[PoorAudiophile]

Hi Every One,

I'm a new member and happy to join the circle if music lovers.

I would like to share my experience.

Few months ago, I was given by my audio equipments dealer couple of studio master files at 32-384 bits resolution.

Since my stereo system, cannot play that high resolution, i down sampled them 24, 16 bits with different sample rates of 44.1, 48, 96 and 192.

I then compare them to each other.

To my surprise, the 16-44.1 res sounds similar to the 24-192 res. Same dynamics, same details.

It seems that 16-44.1 res is more than adequate. And the most important aspect is the quality of the mastering.

For your information, my stereo system consists of oppo 105D, cyrus cdi, chord Hugo and atc scm40A.

Anyone of you, had the same experience?

Regards,

 

[H20Fidelity]

Most of the topic you''re discussing is found in the 'Sound Science' section.
 
You should head there, check it out, maybe repost your thread there. You'll also find plenty of threads on this topic.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/f/133/sound-science
 
Just keep in mind they're quite a lively bunch in that section.

 

[PoorAudiophile]

Thanks

 

[Me x3]

You are right, recording/mastering quality is key when it comes to fidelity. 
Differences among bit-depth and sampling rate are much harder to hear, and higher is not necessarily better.

 

[Currawong]

If the higher resolution is going to make any difference it will be in that the higher resolution bypasses the over-sampling filter in the DAC to some degree. Most, if not all the arguments about high-res tends to ignore that. In my experience, the kind of music where that will make a significant difference is well recorded and mastered acoustic music. If you're familiar with the natural tone of piano and violin, for example, the reproduction through a lot of DACs can sound unnatural to some degree. Additionally, some of the software and hardware used to make CD masters from the originals was arguably not that great, so many newer re-masters and high-res releases sound a lot better. Nowadays, if you find a CD-quality version (or down-sample) is fine for you, then it is! It's very person- and DAC-specific.

 

[RRod]

  If the higher resolution is going to make any difference it will be in that the higher resolution bypasses the over-sampling filter in the DAC to some degree. Most, if not all the arguments about high-res tends to ignore that. In my experience, the kind of music where that will make a significant difference is well recorded and mastered acoustic music. If you're familiar with the natural tone of piano and violin, for example, the reproduction through a lot of DACs can sound unnatural to some degree. Additionally, some of the software and hardware used to make CD masters from the originals was arguably not that great, so many newer re-masters and high-res releases sound a lot better. Nowadays, if you find a CD-quality version (or down-sample) is fine for you, then it is! It's very person- and DAC-specific.

 
I think the main issue right now is that there are no guarantees either way. If hi-res releases were straight-up *never* worse, then those of us who don't worry about filters in modern DACs could just buy and downsample or convert to lossy. As it is, there's a huge stew pot of albums releases out there, where sometimes newer is better, and sometimes the original CD from the 80s is the best bet.
 
It's perfectly possible that filters for 44.1 output might be audible, but that's something that could be tested rigorously as a general statement about modern DACs. My subjective $0.01 opinion, having listened to tons of well-recorded and mastered acoustic music, is that my built-in soundcard DAC does just as respectable a job as my Bifrost did, for much less damage to the old pocket-book. Much better to send people down the line of testing masters against one another on the basis of what happens below the transition band.

 

[Mustainized]

I have Rust In Peace (Megadeth) 192/24 FLAC album in my archive and it SIGNIFICANTLY sounds better than mp3 320 kbps. And I have Systematic Chaos (Dream Theater) 44/16 FLAC album in my archive and yeah, it still sounds better but not so much significant.
My ears are well-trained especially with this type of music for so long but I bet in 1st case the difference would be easily audible for anyone.
 

 

[Me x3]

  I have Rust In Peace (Megadeth) 192/24 FLAC album in my archive and it SIGNIFICANTLY sounds better than mp3 320 kbps. And I have Systematic Chaos (Dream Theater) 44/16 FLAC album in my archive and yeah, it still sounds better but not so much significant.
My ears are well-trained especially with this type of music for so long but I bet in 1st case the difference would be easily audible for anyone.
 

Best chances are you are comparing different masters, or a bad mp3 transcode.
Sometimes using a DR measuring tool can help to detect different masters.