[bigb_]

Hi guys!

I got myself into the headphones business several months ago and I am loving it

I have a question though:
A couple of days ago I got an audiophile DVD sample with some 96 khz songs on it. Since then I've been A/B-ing songs and I still fail to hear the difference between normal MP3s (even high compression ones) and the supposedly amazing quality 96 khz ones... A song in question is Elton John's "Blessed". I have a plain vanilla 44.1 khz 128k MP3 and I cannot hear the difference with the 96 khz version. I think I hear some differences here and there, but it's a gamble...

My config is EMU 0404 USB with Sennheiser HD595, using Foobar + ASIO to play the music on a Dell Laptop.

So the question is is my equipment adequate to hear a difference? Or maybe it's my bad hearing :-D Or is it possible that I ripped the DVD wrong somehow?!

Any help would be deeply appreciated :-D

 

[DefectiveAudioComponent]

Maybe Elton actually sings at 44khz?

 

[bigb_]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DefectiveAudioComponent /img/forum/go_quote.gif Maybe Elton actually sings at 44khz?

Do you mean the original recording was at 44.1 and they simply upsampled it? Is that possible? It would be kind of misleading to put it on a 96 khz demo DVD wouldn't it? Also, can remastering actually make an audible difference?

 

[jet87]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigb_ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Or is it possible that I ripped the DVD wrong somehow?!

Its definitely possible. How did you rip the DVD? Have you A-B'ed the rip to the original, making sure both are at 96 kHz?

 

[bigb_]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jet87 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Its definitely possible. How did you rip the DVD? Have you A-B'ed the rip to the original, making sure both are at 96 kHz?

Well, I personally cannot hear any difference. But then again, I am really starting to hear that my ears a fried... I am in my twenties and I haven't been to many concerts :-D so my hearing should be pretty good...

Is there anyway I can give you guys samples of these files without violating a million copyright laws?

 

[jet87]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigb_ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is there anyway I can give you guys samples of these files without violating a million copyright laws?

Probably not. I'm curious as to how you were able to rip the audio from the DVD since there's usually some copy-protection in the way.

 

[joshd]

I'm very confused on this higher sample rate lark... from what I have read, all higher sample rates do is allow frequencies higher than 22.05kHz (which you can't hear anyway), and don't offer any improved definition below that because 44.1kHz can reproduce anything below that just fine?

What are the advantages to using a higher sample rate?

 

[m00hk00h]

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshd /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm very confused on this higher sample rate lark... from what I have read, all higher sample rates do is allow frequencies higher than 22.05kHz (which you can't hear anyway), and don't offer any improved definition below that because 44.1kHz can reproduce anything below that just fine?

That's only half-true. The performance under 20Khz is boosted quite a lot with this few extra kHz (to 44kHz). That has to with the amount of oscillations that are needed to come close to the original volume of a sound wave on the high frequency end. With 96kHz (or even more) you don't have to worry about these frequencies at all.
All that digital stuff is complicated and I don't really want to explain. Ask wiki/google etc. for "Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem"...maybe you'll find a description that explains it pretty well.

But to be honest, I don't think there is an audible advantage...

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshd /img/forum/go_quote.gif What are the advantages to using a higher bitrate?

Higher bitrates mean that there are more states of volume a sample can have which then means that the step between the samples are much saller, resulting in a smoother appearance of the resulting waveform (less "digital").
And once again...I don't think there is an audible advantage.

I thing the advantage of DVD/SACD etc. comes from the added effort in recording and mastering. But that's just IMHO.

To topic:
If can't hear the difference between the original song and a 128k MP3 (no matter what sample rates) I would just turn around and leave head-fi because you have the perfect gear for your needs.
This is not meant as an insult or something but, frankly, listening to 128K mp3 is a true pain. And even more, if I know the original song from better sources. If you can't hear the difference you'll save a LOT of money in the future (and I admit that I am a bit jealous)!

m00h

 

[joshd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by m00hk00h /img/forum/go_quote.gif Higher bitrates mean that there are more states of volume a sample can have which then means that the step between the samples are much saller, resulting in a smoother appearance of the resulting waveform (less "digital").

Heh, I meant to type "What are the advantages to using a higher SAMPLE rate?" but there we are.

I've read up on sampling theorem before, but wasn't aware that including frequencies above 22khz would have an effect on lower, audible frequencies. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[bigb_]

Hmmm... sorry for yet another stupid question, but is possible to "quantify" the difference between the 128 kb. MP3 and the FLAC/APEs? What I mean is if I open both files in Audacity for example, will I see the missing data?

And yeah, I do hear about saving the money and I am not planning to spend anymore anyway There's too much voodoo in hi-fi for my taste and my financial philosophy. I do however feel that at the lower levels there should be audible differences. There's definitely scientific ground for that (as opposed to people claiming that they can hear the difference between two optical cables

).

So I am a bit concerned that I can hear the difference between 128 kbit compression and a lossless file... My setup is definitely high resolution enough, right?!


Anyways... Thanks a lot for the replies - this is one of the best online forums I've seen!

 

[bigb_]

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshd /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm very confused on this higher sample rate lark... from what I have read, all higher sample rates do is allow frequencies higher than 22.05kHz (which you can't hear anyway), and don't offer any improved definition below that because 44.1kHz can reproduce anything below that just fine? What are the advantages to using a higher bitrate?

That's a good question... I don't really know A friend helped me with that since the drive on my laptop is a bit screwed and it cannot play streaming music properly. I doubt it was very complicated - I think he used some software. What I do know is that he did not record outputs - he ripped it.

 

[ph0rk]

Without beginning a flamewar, many people are unable to discern such quality differences blind. If you are one of those people - rejoice!

You can worry less about equipment and software and more about music.

 

[Akabeth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigb_ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi guys! I got myself into the headphones business several months ago and I am loving it ......... A song in question is Elton John's "Blessed". I have a plain vanilla 44.1 khz 128k MP3 and I cannot hear the difference with the 96 khz version.

Then you have the privilege to consider yourself amongst the lucky ones... really.

~Enjoy the music

 

[Nocturnal310]

According to Sampling Theorem

if the Analog signal is sampled at Double the Nyquist frequency then the Output is perfectly reconstructed in the most efficient form.


So if its 44.1 Khz plus ... its not really Audible difference but just a professional reason for Storage.


Personally i think Bitrate matters much more than Sampling rate..atleast i can still tell a difference between 320 kbps and FLAC.

but if its 44.1 to 96 khz..then no difference.... just Placebo effect.

 

[bigb_]

Sounds good. I was starting to think my ears are gone :-D

Thanks guys!