Lets talk Sample rates.

HzTweaker

I know this is probably personal preference, but I'm going to kick things off with a question.: Say you're starting out your listening session (digitally of course) and you're listening to a CD and the SR is 44.1khz 16bit and as your changing albums you find yourself moving up in the SR realm. Do you find it difficult to listen to lower SRs after exposing your ears to the creaminess of higher SRs?

ChrisD06

I've personally found the only difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192 to be that one of them makes my gear work harder to process and uses more bandwidth/storage.

I'm 17 so I can still hear up to 20KHz and yeah, I dunno! Going from 320Kbps or even 900Kbs to 1411Kbps (this is 16/44.1) has always been extremely obvious to me especially in the treble region. I have tried and never once heard the difference between 24/192 and 16/44.1. I've tried recommendations from people online for songs that are supposedly noticeably different but not a single piece of my gear has ever given me a difference.

Now even if it was just my ear, the mathematicians and scientists who invented the CD chose 16/44.1 because of the fact that's as good as they determined the human ear to be. Furthermore plenty of people, including some more scientists (this stuff ain't hard to google) have also determined the difference is either so minor and generally related to hearing artifacts and distortions or non existent.

I personally store all of my digital music in 24/192 but I don't listen any higher than 16/44.1

HzTweaker

You're not going to experience the most out of your music by down sampling it. Some hifi/music enthusiast are trying to do the exact opposite. Most of the enjoyment? in doing so is trying different gear (dacs, cables, speakers so on). If you are completely content with the reproduction of your system than you have achieved a wonderful thing! I know I have, but knowing that there is a difference in sample rate, file formats etc (no mater how minor they may be) I would be in the band camp of trying to extract those differences.

pitdogg2

the mathematicians and scientists who invented the CD chose 16/44.1 because of the fact that's as good as they determined the human ear to be.

No at the time THAT was cutting edge as it had just been invented, pretty sure that at the time there wasn't anything larger.


Kind of like when my first kid had to have a thumb drive for school 32mb was cutting edge and like $75 to buy. Now you can buy terabytes for about the same cost.

ChrisD06

HzTweaker wrote: »

You're not going to experience the most out of your music by down sampling it. Some hifi/music enthusiast are trying to do the exact opposite. Most of the enjoyment? in doing so is trying different gear (dacs, cables, speakers so on). If you are completely content with the reproduction of your system than you have achieved a wonderful thing! I know I have, but knowing that there is a difference in sample rate, file formats etc (no mater how minor they may be) I would be in the band camp of trying to extract those differences.

I mean I got the opportunity to demo some planar magnetic speakers which apparently were $14K. The guy, Ron, used some Carver amps (which he told me to never buy lol) and his choice for media was Spotify and vinyl.

Yup, 320Kbps Spotify. I popped my Tidal account on his system and gave a listen to some of my favorite songs and holy friggin crap was I absolutely blown away. Don't think I've ever heard anything better in my life.

So here's what I'll do. I'm invited back over at Christmas time (or around there) so I'll actually use two Tidal accounts, one will be HiFi (16/44.1) and the other will be HiFi Plus (24/192) and I'll demo the same songs one after the other to see if I can tell the difference.

Like I said, the guy has planar magnetic speakers, Carver amps (Parasound and some others too, actually), and even the snake oil level cables to go along with it. Should be able to determine whether my ears are not capable of hearing 9216Kbps or if it's just BS. If I hear a difference I'll gladly eat my words

Also "but knowing that there is a difference in sample rate, file formats etc (no mater how minor they may be)" could have the same logic applied to some actual BS like pure silver 10 AWG speaker wire with shielding. What difference will this make over 12 AWG 99% OFC? Literally none that is noticeable. Scientifically it's so minor but it's there. You could also argue this is 'making the most of your system' but you have to be reasonable. Like yeah you can push the limits, but when you're burning money and relying on placebo... ehhhh

msg

@HzTweaker - Are you talking about CD only, or streaming services as well?
CD is limited to 44.1kHz/16-bit (sample rate/bit depth) but the playback is uncompressed, and the bitrate is 1.4kbps.

