is very interesting. Years ago a friend and colleague proudly showed me the stereo he bought as an undergraduate at Harvard in the late 1960s. Despite their perished surrounds and yellowing paper cones, he loved the sound. Having just moved overseas, I bought a new stereo, including some excellent Canadian Mirage speakers. I took them around to his place to compare the sound, and he still preferred his speakers! I left the speakers with him for a week, and when I picked them up he had new B&W speakers. It took a while for his ears to make the decision.

So the question is, to train or not to train and stay in ignorance? Which brings greater happiness? I don't have a clear answer, but I tend to prefer knowledge over ignorance. And I know my friend now enjoys orchestral music more because he can hear and discriminate all the instruments more clearly.

When someone says that to me that I am not able to pick out the differences between two bits of kit because I don't have the ears trained to do so, and my requiring some kind of test to rule out bias is unreasonable/unnecessary to those with trained ears, I draw my own conclusions about how easily swayed that person is.

I currently don't see the broader population demanding moving to higher-res as I don't perceive the typical individual truly discerning material differences in a real-world application.
Even if it could discern some differences, the broader population is far more interested in things like voice control, use of native apps, youtube video, home automation integration and the like. Even at the sacrifice of a little sound quality.

And who is to say it is wrong. For one thing, as the WHF interview says, stable streaming is more relevant to music enjoyment than marginal improvement in sound quality - music disruption can destroy the experience.

Secondly, the brain can effortlessly fill in for any little audible gaps that may exist - if they even do - between CD quality and Hi Res. But it cannot do so for things like voice control and all the other things that the broader population is now being offered. Sonos would be making a blunder if they did not take these trends and realities into account - and by all accounts, that is exactly what they are prioritising. They simply aren't interested in the market that cares less for these and more for hi res.

Good summary Kumar. Now let me ask you a question: when voice control becomes available, do you think you will use it? My concerns are twofold: one, I don't like the idea of a house filled with always-active microphones, and second, how does one add the next song to the queue over the sound of the previous song and without talking over the music?