[disturbed]

Why get a 24/96 sound card?

Why would a music listener want a 24/96 soundcard?

I can understand for DVD's buy why for CD's?

 

[Audio-Me]

Quality upsampling can lower noise, and actually sound more accurate. "Lets out immaculate details" Real reason is generally they seem to be much better sounding than the 16bit/48khz cards.

 

[disturbed]

Quote:

Originally posted by Audio&Me Quality upsampling can lower noise, and actually sound more accurate. "Lets out immaculate details" Real reason is generally they seem to be much better sounding than the 16bit/48khz cards.

I remember you gave a technical description about this awile ago...If I could just find that PM

Really, does it make so much of a difference?

I heard a MIDIMAN card running at 24/48 and 24/96 there wasnt SO much of a difference...

... guess my ears are made of cloth...

Ahh well....

 

[disturbed]

*Bump*

I want more input on this...for normal music listening...what is the justification for getting a 24/96 card rather than a 24/48 which IMO sound almost the same....but the price differences are huge almost 90$.

Agreed the above will sound better than 16 bit cards but how does one differenciate the differences between the 24/48 and the 24/96 as a potential buyer (one who is primarily a music listener).

 

[Audio Redneck]

By its self, I don't think you are going to be able to tell a lot of difference. Factor in better speakers and external amps and you should get some more improvement. What are you using between the soundcard and your ears?

As to justification: Whats the difference in a $100 CD player and a $300 CD player if they sound almost the same? But your other components will make a difference in how much difference you hear.

$90 dollar difference is mainly a factor of how new it is (on computers) and how few they are selling. Expect the price to drop steadily until they hit $50US retail ($20US wholesale).

 

[The Quality Guru]

Why do audiophiles pay thousands of dollars more for minute little details and what most think to be small improvements in sound? Why does an automobile enthusiast pay $100,000 more for an upgrade from a Porsche Turbo to a Porsche GT2, when the difference in acceleration (0-60) is only about 0.3 seconds faster in the latter car? Some thoughts to ponder! Why on earth DO these crazy people pay that much for such a petty and small little difference. "Why did you get wood earphones for $330 dollars imported from Singapore?," a friend of mine asked. And why do you think one of the online audio forums is called "Audio Asylum?" Because that's what this hobby is, an asylum! We're all crazies that spend SOOOOOOOO much money on what many call "hardly noticeable." That's why I spend more time than I usually intend to, here, at Head-Fi, because there aren't too many crazies out there that are willing to talk to you about the $700 in headphone equipment they bought yesterday . . .

I'm just messing with you though (

) -- I mean, that's what this whole headphone fidelity thing is about, though- it's those little differnences that are so important to all of us. But also, in spite of all my tauntings and ramblings in the previous paragraph above, it is very possible that you didn't hear the difference because the speakers were bad or the computer noises were interfering . . . or maybe it was because that's what audiophilia (dare I call it that, it scares me, that name) is all about!

 

[source direct]

More often than not, 24/96 is preffered because a signal is easier to process at this level.

This explains why people make copies of their LPs at 24/48, 24/96, 16/48, etc. as it's easier for them to process the signal (remove hiss, etc.). Then, when the processing stage is complete, they will 'downsample' to a lower bit/frequency combination for listening.

In a stereo, I'm pretty sure that you'd want 24/96 if you were doing alot of processing on the signal, thus the equipment processing the signal would 'add less' to the signal.

I'm not sure if jitter reducers act better when fed a higher frequency signal such as 24/96, it would make sense to me that they would though.

I'm not saying it's worth your money, but that's why it could be seen as 'desireable'.

 

[zowie]

Source Direct is right. If you're going to be doing sampling and processing, the higher quality MAY be worth it.

But guess what, folks. Everyone is getting sucked in by marketting hype. A studio quality 20/48 and expecially a 24/48 design will sound much better than the cheapish 24/96 cards that are flooding the market.

Guess what else. You need exceptionally good equipment to notice the difference between 48 and 96. If you've hearing a real difference on a sub-$2k system, it's probably from some other improvement, such as quieter analogue input or output stages or better noise isolation, not the higher sampling rate.

And as to Disturbed's original question, if you're going to be using the card primarily to playback commerical CDs which are 16/44.1, then there is no benefit from a 24/96 soundcard.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Someone needs to figure out how to do upsampling in software. Then you would be able to use a 24/96 soundcard. But unless you have 24/96 sources, it isn't worth it. IMHO.

 

[Matt]

...this...

Quote:

Originally posted by The Quality Guru We're all crazies that spend SOOOOOOOO much money on what many call "hardly noticeable."

...is easily defensible. It's sorta like wearing a backpack to school all day: at first, you can do it easily, but by the end of the day, you've expended much more energy, you're far more tired and worn than you would be if you'd carried nothing. So, those "books" or that "bag" are the totality of the inadequacies inherent in cheaply made crap products, and so by "relieving" ourselves of these playback deficiencies, we can endure the walk longer, more peacefully, with far less strain and struggle.

For extended or critical listening, those "hardly noticeable" things easily become as important as the macro-details that any old system can give you.

Case in point, I listened to MDR-V600's today at Circuit City on one of their listening booths. The bottom line is that untransparent, occluded, loose, undefined, lumped-together, hashy, dynamically limited, un-extended and just generally lifeless playback inhibits the musical message, whether that be intellectual, emotional, overt or hidden or whatever; it detracts from the communication of an out-and-out message or from the communication of a beauty or aesthetic very much. Hey, you try listening to those over-priced pieces of ****.

Hard-won "little things" are big. Luckily I have a father who understands (he accidentally got me into this lovely mess). Haven't even brought it up with my mother...ignorance is bliss, dearies!

- Matt

 

[zowie]

While the bitdepth-as-backpack philosophical musing are interesting, they have nothing to do with the specific 24/96 question.
The prior answers were correct. It is not worth it except for certain limited applications.

 

[Matt]

...really had nothing to do with the main topic, it was just a passing thought in response to what The Quality Guru specifically said, that's all. Just wanted to commit it to paper (or pixel).

- Matt