If streaming digital files, which file format? Specifically, is the playback a compressed or uncompressed codec? This is where the third factor comes in - playback bitrate.

Or are you using a DAC that you can configure to upsample?

HzTweaker

Quote:

"So here's what I'll do. I'm invited back over at Christmas time (or around there) so I'll actually use two Tidal accounts, one will be HiFi (16/44.1) and the other will be HiFi Plus (24/192) and I'll demo the same songs one after the other to see if I can tell the difference."


You aren't talking about the the difference between 44.1khz and 48khz, no a much larger gap (44.1/192). Its saying something if one can tell the difference between 44.1khz and 48khz being played on a (clears throat) modest hifi in a (doesn't clear throat) room not particularly designated to be a listening space. I can, not to brag. I understand that everyone's hifi, room, ears etc are different.

You don't have to wait till Christmas to experiment, I mean you seem to have an exceptional stereo setup. Why don't you try it yourself on your own rig and put your music where your stereo is said with a cheesy grin (side note I think that works lol).

If you can't tell the difference then come back to this thread and we'll suss out the components that you can change that'll make the biggest difference and go from there. Has it been mentioned on this forum that we like to help other spend their money?

HzTweaker

@msg

That's a great question. When I did my trial I was playing downloaded flac files from HDtracks in JRiver media player from my laptop to the gear listed in my MESSED Up signature (THANKS VANILLA lol). I started with files at 44.1khz and listened to music in sample rates all the way up to 192khz. Then jumped all the way back to 44.1khz and boy could I tell/hear the difference!

Interesting though now I'd like to listen to a CD then a 44.1khz flac album and compare. I'm not sure that'll be fair though there is a deference in cables between the two devices.

Clipdat

Wildcard: DSD

HzTweaker

Only from SACDs when my player decides to play them as such. It's getting old and finicky. Most of the time it'll only play them as CDs

Clipdat

Damn! That started happening with a Sony ES SACD changer my buddy had.

Good opportunity to replace yours with a Marantz SA8004 though!

nooshinjohn

ChrisD06 wrote: »

HzTweaker wrote: »

You're not going to experience the most out of your music by down sampling it. Some hifi/music enthusiast are trying to do the exact opposite. Most of the enjoyment? in doing so is trying different gear (dacs, cables, speakers so on). If you are completely content with the reproduction of your system than you have achieved a wonderful thing! I know I have, but knowing that there is a difference in sample rate, file formats etc (no mater how minor they may be) I would be in the band camp of trying to extract those differences.

I mean I got the opportunity to demo some planar magnetic speakers which apparently were $14K. The guy, Ron, used some Carver amps (which he told me to never buy lol) and his choice for media was Spotify and vinyl.

Yup, 320Kbps Spotify. I popped my Tidal account on his system and gave a listen to some of my favorite songs and holy friggin crap was I absolutely blown away. Don't think I've ever heard anything better in my life.

So here's what I'll do. I'm invited back over at Christmas time (or around there) so I'll actually use two Tidal accounts, one will be HiFi (16/44.1) and the other will be HiFi Plus (24/192) and I'll demo the same songs one after the other to see if I can tell the difference.

Like I said, the guy has planar magnetic speakers, Carver amps (Parasound and some others too, actually), and even the snake oil level cables to go along with it. Should be able to determine whether my ears are not capable of hearing 9216Kbps or if it's just BS. If I hear a difference I'll gladly eat my words

Also "but knowing that there is a difference in sample rate, file formats etc (no mater how minor they may be)" could have the same logic applied to some actual BS like pure silver 10 AWG speaker wire with shielding. What difference will this make over 12 AWG 99% OFC? Literally none that is noticeable. Scientifically it's so minor but it's there. You could also argue this is 'making the most of your system' but you have to be reasonable. Like yeah you can push the limits, but when you're burning money and relying on placebo... ehhhh

Your entire statement shows you have much to learn about audio… Do not be so quick to fall into the trap that wires and cables don’t matter. They do, and the higher you go in the quality of your equipment, the more they matter. I have some of those “snake oil” speaker cables you refer to, and they are the pure silver variety. They elevated the performance of my entire rig back in the day when I still had my Pass Labs gear. I was thinking for a moment about selling them off after I switched to the L800’s, so I swapped in some copper 12g. What a HUGE mistake. The AQ Meteors and WEL interconnects are not going anywhere.

