[bigshot]

I have about a year and half's worth of music, so even if I played my music 24/7, I'd still have to cut a third of my collection!

 

[francopro]

  I downsampled all my 24bit 96 & 192khz tracks to 24bit 48khz.  They all sound exactly the same as before and I saved about 250gb in disk space.  I'm going to stick with 16/44 and 24/48 from now on.

They will sound depending on your gears and music genres, if your dap/headphone /speaker can't produce the micro details between 48khz and 192khz , you won't hear them !
 
I always found 192khz to be more airy with a better separation of instruments and clearer vocals. IMO, anything over 88khz would be hard to compare with 192khz , but you still can do it with 48khz

 

[cjl]

 
They will sound depending on your gears and music genres, if your dap/headphone /speaker can't produce the micro details between 48khz and 192khz , you won't hear them !
 
I always found 192khz to be more airy with a better separation of instruments and clearer vocals. IMO, anything over 88khz would be hard to compare with 192khz , but you still can do it with 48khz

And you've done proper level-matched double blind tests to verify that you can actually hear the difference, right?

 

[Tuco1965]

 
They will sound depending on your gears and music genres, if your dap/headphone /speaker can't produce the micro details between 48khz and 192khz , you won't hear them !
 
I always found 192khz to be more airy with a better separation of instruments and clearer vocals. IMO, anything over 88khz would be hard to compare with 192khz , but you still can do it with 48khz

 

 

[SilverEars]

Check to see if better masterings are at high bitrate.  Typically dynamically compressed music is at lower bitrate.

 

[kraken2109]

  Check to see if better masterings are at high bitrate.  Typically dynamically compressed music is at lower bitrate.

bitrate has nothing to do with dynamic range...

 

[ab initio]

 
They will sound depending on your gears and music genres, if your dap/headphone /speaker can't produce the micro details between 48khz and 192khz , you won't hear them !
 
I always found 192khz to be more airy with a better separation of instruments and clearer vocals. IMO, anything over 88khz would be hard to compare with 192khz , but you still can do it with 48khz

 
Do you use Foobar to play music?
 
Foobar is an excellent free software that works with windows (and Linux via Wine) and has the ability to add plugins. One such plugin is the SoX resampling tool, which is an excellent resampler. Another tool is the ABX plugin which allows you to use double blind test whether you can detect the difference between two sound clips.
 
I think it would be very helpful to you and to the rest of the community of you can test one of your 192kHz sampled tracks by comparing it to a down-sampled version. You can use the Sox DSP plugin to transcode your full-res track into a 48kHz version, and then perform an ABX test. If there is any detectable difference the two, then you should be able to differentiate between them in a statistically meaningful way. You can post the results from the ABX tool here to demonstrate the audible difference between a 192kHz track and its 48kHz equivalent. You need multiple trials (say 30) for the results to begin to be statistically significant (unless you can nail 20/20 )
 
Furthermore, if you use <30 second clips, you can share the two tracks here so others can give it a try as well!
 
Cheers

 

[James-uk]

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/21/mp3-cd-24-bit-audio-music-hi-res

A very misleading article. Listening set up by an audio store. No blind testing/ probably different masters used.

 

[sonitus mirus]

   
Do you use Foobar to play music?
 
Foobar is an excellent free software that works with windows (and Linux via Wine) and has the ability to add plugins. One such plugin is the SoX resampling tool, which is an excellent resampler. Another tool is the ABX plugin which allows you to use double blind test whether you can detect the difference between two sound clips.
 
I think it would be very helpful to you and to the rest of the community of you can test one of your 192kHz sampled tracks by comparing it to a down-sampled version. You can use the Sox DSP plugin to transcode your full-res track into a 48kHz version, and then perform an ABX test. If there is any detectable difference the two, then you should be able to differentiate between them in a statistically meaningful way. You can post the results from the ABX tool here to demonstrate the audible difference between a 192kHz track and its 48kHz equivalent. You need multiple trials (say 30) for the results to begin to be statistically significant (unless you can nail 20/20 )
 
Furthermore, if you use <30 second clips, you can share the two tracks here so others can give it a try as well!
 
