Can someone please explain to me why and how a 24bit/44.1kHz file is considered high resolution

Forget about human hearing. The SNR of the rest of the audio chain (both on the recording side and on the playback side) is at best somewhere around 100db.

The 6 or 7 LSBs of a 24 bit recording are

  • just memorializing noise in the recording system and
  • will be drowned out by noise in your playback system.

Whether you can “hear” them or not, is irrelevant. They’re not real.

That said, both storage space and network bandwidth are cheap. And even super “high-res” audio is puny in comparison to (say) video. So, as audiophile myths go, this isn’t one to get particularly worked up about.,

I think it’s all relative. Stream a 128 kbps radio station for a while and then return to 24bit/44.1.
I call it higher res .

I agree but then it just becomes death by a thousand cuts. So while each little audiophile myth taken on its own is not worth getting worked about when all these little myths go unchallenged and are added together the result is a hobby that is unhinged from reality and science. Personally I would like to know what audiophile wisdom is actually worthwhile and what wisdom is just a myth.

A few examples:

Speaker placement - good advice
Quality interconnects and speaker cables - good advice
Mega buck USB cables - myth
High resolution audio - not sure

I don’t think it makes sense to mention “speaker placement” in the same breath as “quality cables”. It is an undeniable fact that the former has a far greater effect on SQ than the latter.

4 Likes

That seems to me to be something one has to decide for oneself based on personal beliefs, values, experience, willingness to experiment, available money to spend on luxury goods, and probably many other factors. Trying to establish a set of universal, objective decision criteria to sort between audiophile myths and reality is a hiding to nothing (IMHO).

1 Like

Completely agree with you.

This is a key difference between two groups in this forum. Some of us feel that it is quite possible, perhaps even easy, to objectively identify the issues which impede a transparent transfer between source and the output of your power amp or headphone amp. And then to identify solutions to those issues, cost-effective or otherwise. Others feel that personal experience is the only way to truly know about these things, or that transparency is not the ultimate goal. This is an old old split in epistemology; I don’t think there’s much chance we’ll come to some agreement here.

Regardless, I think both groups can agree that speakers and room treatment are key factors in the listening experience, and that amplifiers should be chosen carefully to complement the selected speakers.

3 Likes

There is definitely some delta where a higher resolution file sounds better than a lower resolution file. I guess that delta depends on the actual resolution of the files, your equipment, your environment, and your ears. There is probably some upper limit where further increase is undetectable. I think some so-called “audiophiles” are unwilling to admit to themselves or others (especially their wives) they have reached that limit.

2 Likes

@Bill_Janssen Very well put. I was on the component upgrade train with perceived marginal but ultimately unsatisfactory improvements, until I discovered room treatments. They dramatically transformed sound quality for the better. Audible and measurable. For the record, I’m now firmly in the objective camp :slight_smile:

1 Like

That’s both audible and measurable. And just because people say this doesn’t mean they’re “objectivists” or belong in some epistemological “camp”.

4 Likes

@Jazzfan_NJ, I think you are correct on both points. It’s impossible to have this discussion + overall I think you are right with what you wrote. The only place where you would need more bits is for the mix. Well, maybe in an actual cinema room, the difference between the sound of the feet of a cat walking on a table and a giant shuttle explosion might justify a bit more than 16 bits but I would be very surprised if more than 20 bits.

The scientific approach is that if you have a system that play between 0 and 24 bits you would probably be death at the end of the listening… Which might very be the case with old people buying very expensive gear but that is a subjective story, especially when you add cognitive bias on top of that.

In the past we saw systems that were playing on the bits to change the volume, therefore you were loosing resolution at low volume but this is not the case anywhere anymore.

The provenance of the original recording is very important. For a digital file of music to be ‘high resolution’ that original music will need to have been recorded at high resolution. A piece of music recorded on analog tape can never be high resolution however well it is remastered and sampled when it is digitised. It can sound bloody brilliant however!

Which is why a live Charlie Parker recording made in 1948 under less than ideal recording conditions is still better than a state of the art modern recording of any alto sax player. Because in the end it’s the music that matters!

Simple equation: Charlie Parker via a 128KB mp3 file > Kenny G in high resolution, each and every time!

1 Like

Agreed! Been listening to Mingus ‘Ah Um,’ recorded on a 3 track valve tape recorder I believe and although you can determine some fuzzy notes occasionally, it still sounds great. Also on another front I was listening to David Bowie’s Dark Star, the other day and I think the recording sucks! A modern recording by a very well respected producer at 16bit 41Khz.

And there’s your answer. If, for whatever reason, 2 bytes (16 bits) per sample doesn’t suffice, then you need to go to 3 bytes (24 bits).

Computers (which is to day, almost all modern digital electronics) are byte-oriented.

1 Like

On the other hand, Mingus’ Cumbia & Jazz Fusion recording from 1977 sound great regardless of format - it is available as a 24bit/96kHz download, as a CD and as an all analog LP. Good recording to use when trying to compare formats. There’s even a MQA version on Tidal!

No matter what the audio/audiophile topic is it always comes back to the music.


1 Like

Fair enough, it’s more simple for the developers and for a standard format. However I do not have a cinema room that big that it would need this at home. But remastering low quality (old recordings) 24/96 is like having noise in high quality with way too large dynamic range for the human ear.

The main point is that 16 bits is definitely not low quality for replay.
Generally speaking your get a better ROI working on your source and room.

We see the same story with cameras. Bad lenses with hi-res sensor. You only get hi-res noise in your pictures.

And I would add speakers to that list.

1 Like

100%. But this seems obvious to many people.
What for sure I would never ever invest in is power bars (http://www.aaudioimports.com/ShowProduct.asp?hProduct=225 wow, really? if the power is that bad, I would invest on a battery pack for a fraction of the price of the power bar. + I could charge it with solar panels and go green) or overpriced cables. Professional symmetrical cables are way better resistant to interference and cost a fraction of what I have seen in many audiophiles’ setups!

On another way the perception of the sound is highly subjective. The ear still listen to analogical vibration that are interpreted by our brain.

So I would not blame anyone buying expensive gear if they have more pleasure listening their music or if they think it sounds better. I just don’t accept the cognitive bias and marketing and so far never seen serious scientific report.

And finally, why I love roon is because it makes it easy to listen to my music, with different zones, a decent and reactive UI and make it easy to use when you are more that one in your house. Most other solution you fight to take the control over someone else.

Like some say, I search for material to listen to my music and definitely not the opposite.

1 Like

That is totally insane.