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

[TerryO]

.

Edited March 20, 2022 by TerryO

[buddyev]

Qualifications aren’t a requirement for posting on this forum.

Lets not get down into the weeds, please.
 

[bob_m_54]

2 hours ago, rocky500 said:

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.

Sorry for being a bit pedantic, but the 320Kbps would be mp3 files, which are lossy anyway. If ripping CDs, you are limited to what the sample rate of the CD is, ie 44.1KHz, so not really sure how this fits with the topic either.

[aussievintage]

2 minutes ago, bob_m_54 said:

Sorry for being a bit pedantic, but the 320Kbps would be mp3 files, which are lossy anyway. If ripping CDs, you are limited to what the sample rate of the CD is, ie 44.1KHz, so not really sure how this fits with the topic either.

 

Yes, I have often seen confusion between bitrate and sample rate.

[rocky500]

36 minutes ago, bob_m_54 said:

Sorry for being a bit pedantic, but the 320Kbps would be mp3 files, which are lossy anyway. If ripping CDs, you are limited to what the sample rate of the CD is, ie 44.1KHz, so not really sure how this fits with the topic either.

It was more to do with what someone else said about not hearing a difference "Researchers" ....

I think a lot of them also do not hear a difference between 320Kbps and lossless files.

Edited March 19, 2022 by rocky500

[MLXXX]

8 hours ago, rocky500 said:

It was more to do with what someone else said about not hearing a difference "Researchers" ....

I think a lot of them also do not hear a difference between 320Kbps and lossless files.

 

Yes, formal papers by researchers [e.g. researchers at the BBC] report that most test subjects struggle to hear any difference between 320kbps stereo (using the AAC codec) and lossless. 

Edited March 19, 2022 by MLXXX

[frankn]

If you want to compare go to SoundKeeper Recordings and download the comparison tracks from several albums. 
Almost all DSP engines internally upsample whatever you feed them.  
http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm
 

[Tweaky]

On 18/03/2022 at 10:48 AM, 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.  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.

 

This is the technical reason a lower bitrate can very occasionally sound worse with a NOS R2R DAC, its just a trade off that is made with this design.

But the fact is the vast majority of musical content falls within the extremes [both very low and high frequencies ] before this becomes a problem., its one of those, sure you can measure it with test tones, but unlikely to hear it with music playback situations. 

 

The original question was "Would I hear a difference"?

For 99% of the HiRES downloads out there I would hazard a guess and say no, you wouldn't, and TBH a lot of the downloads labelled as HiRES have been found to be nothing of the sort when measured for sample rate and bit-depth, especially the stuff that was fist made available in HiRES format, which a lot of it was to be found to be a blatant ripoff, and the reason they started testing for this in the first place.

The blatant ripoff of labeling something as a HiRES version that wasn't, has for the most part, been curtailed since the record companies found that people could and were testing for these things.

 

To muddle the waters even more, you get the situation where part of a album will be HiRES and parts of it won't be.

There is a simple reason for that, and that is that the recordings themselves, if not wholly, at least partially, have been up-sampled from lower bitrate recordings, this is especially true with modern recordings of popular music, where multiple bitrates have been used during a recording, usually because they have been done at multiple recording studios, or they have used part of a demo done at a lower bitrate in the final recording.

 

Musical content, and the instruments used in its making also make a HUGE difference.

Anything that uses synthesized instruments, by nature of the beast, will be using a lower sample rate, mix that in with a vocal that was recorded with a high sample rate will give neither one thing nor another.

 

Its only when you get to simply mic'd acoustic music with vocals recorded at a hi sample rate that you really can start to hear a difference.

Few people can hear a difference TBH even with this sort of musical content, you'd have to have very good ears to recognize it.

I remember somebody that could, and that was the classical guitarist John Williams, he could tell the difference when recorded in 192hz.

He said he could hear his fingers come off the strings in 192hz, but found it hard to do the same at a lower sample rate.

 

This is minute in a sparse recording that can only just be detected by a person that knows what they are listening for, which to my mind doesn't fare well for those who are saying they can hear a difference in music where there is a hell of a lot more going on.

 

Since June 2011 HiFi News & Record Review have been doing tests on several Hi-RES downloads each month, and posting both a subjective and technical review on what they found for each album.

Some interesting and very varying results can be seen in these tests done over the years.

 

Although I have not heard this album myself [or ever heard of the band before TBH] the band FOXFEATHER - [album] The Nature of Things, which is recorded in 24bit 96-192khz is supposed to be a good one to test if HiRES done well is worth it.

Its on PSaudio's Octave Records, number 007.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2022 by Tweaky

[davewantsmoore]

On 17/03/2022 at 10:11 PM, andyr said:

then obviously he is a nong

Obviously.

