Any need for high sampling rates?

I stumbled across the first of those articles and was going to ask the same question here. Shame that there have been no replies as I would be interested in hearing others oppinions/views.

Having directly compared high resolution files with CD standard, I can detect no discernable difference. My guess is that some higher resolution recordings are simply better masters/remasters, which would account for any detected differences.

I used 24/96 recordings and compressed them to 16/44.1, so that the bit depth and sample rate could be tested in isolation.

Some people think that they can hear differences, but luckily for me 256Kbps ripped at a variable bit rate is indistinguishable from lossless files and in fact, the  original CDs. Saves me a fortune and I just get on with listening to the music.

Currently, Lucas Renney - Strange Glory and Alice Gold - Seven Rainbows.

I agree there is more variation in SQ in recorded music period to warrant Hi Res a bit of an occasional indulgence for a good remaster (Fleetwood Mac Rumours being a great example). I've got one 24/192 album and it's only OK. I've got "better" sounding 16/44, it's all down to the original production and mastering quality.

I also go along with the opinion that is the remastering that is more important than the bit rate.

Garbage in, garbage out and all that.....

That said, if you have a quality master then I would rather have the HD track than not, in the same way as I would rather have speakers that operate outside my hearing range than not.

Yes, I subscribe to this view.  The higher bit depth and sampling rate is unnecessary, but the better remaster is welcome.

I dont these articles are about mastering and production, there more about equipment compatability and the pitfalls of playing hi-res material on equipment not designed with that in mind.

There seems to be a correlation between hi-res digital playback and vinyl, the same principles apply.

I wouldn’t say hi-res offers no audible benefit itself, because I like to remain open-minded. However I also believe the biggest benefit comes from the fact that creating a 24/96 or 24/192 master forces the record companies to go back to the analogue master-tape and recapture it.

Many classic albums have been ostensibly remastered since their first release on CD, but despite what engineers may tell you, the term 'remastering' is applied to more than one specific process, which can lead to confusion (I'll stop short of saying 'deception').

What we (audiophiles) want it to mean is that the engineers have carefully extracted the earliest available analogue master from the dehumidified and air-conditioned vaults, sympathetically recaptured it using the best tape-decks, desks and AD converters known to man, performed digital repairs only where strictly necessary, and sent it out to the pressing-plant for re-issue in all its dynamic glory.

Unfortunately, that's not necessarily the case. A classic release could be given a nice 'remastered' sticker on the front of its CD case even if all the engineer has done is dig-up the ancient digital capture from 1982, re-EQ it, pass it through a NR filter, add some 21st-century-style compression/brick-wall limiting, then push it out for re-issue. 

I like the fact that hi-res re-masters are more likely to have been created by the former process, or at least something close to it. Also, based on the few hi-res albums I have heard, hi-res remasters seem less likely to have been dynamically crucified, but I could just have been lucky with that one.

...a bit of a long read

http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full@MajorFubar

Some very good points raised about compression and A->D transfer. I always take note when people talk about Studer 820 reel to reels being used for the analogue transfer part etc.

The other thing to note about many of the SaCD/DVD-a releases is that because the original multi-track tapes were used to be able to make new multi-channel mixes, this invariably also meant creating a new remixed two channel master at the same time using more modern mixing techniques resulting in a higher quality release (eg Fleetwood Mac Rumours/Eagles Hotel California)

Yep, those and vinyl of current releases in general are better in that respect also 80's CD's are also good dynamically.

There are exception but in general new CD's are very poor in that respect, and from a format that can handle greater dynamics than any other.

Its a poor state of affairs that you have to pay a premium for uncompressed musical quality these days.

Marketing is constantly shifting, and that means that it is important for marketers to be on top of their game and learning about the different techniques that they should be utilizing. It is a good idea to consider all of the different options that you have when it comes to marketing so that you can get the best results.

Apart from these three methods discussed above, there are also other forms of air sampling in use. Several laboratories have their unique methods of carrying out the process. There are diverse kinds of tools or instruments usually engaged in the process. There are also several reasons for carrying out the process.

From that first link : 

"The number one comment I heard from believers in super high rate audio was [paraphrasing]: "I've listened to high rate audio myself and the improvement is obvious. Are you seriously telling me not to trust my own ears?"

"Of course you can trust your ears. It's brains that are gullible.

I don't mean that flippantly; as human beings, we're all wired that way."