[Baxide]

Can anyone tell me if it is possible to play a 192kHz audio file through USB on a 96kHz USB DAC? Has anyone ever tried it? and if so, did it work?

 

[sterling1]

I've tried sending 24/96 to 16/44 DAC and there was nothing but silence.

 

[PleasantSounds]

  Can anyone tell me if it is possible to play a 192kHz audio file through USB on a 96kHz USB DAC? Has anyone ever tried it? and if so, did it work?

 
The only way to make it work is through re-sampling. You don't even have to create a downsampled version of the file, as some players can do that on the fly - for example f2k.

 

[komhst]

  Can anyone tell me if it is possible to play a 192kHz audio file through USB on a 96kHz USB DAC? Has anyone ever tried it? and if so, did it work?

You can use SoX Resampler mod plugin on foobar2000 which can re-sample 192 KHz files to 96 KHz (or whatever samplerate you like) on the fly.
This is one of the best resamplers not only for its audio quality. You can configure to re-sample only files of 192 KHz and leave all other samplerates untouched.

 

[Baxide]

The reason I asked the question is because of a weird thing that I ran across over the weekend. What happened is that I installed the drivers for the M2Tech Hiface asynch USB adapter. But I accidentally plugged in my Teralink USB adapter instead of the M2Tech Hiface. I started playing some of my 192kHz files, blissfully unaware that it was the wrong USB adapter that I was using. The files played OK. Only after getting ready to switch off my laptop and pack away the USB adapter did I realize that I was not using the M2Tech to play 192Khz files. I have not been the same person since then. I am completely confused about why I could play 192KHz files through a 96Khz USB adapter. Since then I have tried a number of media players just to confirm it was not the media player.
Maybe someone can explain to me what is going on here.

 

[PleasantSounds]

  The reason I asked the question is because of a weird thing that I ran across over the weekend. What happened is that I installed the drivers for the M2Tech Hiface asynch USB adapter. But I accidentally plugged in my Teralink USB adapter instead of the M2Tech Hiface. I started playing some of my 192kHz files, blissfully unaware that it was the wrong USB adapter that I was using. The files played OK. Only after getting ready to switch off my laptop and pack away the USB adapter did I realize that I was not using the M2Tech to play 192Khz files. I have not been the same person since then. I am completely confused about why I could play 192KHz files through a 96Khz USB adapter. Since then I have tried a number of media players just to confirm it was not the media player.
Maybe someone can explain to me what is going on here.

 
It's possible that the Teralink has been designed to handle 192kHz and some issues have been found in testing. Rather than fixing the issues (which may have been just the software driver) they have decided to sell it as a 96kHz device which does not require a driver. If the Hiface uses the same USB bus controller chip, then its driver will talk to the Teralink, enabling the discarded feature.
I have a similar case with the WA7 which works better with the Schiit USB driver than its own, albeit there's no speed difference.

 

[komhst]

  The reason I asked the question is because of a weird thing that I ran across over the weekend. What happened is that I installed the drivers for the M2Tech Hiface asynch USB adapter. But I accidentally plugged in my Teralink USB adapter instead of the M2Tech Hiface. I started playing some of my 192kHz files, blissfully unaware that it was the wrong USB adapter that I was using. The files played OK. Only after getting ready to switch off my laptop and pack away the USB adapter did I realize that I was not using the M2Tech to play 192Khz files. I have not been the same person since then. I am completely confused about why I could play 192KHz files through a 96Khz USB adapter. Since then I have tried a number of media players just to confirm it was not the media player.
Maybe someone can explain to me what is going on here.

I assume that you play through ASIO drivers or through wasapi, that's why you ask... Otherwise, if you play through windows mixer, no mater what samplerate file you play, everything is upsampled or downsampled to 48 KHz. If this is the case, every USB adapter can play everything because they all are compatible with 48 KHz samplerate.

 

[kraken2109]

Are you a bat?
If not, 192kHz is a waste of space.

 

[Baxide]

  I assume that you play through ASIO drivers or through wasapi, that's why you ask...

Correct. I am going to have to do a clean install of W7 on a different PC and try the whole thing all over again without the M2Tech driver.

 

[r010159]

Are you talking about sampling frequency or the bit rate that determines the quality of lossy compression to an audio file? One is independant of the other. In other words then, 96 samples per second interfaces can handle 192 Kbps encoded files. My lossy files are in AAC format encoded at 256kbps. My interface that only can handle up to 96k samples per second has no problems.

FWIW remembering my engineering classes on signal theory, Nyquist comes into play. The end result is you will not be able to hear the difference between 193 samples per second sample rate and 96. IMO the sampling rate of 44.1 that you find on CDs is pushing the limits of human hearing of young children.

Bob iGraham

 

[kraken2109]

Are you talking about sampling frequency or the bit rate that determines the quality of lossy compression to an audio file? One is independant of the other. In other words then, 96 samples per second interfaces can handle 192 Kbps encoded files. My lossy files are in AAC format encoded at 256kbps. My interface that only can handle up to 96k samples per second has no problems.

FWIW remembering my engineering classes on signal theory, Nyquist comes into play. The end result is you will not be able to hear the difference between 193 samples per second sample rate and 96. IMO the sampling rate of 44.1 that you find on CDs is pushing the limits of human hearing of young children.

Bob iGraham

You're getting a little mixed up but have the right idea.
Bit rate (usually in kbps, kilo-bits per second, file size) = sampling rate (kHz, kilo-hertz, thousand samples per second, e.g. CD is 44.1kHz or 44,100 samples per second) * Bit depth (bits, directly related to dynamic range and noise floor, CD is 16bit = ~96dB dynamic range above noise floor) * Number of channels (2 for stereo).
 
The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem states that the highest frequency that can be encoded in a file is half the sampling frequency, so for a CD at 44.1kHz it would be 22.05kHz, which is comfortably above what a human can hear. What this means is there is little reason to go higher (there are a few involving steeper anti-aliasing filters) but in reality, for playback at least, 44.1kHz is perfectly adequate.

 

[r010159]

Yes, the Nyquist-Shannon theroem. But I think that the bit rate specified for lossy file compression is different. For example, AAC audio files can be coded up to something like 320 Kbps. Why up-sample? There would not be any quality difference between 44.1 Kbps and 320 Kbps. But it has been determined (Wikipedia article) that you need a bit rate of something like 128 Kbps for AAC audio files to be virtually imperceptible from the CD it comes from. What do I have wrong here?

Bob Graham

 

[kraken2109]

Yes, the Nyquist-Shannon theroem. But I think that the bit rate specified for lossy file compression is different. For example, AAC audio files can be coded up to something like 320 Kbps. Why up-sample? There would not be any quality difference between 44.1 Kbps and 320 Kbps. But it has been determined (Wikipedia article) that you need a bit rate of something like 128 Kbps for AAC audio files to be virtually imperceptible from the CD it comes from. What do I have wrong here?

Bob Graham

You've mixed up data rate (kbps) with frequency (kHz)

 

[r010159]

I know. I was trying to support my statement that the data rate specified for lossy audio files is different from the sampling rate. That is why I thought the OP may be confusing the two. It looks like I was not clear enough in my presentation.

Bob Graham

PS: i am finding out that this is a great group of people on head-fi!