HiRes FOMO - Am I really missing anything?

[kemmler3D]

I think the best argument for higher sampling rates is to move the output filter way beyond the 20Khz region so there's no chance of hearing any roll off.

My middle aged ears don't care, but some young reviewers have demonstrated an ability to hear roll off with certain DACs.

You may ask... "A fraction of a dB at 19-21Khz is the BEST argument for higher sampling rates?" And I think it is.

I don't think there's any even remote reason to go past 24/96 for playback.

 

[Keith_W]

Doubling your sample rate will halve the latency of your FIR filter. You would surely be able to hear that

 

[Floyd Toole]

Apparently this is possibly wrong?

Talking about recreational home listening, not creating, mix/mastering etc.

I was hoping there was nearly a consensus on this here!

Please chime in if you think it is true, no need for seeking out objective studies.

But if you believe there are audible benefits to going to 96Hz or higher sample rates

or separately maybe, higher than 24-bit resolution?

Then do please cite evidence, studies by serious people at least trying to be objective.

If you yourself dunno but you'd like to invite other members whose expertise you respect to weigh in, feel free to "call" them, only once

please

@Floyd Toole

Figure 9.8 from the 4th edition of my book: A simplified two-dimensional display of what we can record, store and hear. At the bottom is the hearing threshold, and an example of the noise floor of a good microphone. Above this are some examples of typical background sounds in recording and listening environments, including cars at highway speeds, to high sound levels where things become uncomfortable and then permanently damaging. Running across the middle of the white area representing the useful listening region, are examples of long-term average spectra of popular music at foreground listening levels (from Olive, 1994). Peak levels will be higher. On the right are shown estimated dynamic ranges of perfect digital record/playback systems.

 

[Frunse]

Doubling your sample rate will halve the latency of your FIR filter. You would surely be able to hear that

How the hack you will heare any difierent in sound because off latency, i use FIR Filter with 96db at 96 kHz for month now and the only Problem is you need to setup Lipsync but the Sound is Perfect as it should lol, if you start a tone it comes a bit later out but than it sounds and measured like it should on an Scope an Sinus 1kHz is still an Sinus 1 Khz with Fir or IIr makes no difference on Scope lol It need only a bit longer till the signal comes Out on DSP. The Tone is still the same Also the Impulse looks much better on FIR than on IIR 3 Way lOOOL

Don't ask about Phase on IIR LOL

 

[90sNintendoKid]

48khz is good enough for me.

In fact, I use AVRs for all my systems and I add extra ADCs to my audio chain, currently a Minidsp Flex HTx soon to be Behringer ADA8200s into a RME Digiface USB and Equaliser APO on a Windows PC so I can experiment with Cavern QuickEQ and maybe Audiolense XO.

For me the ability to EQ my speakers and subwoofers improves sound quality more than bitrate.

 

[SSS]

My preferred flac files are 24-bit and 96 kHz sampling. So I am sure that there are no problems at playing them. Of course I don't hear a difference when using 16-bit and 44.1 kHz. But I like the higher values, it is just Rock-n-Roll.
Regarding of "no objective reason for higher rates" this question cannot be answered finally with confidence. There are many aspects (technical and perceptive) which can not be evaluated to the end. Also future generations may have better listening ears when evolution progresses.

 

[Frunse]

People already lucky wtih Turntable Sound so what now .....don't go any further, be like them

It's youre own choice how you like it and what you will pay for youre Devices.

If you already lucky with mp3 good for you you can save a lot off Money for equipment LOL

 

[respice finem]

View attachment 550226

Figure 9.8 from the 4th edition of my book: A simplified two-dimensional display of what we can record, store and hear. At the bottom is the hearing threshold, and an example of the noise floor of a good microphone. Above this are some examples of typical background sounds in recording and listening environments, including cars at highway speeds, to high sound levels where things become uncomfortable and then permanently damaging. Running across the middle of the white area representing the useful listening region, are examples of long-term average spectra of popular music at foreground listening levels (from Olive, 1994). Peak levels will be higher. On the right are shown estimated dynamic ranges of perfect digital record/playback systems.

One might interpret the upper part as "anything above 16 bit is potentially masochistic" (just kidding).

On a more serious note: I wouldn't buy music because it's "highres". If it is "out of the box" (as in streaming etc.) I wouldn't downsample it either.
Peace of mind is a good thing, and I (59.) am becoming increasingly "low-res" every year anyway...

 

[Frunse]

But how to hear diferences on differend Samplerates when youre Device never could play it like it should????All get downsampled ??? All played thrue an steep Alisingfilter with lots of ringing.

I have lot of Hires Music and want to listen it like it should not less or more....Easey ?
And make my own expirience wit it!

The Technogy is there already for long Time so why bother about 48kHz if we could use already 96kHz as an studio standard.

