High resolution audio. The science, or lack of...?
First of all, I must apologize to Quadpatch for essentially wrecking his headphone thread...It wasn't the intention and in hindsight I can see that such topics can escalate...Probably best kept separate...
However, the topic interests me. WHF S&V themselves actively promote, or rather review and claim higher quality for HD music. whether it be 24/96 or higher.
Now, the last I had heard, and as far as I know, the good old CD and the theorum to which music data is recorded onto it, is more than enough for the absolute limit of human hearing.
ie Nyquist-Shannon states (and has been proven to be correct) to perfectly recreate an analogue signal, you need a sampling frequency of double the maximum sound frequency required. Or rather more accurately put (from WIki)
"If a function x(t) contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is completely determined by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced 1/(2B) seconds apart."
Now some people here seem to believe that HD tracks will be better. Why? I have yet to see any links to any papers or proof on this, and in fact have seen some to studies that show the higher resolutions (192 KHz and above) can have an adverse effect on quality...
I do agree that many HD versions of music sound better. But experience tells me that these are simply better recordings...I used to buy HD and found it excellent...until I downsampled one to 16/44.1 myself and could not tell them apart...
As for the 16 bit v 24 bit for playback... Why does anyone think we need 24 bit? 16 bit gives us a 96 dB dynamic range (way higher than vinyl), and if we take an extremely well recorded CD with a DR of 30 dB (very unusual, they tend to be no more than 10-15), then we have a noise floor of -66 dB...which as far as I can see, is inaudible.
So please, without insults or petty put-downs, can someone give me any concrete,scientific information on why they think HD (for playback) is any better?