Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › 96KHZ/24 bit vs 192kHz/24bit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

96KHZ/24 bit vs 192kHz/24bit

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 

I was looking at hdtracks and noticed they have some 192kHz/24bit which cost more.

 

After this I looked at FiiO and notice they say the ANDES-E07K supports up to 96KHZ/24 bit and the  ALPEN-E17 supports up to 96KHZ/24 bit out but also SPDIF Sample Rate Support     192KHz @ 16/24Bit

 

What is SPDIF? 

 

 

I am about to purchase my first pair of good headphones and want to be sure I get the right amp that will allow me to play the highest quality music file format available.  If the portable fiio's cant do it please lead me to the right direction so that i buy the correct portable amp/dac.

post #2 of 17

Maybe not the right forum for this question, but SPDIF  just means coaxial or Toslink digital inputs and outputs.  192k sample rate gives you a theoretical maximum frequency of 96000hz as opposed to 48000hz with a 96k sample rate. You may or may not hear a difference between the 2, depending on how good your rig is and how good your ears are. 192k files are also take up a lot more space than 96k files

post #3 of 17

You won't hear any difference. And don't listen to anybody who tells you that there is a difference.

 

Anything beyond 20khz per channel is basically inaudable for about 99.9% of people. At 96/24, you're getting 48khz per channel with a maximum SNR of 144DB.

 

Basically, 96/24 is complete overkill, never mind 192/24.

 

Some people will tell you that they "feel" a difference, but will refuse to do any ABX testing, because they know there isn't a difference at all.


Edited by Sound Quest - 8/25/13 at 3:01pm
post #4 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sound Quest View Post

You won't hear any difference. And don't listen to anybody who tells you that there is a difference.

 

Anything beyond 20khz per channel is basically inaudable for about 99.9% of people. At 96/24, you're getting 48khz per channel with a maximum SNR of 144DB.

 

Basically, 96/24 is complete overkill, never mind 192/24.

 

Some people will tell you that they "feel" a difference, but will refuse to do any ABX testing, because they no there isn't a difference at all.


If I buy music from itunes do you know what quality it will be?

post #5 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by AudioBro View Post


If I buy music from itunes do you know what quality it will be?

 

I've never used itunes personally. But as I understand it, itunes uses lossy mpeg-4 encodings.

 

If you're going to listen to audiophile grade headphones with a decent DAC and AMP, you'll want to avoid lossy encodes and stick to lossless formats such as FLAC, APE and ALAC.

post #6 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by AudioBro View Post


If I buy music from itunes do you know what quality it will be?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sound Quest View Post

 

I've never used itunes personally. But as I understand it, itunes uses lossy mpeg-4 encodings.

 

If you're going to listen to audiophile grade headphones with a decent DAC and AMP, you'll want to avoid lossy encodes and stick to lossless formats such as FLAC, APE and ALAC.

 

Itunes will be aac-256.  It's lossy - but to my ears (and I suspect to most people) - it's transparent (indistinguishable from lossless) - especially from a portable device.

 

OP - if you have some time, and access to a PC - why not test yourself, and see what you can actually discern (that way you know your own limits - not just the oft repeated 'you must go lossless'.  Here's a link (http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding).  It will give you some pointers on how to set up an abx, and also give some options on software for ripping, tagging, transcoding etc

 

All it will cost you is time ...... and then at least you will know for yourself.

post #7 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

 

 

Itunes will be aac-256.  It's lossy - but to my ears (and I suspect to most people) - it's transparent (indistinguishable from lossless) - especially from a portable device.

 

OP - if you have some time, and access to a PC - why not test yourself, and see what you can actually discern (that way you know your own limits - not just the oft repeated 'you must go lossless'.  Here's a link (http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding).  It will give you some pointers on how to set up an abx, and also give some options on software for ripping, tagging, transcoding etc

 

All it will cost you is time ...... and then at least you will know for yourself.

 

Although you may be correct. I think if you're going to invest in high-end audio gear, it makes sense to store audio in a lossless format. Even if AAC is 99% as good as lossless, there's no point losing out on that 1% if you're spending a great deal of money on hearing minor differences. 44.1/16 in a lossless format doesn't take up much space considering the capacity of HDD these days.

post #8 of 17

IMO if you're buying high-end audio gear (which you're not) then it might be worth considering high-res music. For what you're getting I don't think it is worth considering at all.

post #9 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sound Quest View Post

 

Although you may be correct. I think if you're going to invest in high-end audio gear, it makes sense to store audio in a lossless format. Even if AAC is 99% as good as lossless, there's no point losing out on that 1% if you're spending a great deal of money on hearing minor differences. 44.1/16 in a lossless format doesn't take up much space considering the capacity of HDD these days.

