Does HiRez really sound better?

A very interesting white paper, and thank you for posting the link to it, Nonoise. In my own, completely subjective evaluations, I tend to agree with most of it but also have reservations.

I recently auditioned a pair of Harbeth 40.1s with an Audio Research DSD source. While the combo sounded fine, I was not as impressed as I expected to be. The speakers were clearly putting out everything they were being given, but it just didn't sound natural to my ears. How much was poor set-up, room acoustics, whatever source was tapped for the DSD files or combination of factors is impossible to tell.

My home system has 16 and 24 bit from 32 to 192 kHz along with 24 and 32 bit from 32 to 96 kHz DAC capability via USB input and SACD up to 192 kHz via an internal DSD conversion (or so the manual says, anyway). In trying various high resolution downloads (an Agon HD Tracks sampler and the Linn 24 bits of Christmas) at various resolutions, I feel several of those sounded better than the auditioned combo. The Linn Bach Toccatta and Fugue in A minor in 24/192 in particular was substantially better. I use my MacBook Pro with the included MIDI interface for these kinds of things and Internet radio. When playing standard 16/44.1 WAV files, they don't sound as good as the discs on my dedicated player.

My universal disc player really does the trick with David Sanborn's Timeagain SACD and also works nicely with a Mobile Fidelity SACD of Billy Joel's Piano Man. Both of those sound very unlimited; that is they seem to have a much higher ceiling and deeper stage. Several of my Red Book CDs are also outstanding but not quite to the same "unlimited" level.

That said, no matter how much I've fooled around with all-digital sources, nothing I've tried so far holds a candle to my vinyl rig. I can do A-B tests all day long and the turntable roundly thrashes CDs, DVDs, SACDs and hi-res files. Even more unlimited, an almost endless stage and utterly natural sound.

So for what my opinion is worth, I didn't hear any improvement with DSD. I do hear some sporadic improvements going from Red Book to higher resolution PCM formats. Nothing tops pure analog yet, but I'm going to enjoy testing that conclusion over the coming years.

In reading the responses to this topic, I feel we need to remember that the concept of a "white paper" has changed substantially with the decline of peer-reviewed industry publications. Once upon a time, they were written to support a conclusion regarding technical or scientific phenomena and subjected to rigorous cross-checking before publication. That model died a long time ago, even in medicine.

White papers are no longer subjected to any meaningful peer review, with the most glaring recent example being the now-debunked paper regarding vaccinations linked to autism. It is my sad professional duty to read countless white papers regarding process control instrumentation for their potential effect on the marketing of my company's products. If abstracted, every single one of them could be condensed to: "XYZ enhancement to our technology is documented to produce a beneficial result in process application at ABC company. Buy our product to achieve the same result in your company."

While I find it interesting that Goldmund produced a paper that would seem to limit their potential market expansion, hype being what it is, I still think that the paper highlights an interesting observation: Blind testing produced equivocal results. I did not back-check the studies used to support that conclusion, and am still not sufficiently motivated to do so. Audio is a hobby for me, and it is enough that I have learned what I like to hear and have found a personally satisfactory method to enhance that enjoyment over time. Specifications, white papers and the like are all essentially white noise (no pun intended). The essence is in perception.

When all is said and done, human ears remain analog transducers. They take a physical waveform (sound) and convert it into an electrical signal (nerve impulses) that the brain then decodes. The result of that process is either pleasant, unpleasant or somewhere in-between. In my case, my brain decodes some high resolution digital files as "sounding better" and others as "no noticeable difference." None of those decodings match what my brain interprets as "natural" when I reflect on the concerts I've attended. That is why I'm still married to vinyl as my reference source.

Everyone is different in how they interpret this process. We can all agree on this and that the recording process itself has marked effect no matter what technology is used as the playback source. Bad recordings are bad recordings. Good ones are good ones. We all recognize great music regardless of recording quality. Does the reproduction technology make a significant difference? That is where personal interpretation comes in. That is why we have lo fi, mid fi and hi fi gear and all of the manufacturers and hucksters that go along with it.

For me, it's all about having fun and happy listening!