Could you post a link…?
There was a link but it’s gone now. I didn’t see anything that looked commercial material but maybe @Richard.Dane did.
1 Like
Ah, I see… Thanks…!
In general I don’t watch videos unless only a minute or two long - I’d much rather read written articles that I can read at my own speed. Time wasted on videos is time I’ve lost from something better!
3 Likes
@Guinnless it didn’t look commercial to me either.
Yes, there was a link indeed. @Richard.Dane corrected the post and deleted it. I guess I posted something against the rules, therefore I apologize. Can I mention the name of the video @Richard.Dane? Would you be so kind to tell me what’s wrong about the video I posted? I’ve seen other informative videos from Youtube on this platform but their links haven’t been deleted.
My question was rhetorical, it was quite obvious that you hadn’t watched the video 
FWIW there was no music comparison whatsoever.
1 Like
The individual human ear? That’s all that counts on an individual basis.
No electronic or software based anaylser will tell us which version we will prefer.
1 Like
Indeed, instruments can tell us there isn’t a difference detectable within the sensitivity of the instruments for the parameters they measure, or that there is a difference but not which our ears will prefer - and different sets of ears may prefer differently.
1 Like
I agree, what matters is what we hear and perceive. Full stop. And it’s subjective of course. Nevertheless I found that to be an interesting approach, a bit different from the usual IMHO. So I was wondering what other people were thinking about that.
1 Like
I think you’ll have to explain what “that” is, the link not being there anymore even for those who’d watch the video!
1 Like
Basically they digitised an analogue 1kHz Sine wave firstly with 44.1kHz and then with 192kHz. The output Sine wave from the DAC was identical to the 44k version.
They did show that 24bit was less noisy than 16bit though.
But didn’t mention MQA so how can they be taken seriously?
.sjb
1 Like
So not really any different from what seems to be the consensus of opinion of hi res vs 16/44 when from the same master, namely that there isn’t a huge audible difference, rather the hi res has “a little more air around the music” - which conceivably could be explained by a lower noise floor.
Indeed, I’ve said a few times on here that 24bit material sounds much better even just 24/44 or 24/48 that aren’t considered ‘hires’. I find it’s much easier to set a preferred volume level on 24bit material too.
There was a recent-ish PS audio video post where in the video the owner of PS Audio said the sampling rate is the most important, I said this was incorrect and may have upset some PS audio customers on here. 
1 Like
@Guinnless I agree with your point of view, I feel that 24 bit is more important than the sample rate. Given the explanation in the video, it’s pretty obvious that there’s less noise at 24 bit, therefore the audio will be clearer, more precise and airy. So the video simply explains what’s the reason for better audio playback with Hi-Res material, at least from a scientifical point of view. It helps to put things into the right perspective. Other than that we could argue that CD and Hi-Res masters aren’t always the same and it’s not so easy to know which one is better without listening to them.
1 Like
I’ve been reading about 32 bit FP recorders lately and for sure the “almost infinite dynamic range” aspect is the focus. Many don’t even have input level controls for user adjustments. There are good examples of successfully raising the level (in post) of samples taken at very low gain, but still so far above the noise floor that they are unaffected. Similarly, examples of lowering the level of samples that look (on a 16 or 24 bit view) to be way over saturated and clipped, but remain well within the digital dynamic range.
I’ve not been able to reliably identify hi res vs redbook using the Dr Aix blind test files of identically mastered source material… well recorded 16/44 is good stuff. But it definitely seems easier to make well recorded 24/x or especially, now, 32FP/x recordings and work from there.
In fairness, though, a slight weakness of this test video is that it seems to present analysis of a 1kHz sine wave (I haven’t watched)… and that is such a simple case that almost any sampling rate - and certainly 44, 48, 96 or 192 kHz will not be a limiting factor (there being, indeed, no stair step). Indeed, I’d say that it is constructed specifically as a test of dynamic range or bit depth, hence noise floor.
Cool beans.
In the video the test is conducted changing the Hz value from 1 Hz to 20.000 Hz.
Thanks, I will take a look for sure… but the (obscure!) point I was making is that there is zero doubt about reconstructing a single frequency sine wave (a la tone generators) in almost any DAC which obeys Nyquist (2x sampling rate vs highest frequency of interest). Noise floor (from bit depth) is the main thing under test for this kind of example I think.
The “tricky” part - which may lead to hearing more airiness, details of timbre, and maybe even spatial location - is almost certainly related to phase (stereo) and/or waveform shape (mono frequencies, but high harmonics like square waves) differences that may be related to much higher frequencies of interest and therefore sampling rates.
Does that make sense? Thanks for the follow up.