24bit/192KHz vs 24bit/96KHz

My understanding is that the higher resolution lowers the noise floor only. Unless a recording master, when down-sampled, it is done so in some detrimental manner, there will be essentially no difference for the listener.  I linked to a good thread with some discussion on 24/96 in my blog here.

It's linked in my sig, but here is the post: Sound Science: 24/96 vs. 16/44.1 a myth? DBT flawed? Tight Bass Misunderstood?

I've done many vinyl rips in different sampling rates and did some comparisons...frankly there's not a great deal of difference between 24/96 rips and 16/44, even downsampling the original files to redbook is almost transparent.

Probably high sampling rates only show their benefit if you have to digitally manipulate the recorded tracks, noise removal, or various filters used in professional applications.

A great deal of music is recorded in 24/96 to provide more headroom and when using effects(any effects) it helps with the math, helping to reduce errors..etc.

Any manipulation you do can cause trouble in lower samping rates when you finally downsample to 16/44.1.

Effects can be anything from noise reduction, pop removal to amplification or limiting...

If you want to transfer over your LP's, I suggest you do more reading to get the process as close to perfect as it can be.  You may ultimatley want to use a bit of noise reduction or pop and click removal depending on the TT and the media.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yhong26 

0o0...thks...but i cant read the thread...so the resolution of the sample output is more important...DAC which support 24bit is more batter then 16bit...haha...

Whoops, try reading it now.

I'm currently collecting albums at 24/96 and when I see a 24/192 available, I obtain it if it's something I consider essential.  Rarely finding those albums in 192, though.  When listening, I honestly can't tell the difference.

On my laptop, I have 96 and 192 khz albums, and have them converted to mp3 320 as well.  I can tell the difference between the mp3 and the flac files, meaning 24 and 16 bit, but only on the more acoustic, airy tracks - basically jazz or classical, where the instruments are all non-electric (analog) and also on tracks that have a lot of digital effects added (such as Steely Dan or Doobie Brothers tracks).

For the average listener, even with a portable headphone amp and a good set of earphone monitors or full-sized open or sealed headphones, they can barely tell the difference between the 16-bit mp3 and the 24-bit flac counterparts.  When they make a choice, I have a feeling they're guessing from gut feelings.

I do have a few compeers who play acoustic guitars and have a lot of experience in studio recording sessions, who can tell, every single time, which track is an mp3 and which is the 24-bit lossless version.  But they can't tell if it's 88, 96 or 192khz.  Personally I'm in the same category.  I can discern 16 and 24 bit, but not 88, 96 or 192 khz.

My opinion as a music collector is, always obtain 24-bit audio when possible.  Where price is concerned, don't pay extra for 96 or 192khz over 88khz.

Just the opinions of an audio collector :)

This is sound advice! Why do I get 192Khz audio? Because I can. There is no other reason. I can't say that I can hear the difference but obtaining hi-res music in digital format is somewhat of a hobby. If you invest in the hardware that can playback the hi-res audio, you might as well exercise it. Buying a hi-res download every now and then is an enjoyable experience. I have plenty of terabytes of storage available, so I might as well begin filling it!
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by keal 

I'm currently collecting albums at 24/96 and when I see a 24/192 available, I obtain it if it's something I consider essential.  Rarely finding those albums in 192, though.  When listening, I honestly can't tell the difference.

 

On my laptop, I have 96 and 192 khz albums, and have them converted to mp3 320 as well.  I can tell the difference between the mp3 and the flac files, meaning 24 and 16 bit, but only on the more acoustic, airy tracks - basically jazz or classical, where the instruments are all non-electric (analog) and also on tracks that have a lot of digital effects added (such as Steely Dan or Doobie Brothers tracks).

 

For the average listener, even with a portable headphone amp and a good set of earphone monitors or full-sized open or sealed headphones, they can barely tell the difference between the 16-bit mp3 and the 24-bit flac counterparts.  When they make a choice, I have a feeling they're guessing from gut feelings.

 

I do have a few compeers who play acoustic guitars and have a lot of experience in studio recording sessions, who can tell, every single time, which track is an mp3 and which is the 24-bit lossless version.  But they can't tell if it's 88, 96 or 192khz.  Personally I'm in the same category.  I can discern 16 and 24 bit, but not 88, 96 or 192 khz.

 

My opinion as a music collector is, always obtain 24-bit audio when possible.  Where price is concerned, don't pay extra for 96 or 192khz over 88khz.

 

Just the opinions of an audio collector :)