High-resolution audio

"[3] Previously, the Japan Electronics and Information Technology Industries Association (JEITA) in March 2014 and the Japan Audio Society (JAS) in June 2014 published definitions, requiring at least 96 kHz/24-bit with the inclusion that a “Listening evaluation process is required by each applicant.”[4] File formats capable of storing high-resolution audio include FLAC, ALAC, WAV, AIFF, MQA and DSD (the format used by SACD).

[4] The related "Hi-Res Audio Wireless" standard additionally requires support for the LDAC, LHDC, LC3plus and MQair codecs.

[12] Whether there is any benefit to high-resolution audio over CD-DA is controversial, with some sources claiming sonic superiority: ...and with other opinions ranging from skeptical to highly critical: Business magazine Bloomberg Businessweek suggests that caution is in order with regard to high-resolution audio: "There is reason to be wary, given consumer electronics companies' history of pushing advancements whose main virtue is to require everyone to buy new gadgets.

[20] Joshua Reiss performed a meta-analysis on 20 of published tests, saying that trained listeners could distinguish between hi-resolution recordings and their CD equivalents under blind conditions.

In a paper published in the July 2016 issue of the AES Journal,[21] Reiss says that, although the individual tests had mixed results, and that the effect was "small and difficult to detect," the overall result was that trained listeners could distinguish between high-resolution recordings and their CD equivalents under blind conditions: "Overall, there was a small but statistically significant ability to discriminate between standard-quality audio (44.1 or 48 kHz, 16 bit) and high-resolution audio (beyond standard quality).

[22] Some technical explanations for sonic superiority cite the improved time domain impulse response of the anti-aliasing filter allowed by higher sample rates.