 

On 17/03/2022 at 10:11 PM, andyr said:

why do some DACs offer far higher frequencies (like 768kHz)?

So the DAC can accept audio with 768kHz sampling rate.

 

Otherwise you would need to convert them to a lower sampling rate.... this can harm the audio if not done very carefully.

 

 

 

The discussion on higher sampling rates (and what if any benefit there can be in practise) is a rabbit hole of detail......  but in general sense Decky is 100% right.    There is not reason to expect that a higher sapling rate alone will offer any "higher resolution".   It simply allows you to store higher frequencies..... not store the lower frequencies with any extra precision.

 

For example.  44.1khz sampling rate can store frequencies up to ~20kHz..... 768khz sampling stores those same 0 to 20Khz with the same 'resolution' .... it can just also store frequencies from 20 to 384kHz.

 

[davewantsmoore]

On 18/03/2022 at 10:48 AM, U_J said:

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

 

Yes, this is very true.

 

... but of course if we resampled both the 96 and 192khz files in question .... they'd both, sound the same

[doogie44]

In the beginning of digital I thought it was all about bits and bitrate. In recent years I thought that 24/192 must be the top of the mountain (before diminishing returns set in). Having now listened extensively to many, many hi-res tracks I cannot reliably tell 96 from 192. So I don't bother.

 

I focus on the quality of the recording and getting my speakers and room 'right'

 

With my R2R Denafrips Pontus 2 DAC I'm even getting back to loving 16/44 more.

 

Just my 2c worth.

[davewantsmoore]

On 31/03/2022 at 9:51 PM, doogie44 said:

tracks I cannot reliably tell 96 from 192

 

There isn't any inherent reason to expect a benefit..... which is basically the complete opposite of what people are instructed to believe.

 

There still could be a benefit, but this is only in very corner cases ..... in general it should not be expected.

[Ars Paart]

On 17/03/2022 at 8:39 PM, billy170468 said:

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

 

According to some measurements done on one unit of that DAC model, anything over 12bits is wasted. 

 

Disallowed link: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-the-ps-audio-stellar-gain-cell-dac.9273/

 

If you like the sound, keep enjoying it but don't expect anything out of "hi res" audio files.

 

 

 

[Paul R]

On 17/03/2022 at 8:22 PM, 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

 

Your equipment is certainly HiRes enough to show up the differences. Whether you can actually hear the differences is the other question.

 

I've download a whole lot of audio tracks from various sites that offered free samples. Different bit and sampling rates. Sometimes the differences are subtle, but generally the improvements are discernable.

 

Before you buy, try samples from some of these sites.

 

https://samplerateconverter.com/educational/hi-res-audio#top-downloads

 

Have fun testing!

 

BTW, before you settled on the BHK 250, did you do a comparison with the Stellar M1200 monoblocks?

 

 

[jeromelang]

When comparing the sonic differences of different sampling rates, it is important to take into consideration these 2 issues that affect file playback/streaming:

1) a lot of DACs have problem dealing with sampling rate changes if tracks with different sampling rates are played right after one and another. Frankly, I only began to notice this after upgrading to a streamer with higher res capability. Previously with a streamer that peaks out at 44.1khz when I play normal tidal files or tidal MQA files, that problem was never noticed. It's only when hi-rez entered into the fold that's when the problem starts. I started to hear audible artefacts when sampling rate changes, especially quite common when playing tracks from a recommended streaming playlist. On a typical playlist with tracks compiled from different artistes and albums, the sample rates are all over the place. The other problem with Tidal is that, even within an entire studio album by an artiste, there could possibly be sample rate changes! I noticed this sonic issue happening with both my meitner dacs, with some blu-ray players streaming files off storage devices, and with soundbars streaming from Tidal/Qobuz. Based on these observation with different devices, I can only conclude that this is possibly, an industry-wide problem affecting all forms, and regardless of prices on all those digital streaming capable products I've tried.

 

2) when tracks within an album/folder play consecutively one after another, there is significant degradation of sound in the way soundstaging collaspe and many subtle musical details are not being reproduced. This problem arises due to memory retention in playback software/hardware. The way to avoid this problem is to play the last track in that same album/folder, then exit the album/folder before the current track ends, go to another album/folder to select a track to play it briefly (less than 10secs is ok) and then exit to go back to the original folder to play the subsequent track that comes next. By doing this, the subsequent track will sound open and dynamic with fully blosoomed soundstaging. OTOH, by allowing subsequent track to be played consecutively after one track ends, the subsequent track will sound dulled and closed-in, with a sense of impediment being introduced to the flow of musical ease. If one seeks to enjoy listening to an entire album from beginning to end with consistent sound quality, file playback / streaming is not ideal.

