Steven Wilson CD vs. High-Res: If SW can't tell the difference...

[ar surround]

I'm impressed that you could land on that conclusion! ie. That you must not have any music with extended "whatever it is" that requires HD res.

The only 'new' stuff that I have are things like @Mr. Afternoon 's releases or the first new Tears for Fears album from SDE. And those albums are all 96/24 surround sound. So I have nothing of them in 44.1/16 with which to make a comparison. I doubt if taking the time to set up a double-blind test of the stereo versions volume adjusted to within 0.1 of a dB would even be worth the effort.

Besides, I'd rather listen to raunchy sounding material that I like instead of pristine music for which I have no interest. Well, OK, Tommy James and the Shondell's Hanky Panky and the Moody Blues Go Now are really horrid sounding. (Eric Records did a commendable effort trying to make these two singles listenable.)

 

[jimfisheye]

Level matching multiple analog devices is the daunting setup. Doing a trial of sample rate conversion or bit depth reduction can be done with free software. The levels will not change.

Don't over think it. Take the best sounding HD file you have at the moment. The question is weather or not we think the format can hold more audio goodness. So convert the thing to SD. If you don't hear anything degrade, now you have that data point.

One wants to find the most faithful copy. A fair quest because we have novelty editions often enough. I'm saying that the limitations heard in the novelty editions have little to nothing to do with any of these formats. Dismissing a CD and buying a bluray instead might be logical. And the bluray might turn out to also be the best sounding version often enough. The point is not to dismiss stuff in CD format because you will find random best copies in the format at times.