Forking from the cables thread to a discussion of whether hi-res is audible.....

I think if you found a DAC pre-2010 you'd have no problems at all hearing the difference.

The last DAC I had which was clearly better with high rez was the ARC DAC 8.

Several DAC's I've auditioned since then do equally well with Redbook now.

Could be.  The initial reason people objected wasn't because they needed extra bit depth or higher sampling to hear more, but because the filters required for 44khz produced at least measurable artifacts in the audible range.  But oversampling was the answer for that.

If you look at the link I posted, the listeners were using a range of high end equipment.  And the 16-bit resolution was packaged in a 24-bit file.

@ahofer

I disagree. I've heard a lot of oversampling CD players and DACs that never sounded as good to my ears as the latest generation.

I suspect this has more to do with the quality of the clocks, as well as the use of multiple DACs per channel.

Best,
E

Great link, Archimago’s site is always worth an in depth read.

He will take the pains to approach subjects in audio with an open mind and a fair a manner as anyone could wish for. As some would say, he walks the walk.

There are many different factors contributing towards sound quality such as recording equipment (and the skill in using it no doubt as the many fabulous recordings from the 1950s will testify).
Tape recording speed, alignment, ’bouncing down’ tracks, the number of tracks squeezed onto the original tape, compression used, condition of the tape etc are all important factors.

Archimago’s findings strongly suggest that 24 bit depth recoding isn’t one of them. Yes, it’s superior in a technological sense, but it seems that we humans aren’t capable of hearing it.

The quality of the production, recording and mastering has more impact on sound quality than the bit rate and resolution.