charliehatch wrote:

rjohn79395 wrote: I don't know how much better or differently a 192k file would sound vs. a 96k.
Rick

My hearing rolls off at 4 kHz (gasp!), and even though I've tried and tried, I cannot tell the difference between 44 kHz and higher sample rates. I can't hear the difference between reconstruction filters either (I've tried and tried there too); the effects there must be above 4 kHz.

I had a friend over and set up a blind listening test. He has way better hearing than mine. I played two tracks with identical content, one at 44 kHz, the other at 176 kHz. (These were Reference, so probably really recorded at those rates, or equivalent.) I swapped them at random and he couldn't tell which one I was playing. He ended up picking the 44 kHz track as sounding better! Go figure. (Maybe his hearing isn't as good as I thought...)

I firmly believe that some people can hear differences in sample rate (probably due to filter differences). I'm just not one of them.

Oh well. Funny thing is, I can still hear subtle differences in components. I think that's because most of the musical information is below 4 kHz.

Charlie

Hey Charlie

Some thoughts on digital music quality... first, uncompressed is superior to compressed, period, whether 16 bit 44.1 CD quality or any of the hi res formats. I just don't stream compressed music.

Re in the uncompressed world of hi res vs. CD/16 bit. I think a lot depends on how well recorded the music is. I've heard stunning 16 bit recordings, and blah 24 bit stuff. I do think those who choose to record in hi res tend to be more apt to pay attention to mic' placement and quality, room dynamics etc., to try to capture a "live performance". But I really don't know know how much of any other difference is due to bit depth vs. sample rate, or format (DSD vs FLAC vs MQA, etc.). But there IS a lot more (8X or so) digital data in a hi res recording vs. 16 bit. How well that extra data expands the musical experience, or can be discerned by the human ear, varies it seems.. my own experience is that well done hi res, any format, is just sometimes a little extra stunning, detailed, "live".

Whatever works for the listener...

Rick

rjohn79395 wrote: first, uncompressed is superior to compressed, period, whether 16 bit 44.1 CD quality or any of the hi res formats. I just don't stream compressed music.

Re in the uncompressed world of hi res vs. CD/16 bit. I think a lot depends on how well recorded the music is. I've heard stunning 16 bit recordings, and blah 24 bit stuff. I do think those who choose to record in hi res tend to be more apt to pay attention to mic' placement and quality, room dynamics etc., to try to capture a "live performance". But I really don't know know how much of any other difference is due to bit depth vs. sample rate, or format (DSD vs FLAC vs MQA, etc.). But there IS a lot more (8X or so) digital data in a hi res recording vs. 16 bit. How well that extra data expands the musical experience, or can be discerned by the human ear, varies it seems.. my own experience is that well done hi res, any format, is just sometimes a little extra stunning, detailed, "live".

I agree on compressed versus uncompressed.

Increased bit depth should be capable of conveying more subtle low-level detail, with improved ambience, but whether that information gets recorded (or played back) depends on all the links in the recording and playback chain. It is a long way down there, and a lot of bad things can happen along the way.

I listened to an old 1960s vintage rock album the other day, streamed "hi res" (24 96) on Qobuz. It sounded like crap with much of the higher frequency information missing and limited dynamics. So yes, definitely, high resolution delivery doesn't guarantee superior sound, but it will convey crappy sound in all its horrific detail.

Charlie

Right on, Charlie

The more resolving the system, the more junk and poor quality show up in playing, and the higher the res, the more it is displayed. I do wonder sometimes why audio re mixers choose to take older recordings with obvious shortcomings and try to bring them to hi res, to just further show how poorly recorded they were in the first place. I suspect that only when it's recorded well, and in hi res, does the track capture the full beauty. Have heard enough older recordings "upgraded" to hi res to think it may be a lost cause to try to further bring out some audio qualities that just aren't there in the original.

BUT, when it's done well and you can hear EVERY detail, every pedal sound, every sound board, all the sweet delicious detail, well it's all worth it. It can be truly stunning.

Rick

Yes indeed! Half the fun is hearing all that detail.

Snarky Puppy/Live at the Royal Albert Hall - While We're Young

Saturday night & enjoying me some Snarky P.

Johannes Linstead/Mistico (2009) - Rico

Another Johannes L. cd added to the collection. As far as I'm concerned, Johannes is the King of the Spanish guitar.