Hmm...
OK, non-persuadeds can do the "null test"
Let's see if you or anyone else can hear the "difference" in bitrates/resolutions
Null Test? Is this where two seemingly identical signals are compared by inverting one? The Inverted and non-Inverted should cancel each other out, and the result should be ...technically... no sound. Where ever you hear any sound, the signals are different. The more sound you hear, the more different the signals are.
Of course there is always the problem of making sure the signals are synchronized, any phase shift between the two sources will cause an increased output. Doing this inverted test is not as easy at it might sound.
With a 44.1k sample rated, you are taking 2.205 samples of a 20khz signal. That hardly seems enough to determine correct amplitude and phase, though with enough computing power you can fill in the blanks with a best guess, and at 20khz, which is functionally inaudible to a vast majority of people, a best guess is probably close enough. Though as Nyquist said, more than two times the highest frequency is enough to recover the
FREQUENCY, and in some applications that is enough. But it does not say that is enough to recover the
Frequency, Phase, and Amplitude. Though as I have indicated substantial computing power can make up for that.
At a 96k Sample Rate, you are taking 4.8 samples at 20khz. That's better, but still not perfect, and again with enough complex computing power, the signal can pretty much be restored. Especially true at 20khz which people can only theoretically hear.
At 10khz, 44.1k is 4.41 samples per cycle, and that is probably enough. At 10khz and 96k Sample Rate, you have 9.6 samples per cycle and that is most certainly enough to easily reconstruct the wave form.
At 192k Sample Rate, 10khz = 19.2 samples, and at 20khz that is 9.6 samples. Which to me seems a bit of overkill.
So, do you want your signal, the sound you hear, resolved through computing power or through Sample Rate? Your choice.
I suspect 44.1k was chosen at the time because it represented the peak of DAC technology that could reasonably be applied at a tolerable cost. Plus it create files small enough to fit on a CD. But today we have DACs that are 32 bit and with sample rates as high are 768k.
But I will add that far more than bit and sample rate, the factor that will make the most difference in what you hear is the
MIX. I suspect different formats have different mixes. SACD might sound better simply because the mix is better. The same with other non-tangible Hi-Res music, it could sound better simply because it is an audiophile mix instead of a consumer mix.
It is equally possible that those Hi-Res files you are buying are simply CDs that have been saved in high sample formats. It is equally possible that those new Vinyl Albums that everyone is so fond of are simply CDs cut into Vinyl.
Also if you go to Hi-Res download sites, you will see that what passed for Hi-Res is 24b/48k, which is not that much better than the 16b/44.1k of common CD.
There is a difference between what the specs might imply and what is actually delivered to the customer.
So, my point is, there are likely things not related to bit depth or sample rate, that can effect what you hear far more than whether a file is Hi-Res.
You may think you are comparing Apples to Oranges, but more than likely you are comparing a complex mix of assorted hybrid fruit that are mostly strange and exotic.
But then ... that's just my opinion. I can see value to higher resolution files, but not much point beyond 96k when file size is taken into consideration. More Bits and more Samples means substantially more data has to be stored and that means a substantially bigger file.
There was something from JVC which I think might have been called HCD, though I can't remember for sure, and since I can't remember what it was called I can't look it up. But JVC control the production of the music from the mixing board to the final CD to maximize the sound quality. And the results were supposedly impressive. They tried to maximize the potential of bog-standard Red-Book CD, and succeeded. They succeeded because they did not allow the sound to be compromised for commercial appeal.
Which bring us full circle to my original point, far more than any other factor, the Mixing and Production Values will determine the quality of what you hear far more than the medium in which it is presented.
But ...again... that's my opinion.
Steve/bluewizard