Taking note of the above mentioned issues, It is important for comparisons between different sample rates never to play a track with different sample rate consecutively after another. You should always "climatise" the dac by first playing another track with the same sample rate as the test track. And you also need to ensure both the "climatising" track and the test track are from different album/folders. It is tedious, yes, but only by doing this, then you will have alleviated the detrimental effects of sample rate switching and playback memory retention affecting the DAC sonic performance and and subsequently cloud your judgement.

 

 

 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, jeromelang said:

When comparing the sonic differences of different sampling rates, it is important to take into consideration these 2 issues that affect file playback/streaming:

1) a lot of DACs have problem dealing with sampling rate changes if tracks with different sampling rates are played right after one and another. Frankly, I only began to notice this after upgrading to a streamer with higher res capability. Previously with a streamer that peaks out at 44.1khz when I play normal tidal files or tidal MQA files, that problem was never noticed. It's only when hi-rez entered into the fold that's when the problem starts. I started to hear audible artefacts when sampling rate changes, especially quite common when playing tracks from a recommended streaming playlist. On a typical playlist with tracks compiled from different artistes and albums, the sample rates are all over the place. The other problem with Tidal is that, even within an entire studio album by an artiste, there could possibly be sample rate changes! I noticed this sonic issue happening with both my meitner dacs, with some blu-ray players streaming files off storage devices, and with soundbars streaming from Tidal/Qobuz. Based on these observation with different devices, I can only conclude that this is possibly, an industry-wide problem affecting all forms, and regardless of prices on all those digital streaming capable products I've tried.

 

2) when tracks within an album/folder play consecutively one after another, there is significant degradation of sound in the way soundstaging collaspe and many subtle musical details are not being reproduced. This problem arises due to memory retention in playback software/hardware. The way to avoid this problem is to play the last track in that same album/folder, then exit the album/folder before the current track ends, go to another album/folder to select a track to play it briefly (less than 10secs is ok) and then exit to go back to the original folder to play the subsequent track that comes next. By doing this, the subsequent track will sound open and dynamic with fully blosoomed soundstaging. OTOH, by allowing subsequent track to be played consecutively after one track ends, the subsequent track will sound dulled and closed-in, with a sense of impediment being introduced to the flow of musical ease. If one seeks to enjoy listening to an entire album from beginning to end with consistent sound quality, file playback / streaming is not ideal.

Taking note of the above mentioned issues, It is important for comparisons between different sample rates never to play a track with different sample rate consecutively after another. You should always "climatise" the dac by first playing another track with the same sample rate as the test track. And you also need to ensure both the "climatising" track and the test track are from different album/folders. It is tedious, yes, but only by doing this, then you will have alleviated the detrimental effects of sample rate switching and playback memory retention affecting the DAC sonic performance and and subsequently cloud your judgement.

 

 

 

And I thought Keith Howard was a perfectionist, unpacking all FLAC  into wav files to minimise unneeded CPU processing. Maybe you should contact Paul Miller, editor HiFi News to discuss your hypothesis and findings? Another can of worms here, in all seriousness.

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by Paul R

[muon*]

Meh....to high res.

 

16/44.1k done well sounds awesome.

[MLXXX]

4 hours ago, jeromelang said:

2) when tracks within an album/folder play consecutively one after another, there is significant degradation of sound in the way soundstaging collaspe and many subtle musical details are not being reproduced. This problem arises due to memory retention in playback software/hardware.

 

What do you mean exactly by "memory retention in playback software/hardware"?   (That's a new one on me.)

 

Edit: on 2nd thoughts perhaps best to let this go. I see you've made several novel claims. It might detour this thread unnecessarily to attempt to explore them.

Edited April 6, 2022 by MLXXX

[bob_m_54]

21 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

 

What do you mean exactly by "memory retention in playback software/hardware"?   (That's a new one on me.)

Maybe it's something that scientists don't fully understand yet..

[MLXXX]

2 minutes ago, bob_m_54 said:

Maybe it's something that scientists don't fully understand yet..

Yes, perhaps not readily explicable, and better left as a mystery for now.

[Wilson71]

3 hours ago, muon* said:

Meh....to high res.

 

16/44.1k done well sounds awesome.

 

Yeah I agree. It's an area that in theory should be better (hey who doesn't want epic sampling rates, they have to be "better", right?)

 

Theory would be true if human ears could hear frequencies as high that 96/192 can reproduce, but they can't... Hell most can't even hear what 44khz can reproduce.

 

The bit depth on the other hand can give you theoretical noticeable differences if used to its advantage. Human ears can hear well in excess of 16 bits worth of dynamic range, but what music outside of live music has this much dynamic range.

