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

@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.

I think so. One possibility I've considered is that the studios that put out hi-res recordings may, on average, be more conscientious about quality.

Also, higher bit-depth has significant advantages in the recording and mixing process.