As for the Magnepan 20.7’s (I am guessing on the speakers do to price point and being planars) paired with Carver tube amps, the very best performance I have ever had from a system in my home came from a set of MG20’s and my Carvers. Your salesperson is full of crap if he says to not consider the Carver amps, as they are a perfect match to the big Maggie’s.

HzTweaker

Clipdat wrote: »

Damn! That started happening with a Sony ES SACD changer my buddy had.

Good opportunity to replace yours with a Marantz SA8004 though!

Is this a plug for a unit you're selling?

I looked up the specs and have a question (this is where my ignorance is going to show lol):

Specs: Digital Outputs: Two digital outputs, one optical (Toslink) and one coaxial (RCA), are provided for sending the audio signal to the digital input terminals of a receiver or digital recorder. No signal is output from either during playback of the HD layer of a Super Audio CD; digital signals are output when playing a CD, the CD layer of a Hybrid SA-CD, or any device connected to one of the digital inputs.

Does this mean there's a format/layer of the SACD that isn't going to utilize the digital OPs thus still needing to use the analog OPs?

HzTweaker

Fair warning to those grammar and spelling gurus out there (if you made it this far): I'm slightly dyslexic and by far an English major.

Now for my excuse: I've been working late (12hr night shifts) the last few nights and I'm pretty exhausted. This usually results in uncomplete thoughts in some post due to my brain thinking faster than I can type.

Disclosure: I'm only posting this because it slowed down enough at work for me to reread this thread and MY post made me cringe lol.

Clipdat

HzTweaker wrote: »

Clipdat wrote: »

Damn! That started happening with a Sony ES SACD changer my buddy had.

Good opportunity to replace yours with a Marantz SA8004 though!

Is this a plug for a unit you're selling?

I looked up the specs and have a question (this is where my ignorance is going to show lol):

Specs: Digital Outputs: Two digital outputs, one optical (Toslink) and one coaxial (RCA), are provided for sending the audio signal to the digital input terminals of a receiver or digital recorder. No signal is output from either during playback of the HD layer of a Super Audio CD; digital signals are output when playing a CD, the CD layer of a Hybrid SA-CD, or any device connected to one of the digital inputs.

Does this mean there's a format/layer of the SACD that isn't going to utilize the digital OPs thus still needing to use the analog OPs?

No, I'm not selling my 8004.

SACD DSD layer only outputs over the analog outs. It's basically a form of DRM programmed into the players to prevent you from easily ripping them.

HzTweaker

Okay, that's a similar if not the same operation as my Pioneer. It uses it's internal dac and its analog OPs. I personally am not a fan of this operation. I mean the dac in my way newer Pre has to be better right? I guess the only way to find out is by getting the same as equivalent analog RCA cable and Coax cable to match my USB cable and have a "shoot out".

edit: Scratch that last bit WW doesn't seem to make a equivalent RCA or Coax to my existing USB.

honestaquarian

Note to a comment that was made above about 16bit/44.1khz on the compact disc being the best at the time.
Please note this was circa 1982 and it was before the person who made this comment was born.
It was what was affordable for what they were doing at the time. Not the best that they could do at the time. Anything higher would have been prohibitively expensive pushing the then new Compact Disc out of the realm where the average person could afford either the hardware or software.
I have had non audiophile friends and coworkers over and played discs that were CD's (Compact discs) and also 24/96 DAD's (Digital Audio Discs-remember THOSE?? They were the predecessor to the DVD-A and SACD) I have played these discs for people at home and as well as at Hi Fi shops. Each and every person who has heard them has heard the difference.Yes it is the same music on each disc. Including a Vietnam war veteran who said he would definitely not hear a difference, because his ears were blown out in the war (his words) Also an elderly couple, one of whom was in a wheel chair. The husband in the wheel chair swore up and down I had changed the volume. His wife told hm she was watching me and assured him I had only changed discs.

mantis

I've explored this topic a lot over the years. It started with SACD and DVD AUDIO for me and back when those technologies came out, I was so blown way. XRCD , REDBOOK etc all started to come into my focus and man was music fun, but was it really?

