Is the difference between 96k/24-bit and 192k/24-bit audible??? (1 Viewer)

[Joe]

In $1000 - $2000 receivers, is the difference between 96k/24-bit and 192k/24-bit audible? Also, other that that, is there any other reason you should consider one over the other?

Thanks.

 

[Yogi]

Depending on your setup probably not. This should certainly not be a reason for deciding one over the other unless everything else is the same, including cost.

 

[Marty Neudel]

44.1k allows a frequency range above 20kHz. Many have pointed out that no human being can hear that high. But the arguments countered that some of us can sense those notes. 96k allows for a frequency range extending above 40k. Even our pets get in trouble in that range. 192k allows for an 80-90kHz range; and that's just downright silly.

Also note that only the DACs go this high; so far the ADCs only go to 96k. So, we know there's an ADC upgrade coming.

However, the answer to your question is that there's no real world advantage to a 192k dac (IMHO).

Marty

 

[DonT]

one thing you have to remember though, the higher samlping frequency allows for the accurate reproduction of harmonics, which some audiophiles think make a difference...sounds fishy to me...

 

[LanceJ]

Here is a review of Pro Tool's new 192kHz-capable recording system by "MIX" magazine: http://mixonline.com/ar/audio_digidesign_pro_toolshd_2/
Quote from above site:
"There was a significant difference in sound quality between 48 and 96 kHz, and a smaller difference between 96 and 192 kHz. Either way, this added up to a very large difference between 48 and 192 kHz. Recordings made at the new rate had a wonderful depth of field, and the details in the instruments' tones seemed to stay cohesive longer as they decayed. The talking drum sounded........."
This is from a very thorough review of this piece of equipment and there is more written about it's sound quality on the provided link.
While we can't really hear anything above @20Khz, the real advantage of the higher sampling rates is 1) They can record smaller/more delicate details compared to the CD's more "chunky" sampling rate of only 44.1kHz; 2) PCM digital uses a filter to remove unwanted frequencies (that are a result of the PCM process itself) above a certain sampling rate's maximum hi-frequency reproduction limit. In CD's 44.1kHz system, everything above 20kHz gets removed, but the filter (a rather strong one actually, which is why it's referred to as a "brickwall" filter) can have some negative side effects of its own. And those side effects can effect the audible ones the player sends to the amplifier; in this case, its messing with the delicate high frequencies. However, the amount of that "messing around" depends on what type of filter & how well it was designed. And its debatable if most people can hear those effects anyway in everyday use, unless extremely revealing playback equipment is used.
But with 96kHz & 192kHz sampling rates, that high frequency cut-off point is much higher, WAY above the audible range. This also means that filter can be made more gradual (less of a brick-wall) and this causes less distortion of the frequencies below its cutoff point.
Personally, I think the higher sampling rates contribute more to a higher quality analog signal than the filtering issue. And the longer word lengths help too, since the analog-to-digital converter (ADC) has a larger palette of codes to "choose" from to desribe that particular part of the analog waveform.
On Panasonic's dvd-audio site, they have a very good Flash animation of the sampling rate thing:
http://www.panasonic-europe.com/dvdaudio/
After choosing your language, click on "About dvd-audio" and then click on "sampling & quantisation". Note: contrary to what some people think, a player using PCM digital does not output a staircase waveform through its RCA jacks! The player's digital-to-analog converter (DAC) smooths that stairstep electrical signal into a proper sine wave before sending it out.
LJ

 

[Greg Kolinski]

LOL, I'm so deaf from 20 years of air impact tools ,all I can hear is my sub woofer.Actually in less you have a super killer system,I dont think it wouls make much difference.But there are always 2 "camps"on any question

 

[Jeff Kohn]

While I think there is a difference between 44khz and 96khz, I think if you look at the numbers you'll see that there's really no way you're going to hear the difference between 96khz and 192khz output. Of course if you compare a 24/96 DAC and a 24/192 DAC you might be able to hear a difference, but that difference is likely to be more a function of the sonic character of the DAC (warm/neutral/bright) that of the sample rate. For instance, quite a few people who have compared the Outlaw 950 (24/192 DAC's) and Rotel 1066 (24/96 DAC's) have stated a preference for the 1066, because they felt the Outlaw sounded a bit harsh. Others liked the more forward sound of the Outlaw's DAC's. Whether one or the other is better is stricly a matter of preference, and I don't think the perceived differences have anything to do with 96khz vs 192khz; those two DAC's just sound different.

That said, I'm all for using the highest sample rate possible for recording, because some precision is bound to be lost during the production/mixing/mastering process, so if you record at 192khz that "lost information" will be further removed from what actually gets played back. So while 192khz may have advantages for recording, I think 24/96 is plenty good enough for playback.

 

[LanceJ]

......and I don't think the perceived differences have anything to do with 96khz vs 192khz; those two DAC's just sound different.

And another very important piece of circuitry that everyone seems to forget that helps determine the component's sonic character: the analog output stage that the DAC is connected to. This is the part that boosts the DAC's signal enough to be pushed through the RCA jacks & interconnect, or to whatever needs this signal. Power amps aren't the only thing that have a certain sound "personality".
So comparing a Rotel and Outlaw processor, from two different companies with different ideas of how something should sound, is not a reliable test of the 96kHz vs. 192kHz sampling rates. I'm not saying the differences are large or anything but it looks like the writers at MIX magazine found a difference (slight though it was) with their carefully setup testing rig.
BTW, people that own DADs, and dvd-audios w/96kHz tracks, do say that they sound uniformly excellent.
LJ

 

[Lee Scoggins]

And another very important piece of circuitry that everyone seems to forget that helps determine the component's sonic character: the analog output stage that the DAC is connected to.

Excellent point Lance and it also explains why the Pioneer universals sound terrible.

I have several DADs from Chesky and Classic and they sound wonderful.