 

That being said the cats at sony/phillips knew what they were doing when they defined the redbook standards. Most "24 bit/192Khz" music doesn't even make use of the bandwidth available, so it's largely a waste of disk space and processing power, even assuming you can hear it - which you can't.

 

It's kinda/sorta of like putting 108 RON fuel in a car designed for 91.  Everybody will tell you their car runs better on the "premium stuff", but it doesn't, nor can it.

 

Great marketing though. Gets you to buy all your music all over again and it gives audiophiles something to prove their superiority of others with.

 

I guess I'm in trouble now.

 

But to the original poster - can you hear the difference between 24/96 and 24/192? Not a chance unless the source material was different to begin with.

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by Wilson71

[muon*]

Even a well implemented 14 bit 44.1k TDA1540D chip set in non oversampling mode can sound wonderful, and subjectively better than most high res dacs on the market.

[Wilson71]

Crazy thing is I've heard DAC's that sound better in 192khz (upsampling from 44) than they do in 96khz.  So perhaps some peoples DAC's just sound better at 192 than they do at 96.... nothing to do with the source material's sampling rate.

 

Hate to get too scientific in an audiophile forum as I know it causes a lot of blowblack!

 

The 24 bit part interests me a lot more than the 96/192 bit, but only if the music actually uses that dynamic range to begin with. I'd prefer a 24 bit option over 16 if one were available.

 

Now let's not get started on the DSD thing.

 

[Wilson71]

28 minutes ago, muon* said:

Even a well implemented 14 bit 44.1k TDA1540D chip set in non oversampling mode can sound wonderful, and subjectively better than most high res dacs on the market.

 

Well, scientifically 14 bit it still "better" than the S/N ratio of vinyl. Crazy then how vinyl still often kicks the pants out of digital even with a smaller available S/N ratio, let alone the theoretical equivalency of 44khz sampling.

 

We're not even using 16/44 properly yet people demand 24/192... I just don't get it. Demand better mastering, not higher bit depth and sampling rates.

 

Anyway all too controversial for a newbie forum member like me.

 

[jeromelang]

5 hours ago, MLXXX said:

 

What do you mean exactly by "memory retention in playback software/hardware"?   (That's a new one on me.)

 

Edit: on 2nd thoughts perhaps best to let this go. I see you've made several novel claims. It might detour this thread unnecessarily to attempt to explore them.

 

 

A CD disc will sound better if you load in the CD disc only after the player is first shut down and re-power up.

 

If you have already played any tracks on the disc, you stop play, and then play the disc again from the beginning, the disc will not sound as good as compared to how you first heard it when you load in the disc after the player was freshly powered up. 

 

If you take out the CD disc, power off the player, then power it up, load the CD disc and play it, it will sound fresh, dynamic and spacious as you heard it before.  

 

According to a former colleague, a former engineer at one of the top Japanese AV manufacturer in their digital dept, he said that upon shutting down, optical disc players will go into a initialization mode and one of the procedures involved clearing residual  "memory". Exactly what kind of memory and where does it reside in the servo system he couldn't say.  

 

If you freshly power up the player and play a CD disc that contains the exact same music on all the available tracks on the disc, the first track will sound good, but the next subsequent track will sound like soundstage has collapsed, the imaging come forward, and music seem to lose some sense of the ease of flow. The next subsequent track will again sound even more collapsed and forward. I have some promo CD singles that contain such content. All 3 tracks on the disc are the same song, the exact same recording. It is easy to observe changes from track to track because each track are the same music. One such promo CD single disc is Vanessa Williams' "saving the best for last".  If you stop play, take out the CD disc, power off the player and re-power up again, load in the disc and play it, you will again find the first track to be open and dynamic, and then the second track sound collapsed and lethargic, and the 3rd track becoming even worse. 

 

If you remove this CD single, shut down and re-power up the player, load in the CD, and apply a direct access method to play track 2 straight away, then track 2 will sound as fresh and dynamic as how you heard track 1. However when track 3 starts, again you will hear the collapsed soundstage and forward imaging happening again. If you want track 3 to sound fresh and dynamic, you will need to power off the CD player and do the same thing to cue up track 3 directly and play it. But not all players operate the same way, and some players won't allow you to directly cue up and play the specific track you desire, and every optical disc transport type will have different direct track access methodology.

 

All these above mentioned are effects of "playback memory retention"

 

Is it only confined to optical disc players only? NO!

 

Music streamed on youtube, from Tidal, Qobuz also have this issue.

 

Digital files played from streaming devices, media players, portable players all have the same problem.

With digital files, the way to minimise the problem is just as I described in my earlier post on this thread.   

 

It is important to take note of this issue whenever sound comparisons are being made because the sound differences can be large enough to cloud any conclusions. 

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by jeromelang