Multi channel music excited me more than 2 channel as that experience was more like being on stage, and being a guitar player, for me it really felt awesome. SACD had both so I really want after that format.

Here was the kicker for me, I had such a hard time finding music. I was loaded up with Demo material being in the bussiness and having every manufacture bring awesome demo disc's for all of us to sell their products but outside of that, I really had such a hard time finding albums I wanted to buy. My collection of these formats is so small and I gave up on it after being sick and tired of finding a badass album and only for the artist not to release it on any of these bitchin formats.

Years later, FLAC files high Rez music was released in file formats and DAC's and all kinds of computer programs where released. I thought "this is awesome" It's like SACD Is back which it was as you could get files in SACD and play them back from a hard drive, USB stick etc. Another fun time and again ran into many road blocks trying to find music. There was way more for me to buy at this point vs back when this craze started but still disappointed as I'm more of a hard rock metal guy first and then female voice jazz and all the other kinds of music is a distant choice.

As far as the actual topic of this thread, I have many mixed feelings about it. My honest feeling is how well the actual recording is not really how it's replayed. I have plenty of times where I had the SACD version, the FLAC version etc of a song vs a plain CD version and the CD version sounded just as good. Trust me I didn't like that at all as High Rez music when the recording is done right and the format is transferred right, it's to me is the best sounding media one can hear. No argument there. It's just not consistent and that sucks.

Just like comparing CD to SACD to Vinyl. I can't honestly sit here and say one is better than the other for any other reason the the spec's. SACD should be superior but then you can argue Vinyl isn't converted and CD should be the worse overall as it's basically technically arguably the worse out of the 3 but that doesn't hold true depending on what album you listen to. I have albums on all 3 and even streaming and File formats and never once was I able to say YES this format is better then the other one consistently.

All of that depresses me on one level but I don't put stock into all that madness anymore. I enjoy my music however I get it and IF I can listen to it with a higher bit rate , a better sample rate , format etc than I'm way in. But if I stream it from Apple Music and it sounds awesome, I still in.

Emlyn

For about the last decade now in my main systems I've been listening to digital music played back through a DSD DAC. After a long long time of finding 16 bit digital music to be annoying I finally got to a more analog sound without losing detail. WAV files are converted and stored in DSD format because drive space is cheap. Significantly smoother sound quality. Only high resolution files (24 bit FLAC or WAV or native DSD) don't get converted because there is no need to.

There is still an audible difference between 16 bit and high resolution tracks but not enough to make me run out and replace most of my music. Most of my listening is from music files that originated on CD and it's been quite a while since I bothered to buy any new high resolution music.

The real "high resolution" is still vinyl.

treitz3

You mean RTR?

Tom

HzTweaker

This is all very good information guys. Thank you for sharing your experiences.

Question: Does anyone think It'll be worth comparing a FLAC album of the same sample rate/bit depth as the CD offerings?

Keep in mind that the current cables between the two devices aren't even of the same manufacture?

ChrisD06

HzTweaker wrote: »

Quote:

"So here's what I'll do. I'm invited back over at Christmas time (or around there) so I'll actually use two Tidal accounts, one will be HiFi (16/44.1) and the other will be HiFi Plus (24/192) and I'll demo the same songs one after the other to see if I can tell the difference."


You aren't talking about the the difference between 44.1khz and 48khz, no a much larger gap (44.1/192). Its saying something if one can tell the difference between 44.1khz and 48khz being played on a (clears throat) modest hifi in a (doesn't clear throat) room not particularly designated to be a listening space. I can, not to brag. I understand that everyone's hifi, room, ears etc are different.

