24bit 96khz vs 192khz. Will I hear the difference?

[billy170468]

Hey all,

 

Just about to download (buy) some albums and most of them have choices between the two.

 

There is a price difference and I was wondering if I will hear the difference between the two khz's?

 

If you need more info just ask

 

Cheers

 

Andy

 

 

[stereodave]

It depends if your system has enough resolution for you to hear the difference. If your primary concern is emotional engagement with the music then 24/96 should suffice. If you are more concerned about the sound then the higher resolution should help.

[billy170468]

Hiya @stereodave

 

my system consists of:

 

Auralic Aries G1

PS Audio Stellar Gain DAC/preamp

PS Audio BHK 250 Amp

Lenehan Audio ML2 Refs

 

Cheers 

 

Andy

[awayward]

The recording quality is far more important than bit depth and sample rate.

[Decky]

No

[andyr]

24 minutes ago, Decky said:

No

 

Really helpful, Decky - do you mean "No" to this:

 

1 hour ago, billy170468 said:

I was wondering if I will hear the difference between the two khz's?

 

or this:

 

39 minutes ago, awayward said:

The recording quality is far more important than bit depth and sample rate.

 

Andy

 

[Decky]

3 minutes ago, andyr said:

 

Really helpful, Decky:

 

 

I appreciate your support - I also think that I was very helpful. 

[aussievintage]

5 minutes ago, andyr said:

 

Really helpful, Decky - do you mean "No" to this:

 

 

or this:

 

 

Andy

 

 

You should assume he is answering the question in the thread title  

[andyr]

4 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

You should assume he is answering the question in the thread title  

 

But if I do that, av ... then obviously he is a nong - as if no-one can hear the difference between 96kHz and 192kHz ... why do some DACs offer far higher frequencies (like 768kHz)?

 

Andy

 

[aussievintage]

5 minutes ago, andyr said:

 

But if I do that, av ... then obviously he is a nong - as if no-one can hear the difference between 96kHz and 192kHz ... why do some DACs offer far higher frequencies (like 768kHz)?

 

Andy

 

 

For other nongs to waste their money purchasing them...    

 

FWIW      I cannot reliably convince myself that it makes any real world difference to my listening. Have you really tried to prove it to yourself?   

 

 In fact, give me a well recorded 44.1 kHz album anyday, over a badly recorded 96kHz or anything higher.

[triocorp]

I think he is asking, if all other things are equal, would 192khz be better than 44.1khz?

 

Personally, I can tell the difference between 44 and 96, but going to 192 is much harder to detect. Its all up to each individual listener.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, stereodave said:

It depends if your system has enough resolution for you to hear the difference.

It is not the resolution of the system.  I could not hear a difference on my Kii Three when I took part in Dr Aix's  blind test

https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6928

 

2 hours ago, awayward said:

The recording quality is far more important than bit depth and sample rate.

Agreed.  Any perceived difference is often due to different masters.  Tidal in particular use different recordings at different resolutions.

 

3 hours ago, billy170468 said:

There is a price difference and I was wondering if I will hear the difference between the two khz's?

Like me, most of the people in Dr AIX survey could not tell the difference between CD and high res.

 

Suggest you do a comparison with these samplers 

http://www.2l.no/hires/

The same master is used to produce the various bit depths and sample rates.

Edited March 17, 2022 by Snoopy8
Typo

[TerryO]

3 hours ago, billy170468 said:

Hey all,

 

Just about to download (buy) some albums and most of them have choices between the two.

 

There is a price difference and I was wondering if I will hear the difference between the two khz's?

 

If you need more info just ask

 

Cheers

 

Andy

Hi Andy,

 

Everyone’s HiFi system and ears are different, why not buy one track of music that you use as a reference song in both and then do a comparison? Once you have listened to both then you will have a better idea if it is worth the extra or not.

 

cheers,

Terry

[Phill451]

I’m not sure about the difference between 96 and 192, but my Tidal account occasionally defaults to 44.1 without me knowing. After 10 to 15 minutes of listening I start to think something is not right, and sure enough it has reverted to the lower rate. I think there is a perceptible difference but am also confident I’d fail in a blind test.

[Ittaku]

14 hours ago, billy170468 said:

Just about to download (buy) some albums and most of them have choices between the two.

 

There is a price difference and I was wondering if I will hear the difference between the two khz's?

Try it for yourself, but my answer is no. You would really struggle to tell the difference between 44.1 and 96, but there are subtle differences, usually to do with filtering, but between 96 and 192... no.

[U_J]

Logically, Technically and Objectively the straightforward answer would be no, however...

 

Some DAC's ( not all ) sound better with upsampled files for a variety of reasons, many of the users of this forum report an improvement in sound when they upsample files to 768Khz using HD player, the only reason that this can make a difference is not because you have made any fundamental changes to the original music or spectrum of the mastered music but because your DAC may behave better at higher bitrates effectively pushing some of the nasties caused by the decoding and filtering well out of band.  For a true NOS R2R dac upsampled 44Khz music will not have the early roll off in the top end , whether this is hearable is open to debate but I have seen enough contributors claiming a benefit to believe them.  I have not got around to trying upsampling to my Holo May to convince myself there is a difference.

