Can you detect a difference between 96KHz/24bit and 48Khz/16bit?

[439598]

I apparently can but I should explain my setup.

Im listening to 'Wake up' on the 96KHz SACD remaster of Rage against the machine, IMO a very good choice for this test.

Im using an O2+ODAC set to 96KHz

I used Audacity export function to convert the track to 48KHz/16bit (44.1KHz was my preferred choice but I believe the uneven division could cause unwanted changes to the audio and skew the results)

Im listening in F2K, I hit random a couple times with both tracks and try and guess, its takes concentration to focus on the right details but im pretty confident there is difference and can guess right. the cymbal crash at the beginning sounds distinctly different, the details dont sound as smeared. outside of these very busy moments its impossible to tell the difference.

I also listened to each version a few times before blind testing, this is important. If I wasnt familiar with the sound of each one I wouldnt be able to guess correctly blind, even if they sounded different.

The choice of audio is important also, Some tracks/album simply wont have anything to gain from >48KHz, some maybe even be 'fake' resampled version of 44.1/48KHz . complex high frequencies and acoustic instruments are a good choice but ultimately its the quality of the recording that matters.

Im using a pair of M50s but Im waiting for HD650s to be delivered which should give me an even clearer picture.

I also think I can tell the difference when manually switching the sample rate in Windows control panel but this is biased as Im always aware which one im listening to.

 

[Music Alchemist]

Try using dBpoweramp to convert the files. There should be no audible difference.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded.415361
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[439598]

Try using dBpoweramp to convert the files. There should be no audible difference.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded.415361
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

thanks, i have that software and will test again when i get my hd650s

but that first post mentions only bit depth, im well aware higher bit depth is pointless aside from allowing digital volume control without quality loss. im concerned with sample rate, the equivalent to pixels on a tv screen, you can have 24 bit at 44.1KHz and 96KHz at 16 bit so they are independent of each other. The ''science''** suggests that high sample rates also offer no audible improvement but this is an oversimplification, I simply want to hear if anyone can successfully guess in a blind test,. personally I think 2.8MHz is a ridiculous sample rate, complete overkill, but I feel like my ears benefit up to a certain point above 48KHz and below 96KHz.

**(quote- in the past few weeks, I've had conversations with intelligent, scientifically minded individuals who believe....)

edit: since 24 bit offers nothing I will only reduce the sample rate incase its causing some degradation. although I dont see how audacity couldnt perfectly downsample from 96 to 48. its simple division, skip every second sample

 

[Music Alchemist]

but that first post mentions only bit depth, im well aware higher bit depth is pointless aside from allowing digital volume control without quality loss. im concerned with sample rate, the equivalent to pixels on a tv screen

That thread (it has hundreds of pages) and the article below it is about how there is no audible benefit to anything above Red Book (16-bit / 44.1 kHz).

 

[Fixxer6671]

I agree with the statement and what's on paper. The issue i have is the higher res files have more umph to them. Granted, it can all go away with the volume being turned up a few more notches

I've been listening to the metallica Re-masters and have a hard time telling the difference between a lossless ripped CD and the hi -res download. it's not materially different. The convienence factor for the win though.