Why CAN I play 24/192 files through my Fiio E7?
Feb 25, 2015 at 5:35 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 10

Midge

New Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Posts
21
Likes
10
Newbie alert.
 
Question as per thread title.
 
I'm using the following at work:
 
PC running MediaMonkey-->USB-->Fiio E7-->Lehmann Rhinelander-->Fostex TH-900.  Very odd combo, I know.
 
When the E7 is specified as 16/48 max on USB, what is happening to allow me to listen to 24/96 and 24/192 files?
 
Is the PC "downgrading" the audio before passing it to the E7?
 
Thanks in advance.
 
Feb 25, 2015 at 5:45 AM Post #2 of 10

HPiper

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Posts
1,717
Likes
146
  Newbie alert.
 
Question as per thread title.
 
I'm using the following at work:
 
PC running MediaMonkey-->USB-->Fiio E7-->Lehmann Rhinelander-->Fostex TH-900.  Very odd combo, I know.
 
When the E7 is specified as 16/48 max on USB, what is happening to allow me to listen to 24/96 and 24/192 files?
 
Is the PC "downgrading" the audio before passing it to the E7?
 
Thanks in advance.


Yes...that is exactly what it is doing.
 
Feb 25, 2015 at 11:09 AM Post #4 of 10

tomb

Member of the Trade: Beezar.com
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
10,508
Likes
740
I read recently a summary of 24-bit, hi-rez audio that I respect.  It was suggested that 16-bit, 44.1KHz was all that was needed for playback, whereas the analog filtering required to establish the 20-20KHz band in digital recording really caused an issue.  That makes sense, because any analog filtering circuit is fraught with artifacts and phase interferences that cause anomalous harmonics in much lower frequencies.
 
I can tell you that 24-bit, Hi-rez files (from the same master) definitely sound better, even if they're played back through a 16-bit, 44.1kHz DAC.
 
You might try Foobar, too.  I have not found any audible issue with its re-sampling and the high-rez files definitely sound better.
 
Feb 25, 2015 at 11:19 AM Post #5 of 10

billybob_jcv

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Posts
10,021
Likes
707
I'm still not entirely convinced that a large part of the improvement in high res files is that unlike the run-of-the-mill CD you buy from Walmart, the high res files are typically made from high quality master recordings. Garbage in, garbage out...
 
Feb 25, 2015 at 11:41 AM Post #6 of 10

Midge

New Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Posts
21
Likes
10
Thanks to all.  That makes sense.
 
@tomb:
I have also read a lot about the advantages/disadvantages of HD music.
 
The one I found most useful is http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html which proclaims:
"Unfortunately, there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48, and it takes up 6 times the space."
 
Although I am not knowledgeable enough to know for sure, it does make sense to me that going above 44.1kHz is pointless and can in fact cause problems.
 
However, using 24-bits for recording and production seems to be a different issue.  I even think I can hear the advantages of 24-bit versions on my HiFi.  Psychoacoustics?
 
Surely, the critical things are recording, mastering and dynamic range.
 
Of course, there are many threads on many forums discussing the pros and cons of hi-rez music.  Here and now I was just wanting to know what was happening between my HD music files and the E7.
 
Thanks again for helping.
 
Feb 25, 2015 at 11:52 AM Post #7 of 10

Music Alchemist

Pokémon trainer of headphones
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Posts
20,088
Likes
2,012
If you convert any high-res file to 16-bit / 44.1 kHz, it sounds exactly the same.
 
Not a single person who claims to hear a difference between resolutions has ever backed up that claim at all. I wonder why that is...
rolleyes.gif

 
Feb 25, 2015 at 12:46 PM Post #8 of 10

Lethe

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Posts
140
Likes
48
  If you convert any high-res file to 16-bit / 44.1 kHz, it sounds exactly the same.
 
Not a single person who claims to hear a difference between resolutions has ever backed up that claim at all. I wonder why that is...
rolleyes.gif

 O___O oh wow...you really are everywhere...
 
I've recently annoyed my friends by making them help me with single-blind tests switching between 24/96,24/192 and 16/44 versions of the same track (16/44s were converted from 24/96s or 24/192s). I can't tell the difference at all. 
 
Then I made them repeat the same test but with 320kbs MP3s vs. 16/44 flacs (the MP3s were converted from the flacs), with the conclusion that I can tell the difference with around 63 out of 100 songs from my music library reliably. Interestingly, most of the songs that I can't tell the difference reliably were hiphop and R&B songs...
 
4/5 times correctly stating the format/bitrate of the track is my metric for "reliable" for no other reason other than that's how many times my friends would tolerate switching (or maybe not switching) between the different sample bit rate tracks. Also, for each time I stated the format/bitrate, they did not tell me if I was wrong or right.
 
Feb 25, 2015 at 1:08 PM Post #9 of 10

Music Alchemist

Pokémon trainer of headphones
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Posts
20,088
Likes
2,012
   O___O oh wow...you really are everywhere...
 
I've recently annoyed my friends by making them help me with single-blind tests switching between 24/96,24/192 and 16/44 versions of the same track (16/44s were converted from 24/96s or 24/192s). I can't tell the difference at all. 
 
Then I made them repeat the same test but with 320kbs MP3s vs. 16/44 flacs (the MP3s were converted from the flacs), with the conclusion that I can tell the difference with around 63 out of 100 songs from my music library reliably. Interestingly, most of the songs that I can't tell the difference reliably were hiphop and R&B songs...
 
4/5 times correctly stating the format/bitrate of the track is my metric for "reliable" for no other reason other than that's how many times my friends would tolerate switching (or maybe not switching) between the different sample bit rate tracks. Also, for each time I stated the format/bitrate, they did not tell me if I was wrong or right.

 
Omnipresence: activated! =P
 
Go here to do it right. You also need a 95% confidence level (like 9/10 or 15/20) to be able to say you can reliably distinguish between two things.
 
Feb 25, 2015 at 1:40 PM Post #10 of 10

Lethe

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Posts
140
Likes
48
   
Omnipresence: activated! =P
 
Go here to do it right. You also need a 95% confidence level (like 9/10 or 15/20) to be able to say you can reliably distinguish between two things.

;_____; I knooooow my friends said no to the 10 times thing. I could only get them to do so much with my homemade choc-chip cookies. Also, I don't think I'll need to use the foobar abx test really, setting things up with no loose ends and doing it single blind is just as good. *grumble*
frown.gif
yea 95% confidence level *grumble*
angry_face.gif
I'll make brownies next time *grumble*
beerchug.gif
maybe throw in a beer or two never do testing while under the influence unless it's related to the test, somehow *grumble*
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top