Can you hear bit rate?

@erik_squires wrote:

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

That's actually how I understood it (falsely, going by your OP), but thanks for clarifying. With changes in bit depth and sample rate (one usually follows the other) there appears to be changes in the mastering as well (here as well: one usually follows the other), so I guess it comes down to this: do I appreciate the overall outcome of high-res versions over their Red Book iteration(s)? Well, it depends. Years ago, with the exception of the Norwegian 2L label, I often if not mostly had a preference for the CD versions in finding quite a few high-res dittos to be dynamically stale and downright flat sounding. Today I still prefer many Red Book versions, but there are an increasing number of great sounding remastered high-res titles as well (mostly compared through Qobuz). All told though I can't say for certain whether my sonic preference for a given title comes down to its mastering and/or higher bit depth and sample rate.

@richardbrand wrote:

Equipment-focused magazines like TAS and Stereophile pin 2-channel to their mastheads and resolutely ignore these advances in sound quality [...]

Whether it leads, in more absolute terms, to an advancement in sound quality with immersive recordings through multichannel setups is debatable, certainly from my chair. There are many variables involved comparing a 2-channel setup to an immersive ditto, and likely it means comparing two completely different setups where the core 2-channel audio will be the deciding factor by the end of the day. 

@devinplombier 

Immersive sound is attractive, but how will it avoid the fate of quadraphonic sound in the 70s?

Quadraphonic sound in the 70s would mainly have been based on records, and really did not offer much in the way of channel separation.  It was only the advent of SACD some 25 years ago that could deliver much better than CD sound and up to 5.1 channels.  In other words, light years ahead of quadraphonic.  Still very popular for classical music in Europe and Japan, where it was invented, SACD was very poorly marketed in the US

I moved to SACD when the Gramophone magazine issued its reviewers with Marantz universal disk players which handled CD, SACD and DVD.  It did not cost me much to add two rear "ambience" channels, which I drove with an old Quad (the manufacturer!) 2-channel amplifier. I have never bothered with a central front speaker because my main speakers emulate point sources of sound and have excellent imaging.

Nowadays not all universal disk players include SACD, mainly because of manufacturer’s rivalry, for example Panasonic is loath to licence Sony stuff!.  But they all include Blu-ray and thanks to 2L.no, can play Pure Audio Blu-ray disks with all sorts of high-resolution tracks, including Dolby Atmos.

Now just about every Home Theatre installation has a Blu-ray player and multiple audio channels.  The only thing people have to actually buy to get immersive sound is the silver disks, which are much cheaper than new records.

No doubt in the next few years, streaming services will have the bandwidth (the OP’s bit rate) to deliver high quality immersive sound.

New surround sound recordings have already been available using the same SACD media for 25 years.  Today there's over 6,000 classical SACDs listed by Presto. You can’t say that for quadraphonic.

@richardbrand 

Makes sense to leverage existing, popular home theater standards. I mean, personally I do believe that home theater and music systems should have their own rooms, but as you point out it's easy enough to add a pair of rear speakers and an extra stereo amp to a two-channel system.

It sounds like HT and SACD have made immersive sound possible for quite a number of years, yet the uptake seems to have been minimal and you hardly ever hear about it. I wonder why? It does sound like a good idea.

On a side note, wouldn't the recording / mastering / processing issues that already plague two-channel media be compounded / complicated by an order of magnitude by multichannel?

@erik_squires 

 There are many variables involved comparing a 2-channel setup to an immersive ditto, and likely it means comparing two completely different setups where the core 2-channel audio will be the deciding factor by the end of the day

Not really in my case, because my 2-channel setup is the same, whether used stand-alone or effectively embedded as the main channels in an immersive set up.

Most audiophiles would probably agree that speakers are the most important part of any 2-channel set up.  My main speakers are either Quad ESL2905 or KEF Reference 1.  Not too shabby.  They are driven by a 2-channel Krell Class A amplifier, again not too shabby.  They can be fed from analogue record players (Garrard 301 and soon a Holbo air-bearing system) via a Krell pre-amplifier.

So far pretty standard 2-channel.

But for silver disks, including CD, SACD, Blu-ray and 4K, I use a Reavon player as a transport and feed a Marantz AV-8802 pre-processor via HDMI.  The Marantz contains 7 high quality dacs from AKM. It can handle everything I can throw at it, including native DSD, multi-channel high resolution PCM, Dolby Atmos and 4K movies.

Two Marantz output channels feed the Krell amplifier, and six more go to a Perreau chassis containing three 2-channel amplifiers.

The difference between 2-channel and surround can be quite subtle, depending on what the producer wanted to capture, or it can be awesome.  Going to immersive sound is not subtle but unambiguously creates an experience way beyond 2-channel.

Now this observation seems odd to me, but many 2L.no recordings place instruments all around the listener.  I don't notice my rear speakers being any worse than my front speakers - I just hear great music coming from an integrated venue.  Same with Deutsche Grammophon Dolby Atmos organ recordings from Notre Dame in Paris, where my four Klipsch in-celling speakers contribute seamlessly, to my ears at least.