You don't have to wait till Christmas to experiment, I mean you seem to have an exceptional stereo setup. Why don't you try it yourself on your own rig and put your music where your stereo is said with a cheesy grin (side note I think that works lol).

If you can't tell the difference then come back to this thread and we'll suss out the components that you can change that'll make the biggest difference and go from there. Has it been mentioned on this forum that we like to help other spend their money?

I won't say I have an exceptional stereo setup. I use an AVR as am amp for my RT3000p lol .

I do have a heavily modded pair of Sennheiser open backs which weren't cheap, I can't remember the model but they are what I do most of my critical listening on. They're dann near flat.

I've never bothered to test the difference between 44.1 and 48. I can always do some more testing with what I do have when I get home on Monday.

ChrisD06

nooshinjohn wrote: »

ChrisD06 wrote: »

HzTweaker wrote: »

You're not going to experience the most out of your music by down sampling it. Some hifi/music enthusiast are trying to do the exact opposite. Most of the enjoyment? in doing so is trying different gear (dacs, cables, speakers so on). If you are completely content with the reproduction of your system than you have achieved a wonderful thing! I know I have, but knowing that there is a difference in sample rate, file formats etc (no mater how minor they may be) I would be in the band camp of trying to extract those differences.

I mean I got the opportunity to demo some planar magnetic speakers which apparently were $14K. The guy, Ron, used some Carver amps (which he told me to never buy lol) and his choice for media was Spotify and vinyl.

Yup, 320Kbps Spotify. I popped my Tidal account on his system and gave a listen to some of my favorite songs and holy friggin crap was I absolutely blown away. Don't think I've ever heard anything better in my life.

So here's what I'll do. I'm invited back over at Christmas time (or around there) so I'll actually use two Tidal accounts, one will be HiFi (16/44.1) and the other will be HiFi Plus (24/192) and I'll demo the same songs one after the other to see if I can tell the difference.

Like I said, the guy has planar magnetic speakers, Carver amps (Parasound and some others too, actually), and even the snake oil level cables to go along with it. Should be able to determine whether my ears are not capable of hearing 9216Kbps or if it's just BS. If I hear a difference I'll gladly eat my words

Also "but knowing that there is a difference in sample rate, file formats etc (no mater how minor they may be)" could have the same logic applied to some actual BS like pure silver 10 AWG speaker wire with shielding. What difference will this make over 12 AWG 99% OFC? Literally none that is noticeable. Scientifically it's so minor but it's there. You could also argue this is 'making the most of your system' but you have to be reasonable. Like yeah you can push the limits, but when you're burning money and relying on placebo... ehhhh

Your entire statement shows you have much to learn about audio… Do not be so quick to fall into the trap that wires and cables don’t matter. They do, and the higher you go in the quality of your equipment, the more they matter. I have some of those “snake oil” speaker cables you refer to, and they are the pure silver variety. They elevated the performance of my entire rig back in the day when I still had my Pass Labs gear. I was thinking for a moment about selling them off after I switched to the L800’s, so I swapped in some copper 12g. What a HUGE mistake. The AQ Meteors and WEL interconnects are not going anywhere.

As for the Magnepan 20.7’s (I am guessing on the speakers do to price point and being planars) paired with Carver tube amps, the very best performance I have ever had from a system in my home came from a set of MG20’s and my Carvers. Your salesperson is full of crap if he says to not consider the Carver amps, as they are a perfect match to the big Maggie’s.

I don't think they were 20.7s as this is $14K Canadian. I don't remember the model.

Wasn't a salesperson, he's a friend of my uncle's who happens to be an audiophile and wanted to show me his system. He explained Carvers have some flaws with them and that if I wanted tube amps to look elsewhere, or to go for high end solid state amps.

I still can't express how absolutely phenomenal the speakers sounded. My Polks sounded like TV speakers in comparison for a little while after lol.