Agree for desktop (I archive and play in FLAC - even though to me that 99% is actually 100% - ie no difference)

 

But OP specifically stated in initial post:

 

Quote:
If the portable fiio's cant do it please lead me to the right direction so that i buy the correct portable amp/dac

 

If it's for portable use, and he can't hear any difference between aac256 and lossless (we won't know until he actually tests himself) - then why waste money on a so called 'audiophile' dac/amp - when something cheaper with recognised SQ is as good?  For my own personal set-up, for portable I use an iPhone 4 and/or iPod Touch G4 with aac256.  64GB on the Touch holds over 250 CDs.  For portable - why would you bother going lossless?

 

BTW Sound Quest - have you ever run your own abx (proper blind testing).  If you haven't - you should (suggest abxing against aac256).  It's pretty illuminating wink.gif

post #10 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

Agree for desktop (I archive and play in FLAC - even though to me that 99% is actually 100% - ie no difference)

 

But OP specifically stated in initial post:

 

 

If it's for portable use, and he can't hear any difference between aac256 and lossless (we won't know until he actually tests himself) - then why waste money on a so called 'audiophile' dac/amp - when something cheaper with recognised SQ is as good?  For my own personal set-up, for portable I use an iPhone 4 and/or iPod Touch G4 with aac256.  64GB on the Touch holds over 250 CDs.  For portable - why would you bother going lossless?

 

BTW Sound Quest - have you ever run your own abx (proper blind testing).  If you haven't - you should (suggest abxing against aac256).  It's pretty illuminating wink.gif

 

AAC isn't a format i've ever really used. For portable use I just use VBR-0 with the newest LAME encoder version and have never encountered any problems with it.

 

But I have heard complaints about the itunes encoders not being very good, which makes me a little skeptical of any music bought from itunes.

 

Besides. Why pay for lossy when you can simply download lossless for nothing? :p

post #11 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sound Quest View Post

 

AAC isn't a format i've ever really used. For portable use I just use VBR-0 with the newest LAME encoder version and have never encountered any problems with it.

 

But I have heard complaints about the itunes encoders not being very good, which makes me a little skeptical of any music bought from itunes.

 

Besides. Why pay for lossy when you can simply download lossless for nothing? :p

 

Again - I guess you've never actually run an abx?

 

AAC is actually pretty well regarded - and generally performs as well as (if not better than) LAME.  Not sure where you are getting your info from.  Maybe you should try it?

 

As far as getting lossless for nothing ..... I hope that isn't a reference to illegal downloading.  I would rather pay for my music (most of mine is CD ripped to digital, balance is purchased digitally - I own ALL my music) - at least then I know the artist is getting something from me (even if it isn't a huge amount).

post #12 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

 

Again - I guess you've never actually run an abx?

 

AAC is actually pretty well regarded - and generally performs as well as (if not better than) LAME.  Not sure where you are getting your info from.  Maybe you should try it?

 

As far as getting lossless for nothing ..... I hope that isn't a reference to illegal downloading.  I would rather pay for my music (most of mine is CD ripped to digital, balance is purchased digitally - I own ALL my music) - at least then I know the artist is getting something from me (even if it isn't a huge amount).

 

Why would I switch to AAC when LAME works perfectly for my needs anyway? I'm not really a fan of apple in general. (sorry apple fanboys)

 

The music I download "legally" is music thats in the public domain. For everything else, the artists are already multi-millionaires. So I carry zero guilt.

post #13 of 17

I can't hear a difference between AAC and 320k mp3. It's as good as I need for a portable player on the go. But for serious high quality listening those formats are not up to the sort of playback quality an expensive home rig is capable of.  

post #14 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baxide View Post

I can't hear a difference between AAC and 320k mp3. It's as good as I need for a portable player on the go. But for serious high quality listening those formats are not up to the sort of playback quality an expensive home rig is capable of.  

 

If you're using the newest LAME version, i'd highly recommend switching to V0. It actually offers higher quality than 320cbr as it can make better use of the bit reserver.

post #15 of 17

Cant hear the difference between V0, Mp3 320, flac, wav.......even on a high end rig. 

 

cliffs. 

 

listen to whats most convenient. 


Edited by Flognuts - 8/26/13 at 6:41am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › 96KHZ/24 bit vs 192kHz/24bit