Can You Hear What You Think You Can Hear?

[RAMd®d]

Many people believe that high-res audio (HRA) offers the potential for better sound quality than CDs by using higher sampling rates and greater bit depths—typically 96 kHz or more and 24 bits compared with CD’s 44.1 kHz and 16 bits. A higher sampling rate can represent a wider range of frequencies extending into the ultrasonic region, while a greater bit depth can represent a dynamic range beyond the 90 dB practical range of CDs.

The big question is, can humans actually perceive the higher frequencies and wider dynamic range offered by HRA? Bob Schulein, a long-time audio-industry consultant, and Dan Mapes-Riordan, an expert in psychoacoustics—both founding partners at ImmersAV Technology—have developed three sets of audio files that allow anyone to explore this question for themselves.

These files can be downloaded and one can get an idea of what they can and can't hear. There may be mention of in-band artifacts that affect us aside from dynamic range and frequency response.

I may not test myself as I know my hearing is nowhere near the upper tier of audible acuity.

http://www.avsforum.com/test-your-abilit...res-audio/

[space-time]

Reminds me of that Verizon commercial, "Can you hear me now?"

[Filliam H. Muffman]

I used to hear up to almost 21 KHz, but that was before working for 12 years in a noisy industrial plant. There were a dozen stores in town I couldn't go in to because their "ultrasonic" motion detectors made me feel like the little hairs on the back of my neck were on fire.

[N-OS X-tasy!]

No.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

[blooz]

"Even as we speak, the voices in my head are singing Hotel California."

[davemchine]

I have a relatively hi end stereo. Accuphase P-300 amplifier, c-200 pre amplifier, ATV4 with DAC, Magnepan 1.7 speakers. I have compared 320kbps AAC to lossless and I cannot hear the difference. I'm quite sure there is a difference, and I think my system is good enough to reveal the difference. my hearing must not be up to the task or I must need training. I choose to look on the bright side and say I don't need to spend any more money on HIFI equipment.

[Black]

Interesting points here....my takeaway= lossy formats were worse in the past due to bad encoders but now improved? How does one assure that one is using the best encoder(s)? MP3s at 320 work just fine for me as long as the encoding wasn't screwed up somehow.

[Lew Zealand]

I don't notice much of a problem with 320AAC and listen to much of my music that way as I'm frequently listening on less than audiophile equipment in less than audiophile conditions. However at home in front of the computer I cue up my ALACs, pop in the USB Dragonfly DAC and connect the HifiMan HE400S headphones and there is quite a difference.

~99% of that difference from the 'phones.

[deckeda]

Hi res audio formats are not about extending frequency response nor dynamic range. So hearing tests for both won't answer the question of why they can reproduce music better than lesser formats, because "sound quality" or "enjoyment" consists of more than just those simplistic measurements.

Marty, in particular, over at Xiph.org has always been irrelevant for similar reasons.

[anonymouse1]

Yup, was true for me, too. Not any more.....

Filliam H. Muffman wrote:
I used to hear up to almost 21 KHz, but that was before working for 12 years in a noisy industrial plant. There were a dozen stores in town I couldn't go in to because their "ultrasonic" motion detectors made me feel like the little hairs on the back of my neck were on fire.