An stupid cheep DAC could play already 192kHz so why bother about???? 24Bit is usefull for Volumecontrol before or in DAC possability
Windwos uses 64Bit for Volumecontrol all get sampled to 64Bit Volume added and converted back to 24 Bit before DAC without much add of distortions.

But i am still prefere Analogue Volumecontrol (relaise based) after the DAC before AMP to use the full Dynamic Range of the DAC.

 

[voodooless]

But the main benefit from using let say 96kHz and thats is realy the most you realy need, is to use less steep Filters on Analogue Outs with less Ringing on the DAC's analogue Outs!!!

Audiophile Myth #260: The Detestable Digital Filter Ringing and Real Music...

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

And less Phaseshift below 20kHz shifted to higher Frequency Range! Also easely measurable on an Dac Analogue Outs too !!!

That’s what phase linear filters are for.

For all of them the less steep Filter was more relaxed and better sounding specialy on longterm listening!!!

Use EQ to lower the highs slightly. A DAC is not an EQ device.

 

[Saponetto]

I was previously addicted on HiRes and all of its world, had Qobuz and Tidal accounts for many years but some circumstances (the need of a good Duo family account with a top-notch search engine) dropped me into the 16/44 pit of Spotify Lossless.
Well, have to say that atm no harm occurred to my old ears and I currently happily entertain myself on sharing good vibes with my wife's account.

 

[john61ct]

I assume you mean 48kHz?

Aha, thus the jokes!

Yes of course call it a brain fart, old brain in the head of an old fart.

 

[john61ct]

96kHz is advantageous during production because it reduces distortion and digital artifacts (aliasing) when using heavy plugin processing"

Did you read my OP?

 

[dfuller]

There are some use cases where higher sample rates make sense, but they definitely aren't on the consumer side.

Mostly for time compression/expansion and/or pitch correction, it sounds better when the algorithm has more data points to work with.

 

[john61ct]

View attachment 550226

Fantastic Dr Toole, grateful for your time!

I see the dynamic range impact of bit depths - no point going past 24-bit

But could you possibly expand on sample rates (like 48 kHz vs. 96 kHz) specifically, how they affect playback SQ?

 

[john61ct]

There are some use cases where higher sample rates make sense, but they definitely aren't on the consumer side.

Mostly for time compression/expansion and/or pitch correction, it sounds better when the algorithm has more data points to work with.

Yes, and thanks. however I specifically asked that these creation / production aspects be excluded, not part of the topic.

 

[OldTimer]

Do you think all human on earth are so stupid keeping much larger file size for 192kHz songs? Come on!!! Even 96kHz is not enough for me. Now you're talking 48kHz?

 

[Daverz]

Do you think all human on earth are so stupid keeping much larger file size for 192kHz songs? Come on!!! Even 96kHz is not enough for me. Now you're talking 48kHz?

Not necessarily stupid, but it's pretty obnoxious if they just assert this preference without even doing even a casual random listening test at home (which is easy when we're just comparing files on disk).

An easy way to create test files is to downsample a hi-rez file to 48kHz, then upsample to the original rate.

 

[john61ct]

Do you think all human on earth are so stupid keeping much larger file size for 192kHz songs? Come on!!! Even 96kHz is not enough for me. Now you're talking 48kHz?

Do really think humans are mostly rational? I think besides internally generated instinctive urges / desires and reaction to emotional / sensory inputs, nearly all our behaviour is driven by "cognitive shortcuts", social conditioning to put it kindly, but these days mostly purposefully manipulated "information", as in brainwashed by propaganda, à la Bernays, Madison Avenue, Goebbels et al, see Walter Lippmann.

Our labour has become less important than our rôles as consumers, providers of data points used to more precisely target that propaganda to maximise their wealth and power.

/end rant

 

[vintologi]

Depends on which studies you trust i guess. I am only aware of 2 studies that used a separate super-tweeter to test the impact of ultrasonics on brain activity:

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.2000.83.6.3548
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095464

This study found that people enjoyed the silence more after hearing the version controlling ultrasonics and did not control for IMD (and also found difference in brain activity):

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00093/full

They also tested for 10 different things so it might simply be a coincidence result even at p = 0.005

This study just asked untrained listeners (and controlled for IMD) and unsurprisingly found that nobody could tell the difference, seems like they did not try to measure anything with regard to brain activity:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120626185652/http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/publica/labnote/lab486.html

I will be doing some more tests on my own to see if ultrasonics i cannot directly hear can still have an impact somehow past the speakers.

High resolution audio

CD quality allows you to reproduce frequencies below 22.05 Khz at a a signal to noise ratio of up to 96 dB, this is actually pretty good considering CD was format was released in 1982. It's actually very difficult to fully utilize the Signal to Noise ratio CD offers even today The topping...

vintologi.com

If ultrasonics do indeed affect brain activity then it should be possible for people to guess the version played correctly by for example going by how they feel after listening to the track (even if it would likely require a lot of session and be very time consuming due to limited accuracy).