[62ohm]

According to Benchmark Media Systems, 96kHz sounds indifferent than its 192kHz counterpart, and they do not recommend spending extra money to get 192kHz version if a 96kHz version is available. 
 
http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/news-1/14716277-is-192-khz-better-or-worse-sounding-than-96-khz 
 

Our DAC2 D/A converter will provide exactly the same performance at either 96 kHz of 192 kHz. However, in most cases, many A/D converters (used to record the music in the studio) achieve better performance at 96 kHz than they do at 192 kHz. But, these differences will be very small. 

If a track is available in both a 192 kHz and 96 kHz format, there is a very good chance that they are both derived from the same 192 kHz master. Therefore, the 96 kHz version will be no better than the 192 kHz version. If the master was 192 kHz, the 96 kHz down-conversion may be slightly lower quality (due to the extra down-conversion process). But any differences should be entirely inaudible because the down-conversion process is highly transparent when executed with a high-quality mastering system.

Bottom line, we would not recommend spending extra money to get the 192 kHz version if a 96 kHz version is available. Buy more music instead.

 

[SharpEars]

According to the scientifically measured abilities of the human auditory system, a sample rate of 96 kHz produces audio that sounds no better than a sample rate of 44.1 kHz. Bottom line, "science would not recommend" spending extra money to get 96 kHz or 192 kHz versions, assuming that a 44.1 kHz version is available from the same master. Buy more music instead.
 
Also, while we're at it, digitally sampling music for human consumption does not require more than 10 bits for transparency. For proof, see my other thread in this Sound Science forum at: http://www.head-fi.org/t/731964/10-bits-of-sample-depth-is-more-than-enough-for-audio-with-tests-that-you-can-perform-to-prove-it-to-yourself

 

[ab initio]

Also, while we're at it, digitally sampling music for human consumption does not require more than 10 bits for transparency. For proof, see my other thread in this Sound Science forum at: http://www.head-fi.org/t/731964/10-bits-of-sample-depth-is-more-than-enough-for-audio-with-tests-that-you-can-perform-to-prove-it-to-yourself

I think you are optimisticly overstating the truth here.

Cheers

 

[SharpEars]

I think you are optimisticly overstating the truth here.

Cheers

 
The stated truth is very easy to verify with your own equipment using the link provided.

 

[ab initio]

   
The stated truth is very easy to verify with your own equipment using the link provided.

 
 

 
Also, while we're at it, digitally sampling music for human consumption does not require more than 10 bits for transparency. For proof, see my other thread in this Sound Science forum at: http://www.head-fi.org/t/731964/10-bits-of-sample-depth-is-more-than-enough-for-audio-with-tests-that-you-can-perform-to-prove-it-to-yourself

 
If you look around on the forums, you might find some examples of dynamic music that would violate your claim. Here is one such example that would really push your 10bits past its limits: http://www.head-fi.org/t/711374/does-frequency-response-or-csd-entirely-determine-sound-quality/15#post_10395918
 
Cheers

 

[SharpEars]

   
 
 
If you look around on the forums, you might find some examples of dynamic music that would violate your claim. Here is one such example that would really push your 10bits past its limits: http://www.head-fi.org/t/711374/does-frequency-response-or-csd-entirely-determine-sound-quality/15#post_10395918
 
Cheers

 
Unless I am misunderstanding that post, the (out of the ordinary) example provided only needs 45 dB (-44.8 dBFS to 0 dBFS) of dynamic range. 10 bits would allow for 60 dB of dynamic range.

 

[ab initio]

   
Unless I am misunderstanding that post, the (out of the ordinary) example provided only needs 45 dB (-44.8 dBFS to 0 dBFS) of dynamic range. 10 bits would allow for 60 dB of dynamic range.

I think you are misunderstanding. Please see my explanation in the parallel thread here.
 
Cheers

 

[blades]

The engineers who developed the CD red book parameters did it right.  They found the point where additional bit depth or sampling frequency would add nothing to audibility.  Anything beyond 16/44.1  displays no audible difference from red book in a bias controlled listening test.  It is one of te easiest bias controlled tests to conduct.  All you need is Foobar with a plug in and software for downsampling digital music files.  All available for free on the internet.  You also need someone else to do the switching so that the listener won't know which files are playing at any time.  Very simple.  Anyone can do it.  It astounds me that people don't do it so that they will stop fooling around with these "HD" files.

 

[Mambosenior]

I am more confused about the rapture for DSD files. Can anyone fill me as to why this encoding (I know about SACD) is so desirable to a number of folks? And, yes, the aversion to PCM conversion of DSD by some gear.

 

[ab initio]

Dsd solves the problem of finding the most inefficient method for digitizing sound in the human range of hearing. It is an excellent solution to the problem of sufficient bandwidth.

Cheers

 

[Mambosenior]

Oh, I see.

 

[castleofargh]

a few buy DSD because some pretty good masters are only available in DSD format(because records labels are dicks).
others buy DSD because they don't know that it bring absolutely nothing more than a 24bit PCM(and that most of the DSD are just converted from PCM anyway).
and lastly there seem to be a driving force thinking that it is analog reborn in digital because the ads showed it that way. (when it's everything the analog fanboys should run away from, pulse modulated signal and massive noise shaping)

 

[blades]

So far nobody has ever uncovered an audible difference between a "high resolution" music file and one downsampled to red book.  There are certainly some sonic differences between the masterings done to high resolution files but those masterings would sound the the same in 16/44.  So I agree completely with Castle and Ab Initio.  My understanding is that the purpose of DSD was to include copy protection similar to what blu-ray has.  It never had anything to do with sonics.  I guess that is why it never caught on.

 

[Hungryhoss]

The engineers who developed the CD red book parameters did it right.  They found the point where additional bit depth or sampling frequency would add nothing to audibility.  Anything beyond 16/44.1  displays no audible difference from red book in a bias controlled listening test.  It is one of te easiest bias controlled tests to conduct.  All you need is Foobar with a plug in and software for downsampling digital music files.  All available for free on the internet.  You also need someone else to do the switching so that the listener won't know which files are playing at any time.  Very simple.  Anyone can do it.  It astounds me that people don't do it so that they will stop fooling around with these "HD" files.

 


Look up the word 'religion'.

 

[blades]

 

  The engineers who developed the CD red book parameters did it right.  They found the point where additional bit depth or sampling frequency would add nothing to audibility.  Anything beyond 16/44.1  displays no audible difference from red book in a bias controlled listening test.  It is one of te easiest bias controlled tests to conduct.  All you need is Foobar with a plug in and software for downsampling digital music files.  All available for free on the internet.  You also need someone else to do the switching so that the listener won't know which files are playing at any time.  Very simple.  Anyone can do it.  It astounds me that people don't do it so that they will stop fooling around with these "HD" files.

 


Look up the word 'religion'.

 
Sure, that is what audiophilia is all about.  As a veteran of hundreds of bias controlled listening tests I can tell you that it is a fussy and boring business.  But comparing HD tracks to the same tracks downsampled to red book is an exception.  It is really easy to do and requires buying nothing.  It is more than religion.  It is stubbornness.