Can you hear bit rate?

@erik_squires wrote:

Can you hear bit rate?

Reliably and with my current source (i.e.: streaming device), no. Usually there's more than bit (and sample) rate to determine the sonic outcome of a file, so the basis for comparison is hardly one to one in terms of isolating the bit-rate itself. 

And to be honest, I don't care (any more): if it sounds great, it sounds great, and bit or sample rate in itself isn't a reliable marker in my experience. 

Next year I'll be upgrading to a new streamer, and whether that will be able to make a difference with regard to discerning the audible impact of changing bit or sample rate, remains to be seen/heard - assuming I would be able to make a reliable comparison in the first place. 

Just to be clear, I used 'bit rate' specifically and not 'bit depth' for shorthand, which I guess wasn't fully clear. 

Bit depth = a power of 2 number, usually from 16 to 24 in audio, describing the bits per sample. Synonymous with sample size. 

Bit rate = bit depth * number of channels * sample rate. 

So, apologies, I meant to ask: Can you hear differences as the sample rate or bit depth changes?  

I think the original question about "bit rate" implied the sampling rate, as opposed to the number of bits used to encode the analog input signal.

According to Nyquist, you need at a minimum two samples per cycle at the highest frequency of interest. This is a minimum and doesn't imply that you will get a quality reproduction. The Red Book CD standard at 44.1 kHz, was barely above the minimum. The problem with it was that the recording needed to have very steep cutoff (brick-wall) filters to prevent "aliasing" distortion. The higher the sampling rate, the more gradual the anti-aliasing filters can be, and the better that is for preserving the phase relationship between the different harmonics of the instruments. Therefore, in my opinion, all else being equal (which is usually not the typical case), the higher sampling rates are better.

Since digitizing is just one of myriad ways in which the signal can be adversely affected, not all recordings will appear to have benefitted from higher sampling rates, but when all else is equal, they will benefit from it.

Also, in the same vein, the more the number of bits used to encode the analog input, the better; however, in my opinion the sampling rate is the bigger "bang for the buck". For the number of bits, anything above 24 may be wasted bandwidtth.

Well, sorry for the confusion, but with either interpretation I think we've had some excellent replies. 

@erik_squires 

Bit rate = bit depth * number of channels * sample rate

It would hardly challenge anyone with two working ears to tell the difference between mono and 2-channel stereo (double the bit rate).

Equally it is blindingly obvious when surround sound and immersive sound come into play.  But of course, you need more hardware for that.  Music-centered magazines like Gramophone extol the quality of some immersive recordings, which are also over-represented at Grammy awards.  Equipment-focused magazines like TAS and Stereophile pin 2-channel to their mastheads and resolutely ignore these advances in sound quality, encouraging their readers to spend thousands on power cords instead.