Cheers

 
I did a similar test using a 96kHz file.
 
Here are the Cliffs Notes that were provided to me on how to set up the test.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/570621/flac-vs-320-mp3/225#post_8900881

 

[castleofargh]

  ... if your dap/headphone /speaker can't produce the micro details between 48khz and 192khz , you won't hear them !
 

when imagination becomes reality, walt disney would be so proud.

 

[SilverEars]

 
bitrate has nothing to do with dynamic range...

Never said it was.

 Im trying to point out that it could be a coincidence a well mastered is of higher rate.

 

[bigshot]

Micro Details are too Micro.

 

[Krutsch]

I love the Sound Science threads.  At Head-fi.org, along with everywhere else on the Inner-tubes, we have an unsuspecting post like this one:
 
Quote:

 
They will sound depending on your gears and music genres, if your dap/headphone /speaker can't produce the micro details between 48khz and 192khz , you won't hear them !
 
I always found 192khz to be more airy with a better separation of instruments and clearer vocals. IMO, anything over 88khz would be hard to compare with 192khz , but you still can do it with 48khz

 
...followed, within seconds, with bot-like predictability, by a post that looks like this one:
 

  And you've done proper level-matched double blind tests to verify that you can actually hear the difference, right?

 
...capped off with something snarky, like this one:
 

  when imagination becomes reality, walt disney would be so proud.

 
...rinse and repeat.  Rarely is there any new information added to the discussion - it's like listening to Atheists debate religion with Christians that believe in a strict interpretation of the Bible.  
 
Always entertaining, though ... 

 

 

[Lespectraal]

Why pull ******** out of your ass

 

[castleofargh]

 Rarely is there any new information added to the discussion - it's like listening to Atheists debate religion with Christians that believe in a strict interpretation of the Bible.    

what new information should we add, all has already been said a hundred times about how PCM really works. about how DACs never ever do anything like the stupid staircases graph shown anytime someone pretends to explain why hirez is better. the differences aren't in micro details because of how soundwaves work, the sound is the same and only some noise is added to it when some quantization errors occur. a noise people don't hear even in 16/44.
about the low pass filters that works better with high sample rate? nobody uses NOS DACs nowadays so it doesn't matter. but people who don't understand PCM itself are unlikely to understand that part.
about those who pretend to hear more air thanks to the ultrasonics of 192khz tracks, I say go see an audiologist and say that to his face.
about those who pretend to here the subtle decays that are missing with "only" 96db of dynamic, same thing, go tell this to your audiologist. the guy is bored with old people all day, he needs a good laugh sometimes.
then people don't believe in placebo effect when all the serious tests ever done show that people will believe anything if they first get the idea that it is better for reasons unrelated to sound.
we also warn people about checking if the masters are the same, but that doesn't seem to prevent them from mistaking master and resolution and come say how vinyls or sacd or 24/192 are a better technology.
 
all that is well known, all that has been researched in detail many years ago, yet people chose to believe advertising instead of the guys who actually invented digital audio. at some point we get bored, some here are very very patient, I am not.
 
we don't add anything new because there is nothing new to add, sound didn't magically evolved in 2014. you want more read something, there are plenty of interesting yet simple enough to understand links across this topic. last stuff I read was this http://www.gearslutz.com/board/attachments/high-end/6491d1114045260-why-didnt-dsd-catch-reshaping_digital_-audio.pdf
you get all you need to show how right you are about the superiority of hirez(that we never ever refuted as far as measurements go) and at least people can start to use actual reasons instead of pretending to hear ultrasounds and micro details. but then don't miss the end with the pie charts that show how much all this is a giant joke.
I think my last post was right on the mark.