Why 96khz Or Even 192khz? Headphones don't see to reach it and we can't hear that high of frequencies, according to the interwebs.

[Reckless Yuki]

Hello everyone and thank you for coming to this thread.
 
If this has been covered multiple times (which I'm sure it has) then I apologize for making this thread but I was unable to find answers to my inquiries.
 
I'm very new to the audiophile world and am just trying to understand a few things, spent all last week researching headphones and just started converting my CDs to FLAC and am leaving itune's after so many years. My mind is awoken at the difference. My current setup is a Native Instrument Komplete Audio 6 going to a Presonus HP4 feeding a set of ATH-M50s. I'll be soon receiving a pair of Fidelio X2s and maybe a different DAC just for specifically listening to music.
 
I also downloaded 5 albums from HDtracks so I can start training myself and hopefully be able to eventually tell the difference from 16/44.1 and 24/96 tracks. I plan on ripping these same albums from the actual CDs to see if I can tell the difference.
 
My recent dilemma is why go up to 96khz (or anything higher for that matter)? I understand the benefit from going from 16 to 24 bit. But if the human ear can only hear up to 20khz, and most audiophile headphones I see seem to max out with frequency response at the mid 40khz why spend the money or demand anything more than the 44.1khz that CDs use? 
 
So once again I apologize for this noobish question but felt it might be appropriate within this section. Thank you all for your time.

 

[Time Diver]

I would like to know why too! Is it because higher numbers look cool and they can do it or there exist creatures besides us who can benefit form a higher frequency response?

 

[El Zilcho]

When speaking about files, 44, 96, 192, etc. refers to the sample rate of the file, not directly to the frequency of the actual sound contained within the file.  The most widely held rule is that a sample rate of twice the actual sound frequency is required to fully reproduce that sound.  In other words, a 44khz file should accurately reproduce up to 22kHz sounds.  Since 22kHz is above the generally believed top audible frequency of human ears, 44kHz sample rate files should be sufficient for all music.  
 
Some make arguments for higher sample rate files, but a 192kHz file doesn't necessarily contain any sounds anywhere near that frequency.  It's entirely possible that the highest frequency sounds contained in the file don't exceed 20kHz.  In that case, the extra sample rate is either improving the "sound" of those frequencies, or is completely wasted, depending on which side of the argument you find yourself on.
 
I hope this makes sense.

 

[Time Diver]

I couldn't hope for a better explanation, thank you.

 

[MindsMirror]

It is entirely possible that the files you download from HDTracks will sound better than the CDs, but it's not because of the higher sample rate or bit depth. Nowhere does it say that the downloaded files are from the same master, the same mix, or even the same recording as the CD. The mastering differences are sure to fool many people into thinking that they can hear the difference between the two formats. The true test is to convert a 192KHz 24bit recording to CD quality, so you can be sure they are otherwise identical.

 

[cel4145]

It is entirely possible that the files you download from HDTracks will sound better than the CDs, but it's not because of the higher sample rate or bit depth. Nowhere does it say that the downloaded files are from the same master, the same mix, or even the same recording as the CD. The mastering differences are sure to fool many people into thinking that they can hear the difference between the two formats. The true test is to convert a 192KHz 24bit recording to CD quality, so you can be sure they are otherwise identical.

Good advice. Just don't do it with a Pono Player. It seems obviously designed to have rolled off treble with 44.1khz files. (lol)

 

[Reckless Yuki]

  When speaking about files, 44, 96, 192, etc. refers to the sample rate of the file, not directly to the frequency of the actual sound contained within the file.  The most widely held rule is that a sample rate of twice the actual sound frequency is required to fully reproduce that sound.  In other words, a 44khz file should accurately reproduce up to 22kHz sounds.  Since 22kHz is above the generally believed top audible frequency of human ears, 44kHz sample rate files should be sufficient for all music.  
 
Some make arguments for higher sample rate files, but a 192kHz file doesn't necessarily contain any sounds anywhere near that frequency.  It's entirely possible that the highest frequency sounds contained in the file don't exceed 20kHz.  In that case, the extra sample rate is either improving the "sound" of those frequencies, or is completely wasted, depending on which side of the argument you find yourself on.
 
I hope this makes sense.

 
Thank you so much for your reply. I knew I was missing something. And after I read your reply I googled bit rate and relearned what it was completely so now I am up to speed.
 

  It is entirely possible that the files you download from HDTracks will sound better than the CDs, but it's not because of the higher sample rate or bit depth. Nowhere does it say that the downloaded files are from the same master, the same mix, or even the same recording as the CD. The mastering differences are sure to fool many people into thinking that they can hear the difference between the two formats. The true test is to convert a 192KHz 24bit recording to CD quality, so you can be sure they are otherwise identical.

 
This is a great point! I was unsure if the downloads from HDTracks were actual masters or not. Taking a HDtrack file and downsampling to CD quality, then comparing that to the actual CD file that I rip might be the best comparison, interested to see if I can hear the difference. And if I can't tell the difference between the two CD qualities, see if the high res is different.
 
I'm really interested in all this because I'm trying to get into audio equipment reviews. I really don't want to be one of those people who just says "yup it sound good..." Ha. I'm working on a foundation to build comparisons and figured having different resolutions of albums would be a great way to go.
 
The albums I picked are Ramones - Ramones, Michael Jackson - Thriller, Jack Johnson - In Between Dreams, Bob Marley - Legend, and Jazz at the Pawn Shop. I picked these mainly because these are genres that I can actually enjoy based on my preferences, as well as HDtracks was kind of limited on most of my CD collection... ha.
 
Once again, thank you all very much on your feedback thus far. I really appreciate it!