This is a terrible source material for this kind of test. The biggest audible difference between 8 bit and 16 bit, assuming the same sample rate, is the noise f

This is a terrible source material for this kind of test. The biggest audible difference between 8 bit and 16 bit, assuming the same sample rate, is the noise floor. But, this source material is LOUD throughout, which masks the noise floor. It is in dynamic material that bit depth makes an audible difference. The prior listening test used Gangnam Style, which is also loud and lacking in dynamics that would reveal audible distortion due to low bit depth. The thing is that I agree with Monty on the (lack of) need for 24/196 audio for consumers. My degree is in audio, and I (mostly) understand the physics of the thing (and have done tons of blind listening experiments in controlled environments using professional equipment, as well as using high quality measurement tools for spectrum analysis, etc.). But, this particular test isn't really a useful proof that we don't need 24 bit and 196k. It only proves that loud material can mask noise, even at 8 bits. Using a more dynamic Neil Young song would have been a better choice. Maybe Old Man, or similar. Acoustic guitar is good for allowing one to discern audio equipment flaws. It is commonly the source material people use when trying to rate good pieces of equipment that have very small differences across a very broad price spectrum (microphones, preamps, etc.). Nonetheless, I got 8/10 right using crappy ear buds in a noisy place, which isn't much better than random chance. I'm pretty confident I'd be able to recognize 8 bit vs 16 bit on any reasonably dynamic source played on good equipment in a good listening environment. But, I also know I can't recognize 16 bit vs 24 bit (I've tested), and I know Neil Young can't either. Neil Young was around for the era when ADC/DAC quality was very poor; it actually was true that many early digital recordings were inferior to the very high end analog recordings of the time. And, it's even true that when recording, mixing, and mastering, it is useful to work at higher bit depths (because there's a lot of summing, raising the noise floor each time; though that may just mean you need to process at 24 or 32 bits, rather than actually record at higher depths). It seems obvious, to me, that the reason most music sounds like shit is because of the loudness wars (dynamics reduction), lossy compression (cramming a lot of music down tiny network pipes), and the low quality of most people's listening equipment and environment. Those factors utterly dwarf the noise floor of 16 bit audio, and completely nullify any frequency advantages of higher bit rates (even if we could hear them). In short: Pono is elitist bullshit, as most audiophile stuff is.