Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why would 24 bit / 192 khz flac sound any better than 16 bit / 44.1 khz flac if both are lossless (if at all)?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why would 24 bit / 192 khz flac sound any better than 16 bit / 44.1 khz flac if both are lossless... - Page 17

post #241 of 251

I guess that settles it.

post #242 of 251

The main difference is in the frequency cutoff for the analog low-pass filter on the DAC's output.  The more gradual an analog filter can cut off, the less impact it will have on phase.  So higher output rate and a digital low-pass will sound better than relying on a very steep (brick) analog filter.  Of course, you can do this in the DAC, assuming it has a DSP.  This will add cost and complexity though since the DSP itself is a source of HF ground noise so will need its own separate power source.  Or you can do it in the transport or computer and feed a higher rate to the DAC over optical (which makes for nice isolation) or USB (which may potentially be noisier, but not as bad as a DSP).  Or put it in the source material itself.


Edited by sandab - 8/10/14 at 1:13pm
post #243 of 251

Interesting, didn't expect this to come off in a sampling rate thread.  :)  

 

I have read that Wolfson has low pass built in, possibly analog?  Actually, the WM8741 differentiates fomr WM8740 in that the filter can be switched via software.   ESS implementation I've seen is with low pass outside the DAC and people have said the LPF is not implemented in the chip like some.  

 

 

http://www.mezzohifi.com/private_folder/608e348712076d73f11a929240fa3d78.jpg

 


Edited by SilverEars - 8/10/14 at 2:49pm
post #244 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandab View Post
 

The main difference is in the frequency cutoff for the analog low-pass filter on the DAC's output.  The more gradual an analog filter can cut off, the less impact it will have on phase.  So higher output rate and a digital low-pass will sound better than relying on a very steep (brick) analog filter. 

I think that is exactly why NOS DACs have(should have) disappeared. most DACs already use the best sample rate at the best moment, whatever the original sample rate of that track is(prononce dothraki). so I can hardly see that as a reason to use hirez.

 

people who truly believe 20 or 25khz are part of the music should go for hirez(or learn a little more about how human hearing works). if we admit hearing those, it does make sense to go hirez for several technical reasons if you're positive you headphone/speakers can actually deal with those frequencies.

now if you are a human being older than 15, chances are hirez is a waste of space and money for you.

 

all I know is that if 22 or 30khz were necessary to hear the "real" music, that would mean I'm ****ed, because at my age I can't hear above 17khz.

the fact that I still enjoy music very much is to me a clear proof that I don't mind missing 30khz sounds and in fact I would live very well with music cut off at 14khz. my headphones showed me that long ago. but everybody's free to believe what he wants and buy what he likes. the human race is not in danger from more hirez files, so who cares?

post #245 of 251
In the hi-rez version of "Let It Be," the message "Yoko broke up the Beatles" can be heard continuously at around 23khz. Playing the album through my Audio-gd DAC, the message is heard in Chinese.

And I was ready to ditch hi-rez!
post #246 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mambosenior View Post

In the hi-rez version of "Let It Be," the message "Yoko broke up the Beatles" can be heard continuously at around 23khz. Playing the album through my Audio-gd DAC, the message is heard in Chinese.

And I was ready to ditch hi-rez!


I don't see why it is so hard to see how hirez has more info to work with.  All anyone has to do is play back hirez files at half the sample rate to hear a difference.  Depending on your hearing you gain an additional 12-20 khz of bandwidth that way. 

post #247 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
 


I don't see why it is so hard to see how hirez has more info to work with.  All anyone has to do is play back hirez files at half the sample rate to hear a difference.  Depending on your hearing you gain an additional 12-20 khz of bandwidth that way. 

 

The issue is not whether high res has more data but whether the difference is audible.

 

To date when the audible difference between high res and non high res (from the same source)  has been tested with material with ultra high frequencies that has been nobbled by downsampling or low pass filters the difference is not normally audible. This has been supported by several published papers going back to the late 70s including from professional broadcasting bodies and has not been contradicted by any of the industry proponents of high res with carefully controlled listening tests. Yes there are a bunch of anecdotes out there but at present there is only one paper which might possibly support audibility of high sampling rates (Pras and Gustavino) but it has somewhat questionable stats and method and a small sample, the largest scale test the Meyer and Moran study found nobody who could reliably detect the presence of a secondary A/D/A loop inserted after a high res player output.

 

Humble red book competently captures above 20K and even for those lucky few who can hear above 20K anything above 20K filtered out from musical content is not missed


Edited by nick_charles - 8/13/14 at 2:24pm
post #248 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post
 

 

The issue is not whether high res has more data but whether the difference is audible.

 

To date when the audible difference between high res and non high res (from the same source)  has been tested with material with ultra high frequencies that has been nobbled by downsampling or low pass filters the difference is not normally audible. This has been supported by several published papers going back to the late 70s including from professional broadcasting bodies and has not been contradicted by any of the industry proponents of high res with carefully controlled listening tests. Yes there are a bunch of anecdotes out there but at present there is only one paper which might possibly support audibility of high sampling rates (Pras and Gustavino) but it has somewhat questionable stats and method and a small sample, the largest scale test the Meyer and Moran study found nobody who could reliably detect the presence of a secondary A/D/A loop inserted after a high res player output.

 

Humble red book competently captures above 20K and even for those lucky few who can hear above 20K anything above 20K filtered out from musical content is not missed


I knew I should have used the facetious smiley face. 

 

You misunderstood me.  The last sentence should have been the tipoff.

 

By playing back at half the sample rate I didn't mean resample say 96khz to 48 khz.. I meant taking the 96 khz data and playing it back at a 48 khz rate.  Which cuts all frequencies by half.  So 40 khz content becomes 20 khz.  Then ultrasonics become truly audible.  Everything else about it is messed up.  But the crazy claims about ultrasonic content can at least be heard in a fashion.  Then compared to 48 khz played back at 24 khz you really would hear a "hirez" difference. :evil:

post #249 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
 


I knew I should have used the facetious smiley face. 

 

You misunderstood me.  The last sentence should have been the tipoff.

 

By playing back at half the sample rate I didn't mean resample say 96khz to 48 khz.. I meant taking the 96 khz data and playing it back at a 48 khz rate.  Which cuts all frequencies by half.  So 40 khz content becomes 20 khz.  Then ultrasonics become truly audible.  Everything else about it is messed up.  But the crazy claims about ultrasonic content can at least be heard in a fashion.  Then compared to 48 khz played back at 24 khz you really would hear a "hirez" difference. :evil:

 

Sorry, I'm obviously not paying enough attention !

post #250 of 251

Comedy is serious business. It should be left to professionals... like me!

post #251 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
 


I knew I should have used the facetious smiley face. 

 

You misunderstood me.  The last sentence should have been the tipoff.

 

By playing back at half the sample rate I didn't mean resample say 96khz to 48 khz.. I meant taking the 96 khz data and playing it back at a 48 khz rate.  Which cuts all frequencies by half.  So 40 khz content becomes 20 khz.  Then ultrasonics become truly audible.  Everything else about it is messed up.  But the crazy claims about ultrasonic content can at least be heard in a fashion.  Then compared to 48 khz played back at 24 khz you really would hear a "hirez" difference. :evil:

 

I thought the original statement was so good that I couldn't think of a reply worthy enough to follow it!

 

Cheers

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why would 24 bit / 192 khz flac sound any better than 16 bit / 44.1 khz flac if both are lossless (if at all)?