[dmcs414]

Trying to decide on a desktop USB DAC, and I'm noticing quite a few nice looking ones that only accept 24/96 over USB.  Should I try to find one that is also non-upsampling, Asynchronous USB but accepts 24/192 files?  I've noticed HD Tracks has started carrying a good number of tracks in this format.  Is there a noticeable difference between this and 24/96, or is 24/192 just "the latest and great" and so people want it for chiefly the placebo effect of having "better stats"?  What's the real impact of 24/192?
 
Thanks in advance!

 

[NA Blur]

I cannot hear the difference between the two file types.
 
What is your budget?
 
Do you already have an amp?
 
What headphones do you use if any?

 

[Chris J]

Somewhere in the Science Forum there's a thread where some guy spends a few pages explaining why 192 kHz is bogus!

 

[HamilcarBarca]

Quote:

I've noticed HD Tracks has started carrying a good number of tracks in this format.  Is there a noticeable difference between this and 24/96, or is 24/192 just "the latest and great" and so people want it for chiefly the placebo effect of having "better stats"?  What's the real impact of 24/192?

 
Assuming they're from the same master, the differences between 24/96 and 24/192 are completely inaudible to humans. In almost all cases, the differences between 16/44.1 and 24/96 are inaudible.
 
You get bigger files for your money. That's it. Anything else is psycho-acoustical effect.

 

[burnspbesq]

Quote:

 
Assuming they're from the same master, the differences between 24/96 and 24/192 are completely inaudible to humans. In almost all cases, the differences between 16/44.1 and 24/96 are inaudible.
 
You get bigger files for your money. That's it. Anything else is psycho-acoustical effect.

You were doing OK until you got to the italicized language.  The problem is the brick wall at 22.05.  Numerous instruments have higher-order harmonics above 22.05.  While they are not, in some sense, audible, their absence is noticeable if you have performance or live listening experience and know what those instruments really sound like.

 

[HamilcarBarca]

Quote:

You were doing OK until you got to the italicized language.  The problem is the brick wall at 22.05.  Numerous instruments have higher-order harmonics above 22.05.  While they are not, in some sense, audible, their absence is noticeable if you have performance or live listening experience and know what those instruments really sound like.

 
If they are not "in some sense audible", they aren't audible. Thus, there is no problem here.

 

[Xymordos]

Not just the files, even with the DAC turning on and off Async makes a very big difference to the sound, I remember reading somewhere.

 

[burnspbesq]

If they are not "in some sense audible", they aren't audible. Thus, there is no problem here.

Congratulations on missing the point.

 

[HamilcarBarca]

Quote:

Congratulations on missing the point.

 
Is there any reliable evidence to support the "point"? Or is this simply another audiophile myth -- that bigger numbers must be better?

 

[Xymordos]

Please don't start an argument here...Honestly it is incredibly hard to tell the difference between a 44.1k and a 192k. I understand what burnspbesq is trying to say. You are able to hear that air the violins (easiest to tell on violins), which I think is the natural decay of the notes. Is it worth the money to hear that tiny tiny difference, however, is up to the user to decide.

 

[RonaldDumsfeld]

If it's outside the range of human hearing you cannot hear it.
 
You wouldn't buy an expensive TV because it was capable of displaying Ultraviolet or Infra Red. It would be pointless.

 

[stv014]

For those who think they can hear a difference between 44.1 kHz and higher sample rates, the simplest way to find out is to try it themselves. On the Sound Science forum (for example, in this thread), you can get advice on how to set up a blind test using software sample rate conversion and the foobar2000 ABX comparator plugin.

 

[Xymordos]

For me 320 and 44.1 is really easy since my computer for some reasons make the position of the vocals slightly left with the 320, and on the 44.1 the position is slightly right, though that has nothing to do with the quality of the file.
 
44.1k and higher is really quite difficult. There is certainly an audible difference to me (this is comparing 44.1 and 96), but the differences don't necessarily tell you which one is the better track.

 

[Xymordos]

Okay I just opened my two files, 44.1 you can hear more details because it is louder since it seems like its been "loudness war-ed". 96 the extension reaches 30khz, but we cant hear that. The only audible difference is in the high frequencies, because the 44.1 seems to cut off quite early, even within the audible range. Difference between mp3 and flac is big, but difference between 44.1 and 96 is incredibly tiny. So tiny that it's probably not worth the effort to try hard and listen to the difference.

 

[paara]

regarding it the dac should be asyncronous or native. 
This is review of 11 usb dacs done by a norwegian magazine. 
It showed thet the asyncronous dacs (in this test) had the highest level og jitter.
 
http://translate.google.no/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lydogbilde.no%2Ftest%2Fhandfaste-bevis&act=url
 
(it is run through google translate some technical words are not translates)
Jitterstøy = jitter noise
Jittermåling = jitter measuremet