Also as for the cables, I'll stick to what the science says

msg

Cool, bro.
Yeah, don't bother trying anything for yourself. Total waste of time. I mean, you can just Google it and pass it off as experience, which is just as good as.

jbreezy5

Emlyn wrote: »

For about the last decade now in my main systems I've been listening to digital music played back through a DSD DAC. After a long long time of finding 16 bit digital music to be annoying I finally got to a more analog sound without losing detail. WAV files are converted and stored in DSD format because drive space is cheap. Significantly smoother sound quality. Only high resolution files (24 bit FLAC or WAV or native DSD) don't get converted because there is no need to.

There is still an audible difference between 16 bit and high resolution tracks but not enough to make me run out and replace most of my music. Most of my listening is from music files that originated on CD and it's been quite a while since I bothered to buy any new high resolution music.

The real "high resolution" is still vinyl.

Providing a link that discusses this also. I interesting topic.

https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=114055.0

nooshinjohn

Also as for the cables, I'll stick to what the science says….



Science says that silver is a better conductor than copper and therefore there will be differences in sound, just as there are differences in sound between aluminum and copper.

If all wire sounds the same, the coat hangers from the dry cleaner would be a valuable commodity.

invalid

It also depends on how good the DAC is, you may not hear any difference between sample rates on an inferior DAC.

jbreezy5

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Also as for the cables, I'll stick to what the science says….



Science says that silver is a better conductor than copper and therefore there will be differences in sound, just as there are differences in sound between aluminum and copper.

If all wire sounds the same, the coat hangers from the dry cleaner would be a valuable commodity.

Silver is slightly better than copper in terms of electrical conductivity, but silver costs significantly more than copper, and even more still once put under audiophile branding.

Some listeners have concluded that they prefer the sound of copper over silver, claiming it is warmer sounding and silver being brighter sounding.

The real question is whether the sonic differences are actually sonic improvements in a given system (synergy) + whether, or not, the sonic improvements are commensurate with the cost.

IMO, more significant sonic gains can be had by upgrading speakers and/or system components as opposed to wires. Some costlier cables I’ve tried sounded inferior to uber-affordable ones.

To each his own.

treitz3

As far as Carver tube amps go? There were one or two of the current lineup that had issues. I have heard just about every tube amp the man ever put out (including the ultra-rare) and I can assure you the man knows how to build a wonderfully sounding tube amp.

Your friend was correct but not correct enough. Blanket statements like that about Carver tube amps is a disservice to the man and not altogether honest.

Tom

HzTweaker

HzTweaker wrote: »

This is all very good information guys. Thank you for sharing your experiences.

Question: Does anyone think It'll be worth comparing a FLAC album of the same sample rate/bit depth as the CD offerings?

Keep in mind that the current cables between the two devices aren't even of the same manufacture?

Tell me the forum thinks you have a silly idea without the entire forum actually telling me it's a silly idea lol.

Okay, I'm back from my much needed nap.

invalid wrote: »

It also depends on how good the DAC is, you may not hear any difference between sample rates on an inferior DAC.

Now here's an idea. The living room setup is definitely modest in comparison to the hifi rig, and since Chris mentioned that he'll have to try this with an AVR (or headphones, but I'm excluding those since I can definitely here the difference in SRs with my HPs); I'll try out the DAC in my Sony AVR (STR-DH590) which plays up to 96khz and listen to CDs using the PS5. Then I'll hook up the laptop directly and listen to FLAC albums up to the maximum it can decode and see if I can hear a difference there.

SCompRacer

Everything starts with the quality of the source recording. But I have had up sampling DAC's and preferred that over red book. FWIW I have Roon and use the DSP to convert PCM to DSD512, precise minimum phase and 7th order CLANS.

My DAC has the option of selecting a one-bit DAC to process DSD direct (no conversion) or convert DSD to PCM which allows experimenting with different interpolation filters.

Most DAC's convert DSD to PCM. In that case, IMO its best to experiment with what you feed it, up sampled PCM or DSD as to what sounds best. That way you eliminate any conversion.