 

I too ( and 3 audiophile friends ) could not hear a difference between the AIX hi res challenge tracks but that could also have been a limitation in my own system but having seen the finished results of his poll it cannot be argued that there was  statistical proof that anyone could hear the difference. 

[U_J]

By the way Sound Liaison did make available a track from their latest Carmen Gomes "Ray" album for free download at 768Khz so you could compare it forself to the lower bit rate versions, I  tried it and I could not perceive any difference to their standard 352Khz version.

 

They do provide free downloads for every possible bitrate and form of a "Fool for You" so you can try it for yourself   https://www.soundliaison.com/index.php/6-compare-formats

 

Sound Liaison provide wonderfully mastered recordings, some of the Carmen Gomes albums and the One Mic recorded albums are stunning and will really show off your system ( or reveal its flaws )

[aussievintage]

1 hour ago, U_J said:

Some DAC's ( not all ) sound better with upsampled files for a variety of reasons, many of the users of this forum report an improvement in sound when they upsample files to 768Khz using HD player, the only reason that this can make a difference is not because you have made any fundamental changes to the original music or spectrum of the mastered music but because your DAC may behave better at higher bitrates effectively pushing some of the nasties caused by the decoding and filtering well out of band. 

 

Also, I have read opinion that you theoretically might be able to use a better quality upsampling method than the one built into the DAC.

 

However, I the OP is talking about original source material that he might download.  The question is, how did the source material get to be those higher rates?  It might have just been upsampled, which you can do yourself.  If it is recorded at those rates,  it is still doubtful if the difference will be heard.

[Ittaku]

Just now, aussievintage said:

However, I the OP is talking about original source material that he might download.  The question is, how did the source material get to be those higher rates?  It might have just been upsampled, which you can do yourself.  If it is recorded at those rates,  it is still doubtful if the difference will be heard.

The short period where some ruthless manufacturers upsampled their 44k material to higher rates has long since ended, so it's fair to assume that unless mentioned otherwise, higher sample rates are simply less downsampled from their masters. Most studios tend to keep their masters at 192k these days. Given the masters are 192k, mathematically it is an ever so slightly lossy conversion to 44k compared to say 48k, but it's almost certain that if you hear a difference, it is more to do with your DAC's filter than the downsampling to 44k.

[NonPlayableCharacter]

Statistically I have proven that I can't do it reliably between 96 vs 192 - it's not much better than 50/50 to be fair; however, a bad master at 192kHz convinced me that the master itself was way more important than the sample rate.

Edited March 19, 2022 by El Tel

[MLXXX]

On 17/03/2022 at 9:29 PM, triocorp said:

I think he is asking, if all other things are equal, would 192khz be better than 44.1khz?

The thread title is: 24bit 96khz vs 192khz. Will I hear the difference?

 

So it is about comparing one high resolution format with another, rather than comparing with a so-called "low resolution" CD quality.

 

The supplier is apparently charging more for 192kHz versions than 96kHz versions. 

My answer to the OP's question would be: no, an audible difference would not be expected.

[MLXXX]

On 17/03/2022 at 9:11 PM, andyr said:

as if no-one can hear the difference between 96kHz and 192kHz ... why do some DACs offer far higher frequencies (like 768kHz)?

 

Because engineers have been asked to design DACs with higher bitrates to meet consumer demand.   Some audiophiles are prepared to pay for very high sample rate source material on the off-chance it might sound better. And other audiophiles strongly believe that very high sample rate source material will sound better.

[TerryO]

.

Edited March 20, 2022 by TerryO

[MLXXX]

1 minute ago, TerryO said:

An audible difference would not be expected by whom?

By a human listener.

 

Researchers have been flat out getting people to distinguish 44.1kHz material from 48kHz material, in formal tests.

[rocky500]

9 hours ago, MLXXX said:

By a human listener.

 

Researchers have been flat out getting people to distinguish 44.1kHz material from 48kHz material, in formal tests.

I have not seem many researchers but I get what you saying.

The same ones also tend to say that there is no difference in say upsampling, cables, dacs, capacitors, amplifiers, tweaks etc.

 

I personally also can quote you "are prepared to pay for very high sample rate source material on the off-chance it might sound better."

That would be me. Say, It might not be different in my current system at the time, but as I change things (eg. Dac) or borrow other components, there might possibly be a difference for me then.

Just like I record the higher bitrates when putting on my PC (no 320kbs and it does cost more as buy bigger drives) as why not.

 

I have learnt along the way that it can be the subtle things that really push this hobby for me in my enjoyment with my listening sessions.

Edited March 18, 2022 by rocky500