[spritzer]

Quote:

 
No, you can't, because there is literally no difference aside from some extra ultrasonic distortion present in both (if anything, the 24/96 and 24/192 should sound theoretically worse than the 16/44). Any sort of understanding of the Nyquist sampling theorem proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Any complex waveform can be flawlessly sampled at twice the highest frequency in the source material. 

 
There is sometimes a difference though but it has nothing to do with the sampling frequency, different mastering being the likely culprit. 

 

[davidsh]

Quote:

 
There is sometimes a difference though but it has nothing to do with the sampling frequency, different mastering being the likely culprit. 

Technically, the DAC would have a harder job operating as fast as the bit stream of 192/24bit would require. That could possibly make a difference.

 

[Michgelsen]

The extra distortion caused by ultrasonic information in high-res can also have a slight detrimental effect on the sound quality. You can find some sample files here to demonstrate that: http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[Warpkitty]

Quote:

 
There is sometimes a difference though but it has nothing to do with the sampling frequency, different mastering being the likely culprit. 

^ This. SACD/DSD is often remastered with way more care and attention. Or, maybe they just make it all louder

 

[spritzer]

They certainly make the bass louder. 

  Not advocating against high res in any way as it is just the natural progression of the Red Book but comparing the two is often comparing apples and bananas.  Same deal as with the advocates of burn in, they never think that they might be mislead by their senses and that it just takes time to get to know any piece of gear....

 

[davidsh]

But on the other hand, it can also be a negative thing if music is mastered in 48 kHz AFAIK.

 

[Michgelsen]

Why, what do you mean?

 

[yawg]

Quote:

They certainly make the bass louder. 

  Not advocating against high res in any way as it is just the natural progression of the Red Book but comparing the two is often comparing apples and bananas.  Same deal as with the advocates of burn in, they never think that they might be mislead by their senses and that it just takes time to get to know any piece of gear....

I'm not an "advocate" of burn-in, more of an "agnostic" but I cannot deny the findings of my ears/senses. That said, yes, I acknoledge the fact of getting used to the change - whatever it may cause it -  and love or dislike it. Still I don't have the feeling to be "mislead" by my senses. Anyone's senses cannot be "mislead" whatsoever, they are a natural gift and flawless, even in their restrictions. Gear OTOH is never flawless ...

 

[autoteleology]

I'm not an "advocate" of burn-in, more of an "agnostic" but I cannot deny the findings of my ears/senses. That said, yes, I acknoledge the fact of getting used to the change - whatever it may cause it -  and love or dislike it. Still I don't have the feeling to be "mislead" by my senses. Anyone's senses cannot be "mislead" whatsoever, they are a natural gift and flawless, even in their restrictions. Gear OTOH is never flawless ...

"My dad was really good at making me think everything through. The scientific method is a totally counterintuitive thing because it begins by saying: You can't trust your memory or your senses. You have to measure things empirically and write them down because otherwise everything you remember and everything you know is colored by your biases and experiences and hopes and aspirations. And essentially your brain lies to you all the time. This is a very hard thing to get a 5-year-old to understand." - Cory Doctorow

 

[Chris J]

No, you can't, because there is literally no difference aside from some extra ultrasonic distortion present in both (if anything, the 24/96 and 24/192 should sound theoretically worse than the 16/44). Any sort of understanding of the Nyquist sampling theorem proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Any complex waveform can be flawlessly sampled at twice the highest frequency in the source material. 

Would you really want to sample music at a 40 kHz sampling rate?
This assumes a perfect DAC process.
OTOH, I do see your point with 196 kHz files for the consumer.

 

[DefQon]

Most stuff is in 16/40-44. Even 24/96 DAC's are overkill which is why I always avoided anything expensive with a Sabre chip. 

 

[wink]

You technical heretic..........

 

[DefQon]

LOL!

 

[telecaster]

44Khz/16bits is flawed and don't have enough low noise floor. Do the maths. If Redbook would have been something like 48Khz/20bit, CD would have been the perfect media for music for eternity...

 

[davidsh]

Quote:

44Khz/16bits is flawed and don't have enough low noise floor. Do the maths. If Redbook would have been something like 48Khz/20bit, CD would have been the perfect media for music for eternity...

You being a bit harsh? When will you actually need a lower noise floor? Sure it wouldn't hurt, though...