My hypothesis why analog and Hi-Res actually do sound better:
I'll start with a bold statement: Hi-Res sound quality is *NOT* about frequency. The fact Hi-Res happens to be "capable" of ultrasonic frequencies is neither here nor there. Analog tape running at 15 or 30 inches per second is also "capable" of ultrasonic frequencies. But that never crossed anyone's mind. I myself balk at "Hi-Res" headphones as a marketing gimmick. To qualify as "Hi-Res," headphones must reproduce up to 30KHz, making them needlessly expensive.
The laser focus on frequency is based on one assumption: the shortest wavelength blips on the carrier audio waveform exclusively represent the highest frequencies. And humans are incapable of hearing anything above 20KHz, ergo it's humanly impossible to hear sound improvement in sampling rates above 44.1KHz. I beg to differ. I submit those blips also represent quick transitions from one instrument to the next, one effect to the next, from an instrument to an effect, or vice versa. Perhaps more so than the highest audio frequencies. Those lines of separation between instruments and effects are far more susceptible to digital truncation than actual audio frequencies. When those lines get blurred by digital truncation, the audible separation between them, and the completeness of their individual sound also get blurred. Notice I said "blurred" and not "obliterated." I'll concede "obliterated" would be a gross exaggeration.
I would compare it to the way the screen was drawn on old CRT TVs and computer monitors. The beam from the "electron gun" did not draw the blue sky in its entirety. Then clouds in their entirety. Then a tree on one side of the screen in its entirety. Then another tree on the other side of the screen in its entirety. The cathode ray scanned horizontal lines from top to bottom. On interlaced screens, it would scan every other line. Then on a second pass, fill in every other line skipped by the first pass. When the beam hit a portion of the screen where there was sky, the beam would turn blue. When it hit a tree, it would turn whatever shade of green was appropriate for the light and shadow of particular leaves. And so on.
Likewise, the carrier audio waveform doesn't sound the lead guitar in its entirety. Then the bass (guitar) in its entirety. Then the snare drum in its entirety, et cetera, et cetera. Through a complete cycle of the carrier waveform, it repeatedly cycles through every instrument and effect many times. Every time it does, there's a quick transition between them. That of course is a massive oversimplification, for illustrative purposes only. The audio waveform in reality is quite complex.
So what specifically makes analog and Hi-Res sound better? A more open, transparent and lively sound. Opening the mix in turn gives the sound of every instrument and effect more room to expand, making each and every one more individually audible. Reverb in particular sounds lighter, airier, and more free flowing throughout the mix. Because it has more space in which to flow. The background instruments and effects have less tendency to get lost in the clutter. If this sounds convoluted to you, try describing the beauty of the Grand Canyon to someone who's never seen it. Not objectively the various colors of the various layers of sedimentary rock. The "BEAUTY." I suspect your language would be equally convoluted.
What qualifies me identify what makes analog and Hi-Res sound better? I have a medical condition, which typically makes those afflicted more hypersensitive to sound than the average person. This combined with well above average technical knowledge uniquely enables to put my finger on precisely what makes them sound better. The vast majority of people who do in fact hear the more open, transparent, lively sound are unable to pin down exactly what they're hearing. Let alone articulate it. They use the old fallback description "dynamic range," or the even more vague "warmer" for lack of better words. Of course it's technically impossible to hear "more dynamic range" in a vinyl record. That's like seeing "more color" in an old SD CRT television.
No doubt many will ask, "What about those double blind studies?" Ultimately, the biggest hurdle those studies have to overcome is they're trying to prove a negative. That nobody really can hear any Hi-Res or analog sound improvement. That anyone who "thinks" they can are psychosomatic, and/or experiencing auditory hallucinations. Suppose a study compared the top consumer analog tape speed of 7.5IPS with the studio speeds of 15 and 30IPS. Apart from a possible absence of tape hiss, I suspect the results would be nearly, if not totally identical. I highly doubt any audio professional would be swayed by such a study to believe running tape faster than 7.5IPS was or is a waste of tape.
That being said, I specifically take issue with those studies on 2 main points:
1) Many, most, or perhaps all the people conducting those studies don't themselves know what makes analog and Hi-Res sound better. If any can hear it at all, they can't put their finger on what it is. If they themselves don't know what improves sound, how can they train participants to listen for it? And yes, some training is absolutely essential. In similar studies comparing MP3 and a CD, the ability to differentiate between them was much greater when participants were trained to listen for what specifically makes MP3s sound worse.
2) It's true most people simply cannot hear the more open, transparent, lively sound. In the same way, and for the same reason most people can't hear the individual notes in a chord. The way most young people could never qualify as a naval Sonar Technician, because they can't hear the subtle difference between the various tones. Before spending a single dollar training new Sonar Techs, the US Navy will thoroughly test candidates' hearing. To ensure they can in fact distinguish the various tones. One of my own "A School" classmates was originally slated to be a Sonar Tech, but failed the hearing test. He instead trained as an Avionics Tech. Incidentally, one of my uncles was a Sonar Tech in the Navy. I have a family history of hearing subtleties most people can't.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram