• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

How High of a Sample Rate is Enough?

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,835
Likes
16,497
Location
Monument, CO
Speaking for myself, I like music to be played in front of me and not around me. I have tried it and it simply doesn't work for me. For movies, of course, MC works great.

That's fine, but while I only have a few mch recordings, I am trying to follow Kal and others as there are some simply stunning mch recordings available (mostly classical). They give you (OK, me) a much better sense of "space" and recreate the concert experience (usually minus the guy on his phone, lady humming along with the music, and kids fighting over the portable game box). My biggest issue so far, other than simple lack of time to listen and spending too much time posting instead of searching out more discs to buy, is that I like jazz and new age (gasp!) as well and there do not seem to be nearly as many mch recordings in those venues. I have a couple of rock DVDs/BDs (Eagles, Pink Floyd) and some more eclectic stuff (e.g. Celtic) that sounds pretty good to me.

Maybe because I have played with so many groups through the years, and attended a number of shows in various venues small and large that had really good acoustics (direct and ambient), I am more used to the music being all around me.

I have been disappointed in how little use of the surrounds many movies seem to make, especially 7.1 (no experience with Atmos and such). Too often they seem to provide the occasional effect (car or jet going by) instead of immersing you in the movie. Again, just my opinion, take for what it is worth. - Don
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
3,065
Location
Zg, Cro
That's fine, but while I only have a few mch recordings, I am trying to follow Kal and others as there are some simply stunning mch recordings available (mostly classical). They give you (OK, me) a much better sense of "space" and recreate the concert experience (usually minus the guy on his phone, lady humming along with the music, and kids fighting over the portable game box). My biggest issue so far, other than simple lack of time to listen and spending too much time posting instead of searching out more discs to buy, is that I like jazz and new age (gasp!) as well and there do not seem to be nearly as many mch recordings in those venues. I have a couple of rock DVDs/BDs (Eagles, Pink Floyd) and some more eclectic stuff (e.g. Celtic) that sounds pretty good to me.

I also mostly listen to rock and jazz music but I rarelly go to concerts so recreating the "space" is not really my thing. Besides, I don't really think that jazz and rock music can be compared with classical in terms of necessary "space" in concerts. :D

I have been disappointed in how little use of the surrounds many movies seem to make, especially 7.1 (no experience with Atmos and such). Too often they seem to provide the occasional effect (car or jet going by) instead of immersing you in the movie. Again, just my opinion, take for what it is worth. - Don

I share your opinion. Only the most expensive movie productions seems to make a decent usage of the surround technology.
 
OP
Ron Texas

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,078
Likes
8,914
\
a sample rate of 44.1 kHz is enough for most (incl. me) but 88.2kHz (or 96kHz) is technically sufficient for the goldenest of ears.
Everything above (and DSD) is born of DAC chip manufacturer pissing contests showing off how far they can take it and has no relevance to audible SQ improvements but does have relevance to objectively improved fidelity way beyond our borders of perception.

You left out bit depth...
I think there is more gain in 'high res sound' increasing bit depth than it is in sample rate.
16 Bit is probably enough but when buying a DAC and using software volume control or EQ, 24 bit capable DAC's (they do not reach 24 bit analog resolution but rather accept 24 bit digital words) are probably the way to go.

You can probably find one someplace, but 16 bit DAC's are getting hard to find and 24 bit is giving way to 32 bit.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,389
Location
Seattle Area
Why would anyone actually use DSD?
Because of the "audiophile buzz" or their own impression, some labels capture/record in DSD. PCM is the derived from that. Blue Coast Music is one such label. There are others like Challenge Classics.
 

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,440
Likes
632
I agree with Amir and with Kal. The ideal sampling rate is the one the recording used natively without conversion. But, like Kal, I do format and downconversion out of necessity for DSD recordings and occasionally for ultra hi PCM. I prefer playback in PCM over direct DSD in order to apply DSP - speaker distance, bass management and room EQ.

JRiver, my playback engine, converts DSD64 to 352k PCM, which is generally also what pro-DSD engineers use. Most players and AV processors use 88k. I downsample anything above PCM192k to PCM192k or 176k, since my Dirac EQ is limited to those sampling rates. I understand that Dirac will be increasing their limit to 384k, so I will correspondingly increase mine to 352/384k.

Advantages/disadvantages? Sonic differences from higher sampling rates may be slight to nonexistent. Sampling rate conversions may also be totally transparent. But, even so, why do any conversions unless they are absolutely necessary? I see no possible harm that can come of this approach, and my DAC supports DSD256/PCM384k.

But, as Kal has reported, there can be a small but noticeably preferable sonic advantage to direct DSD playback over converting it to hirez PCM. Unfortunately, DSP tools for DSD are almost nonexistent. And, DSP provides greater improvement/advantage than pure DSD playback, in spite of the conversion to PCM.

I almost never play CDs, but I likely would not upsample them to 88k or higher, either.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
You can probably find one someplace, but 16 bit DAC's are getting hard to find and 24 bit is giving way to 32 bit.

A DAC that accepts 32 Bit audiowords will probably have the exact same noise floor and dynamic range as a 24 bit accepting DAC.
Both won't be reaching 24bit resolution in analog signal.
It's just like the sample-rate race above 192kHz ... utterly pointless and just to be able to produce nice numbers to increase sales.
It just can 'accept' 32-bit words.
Increasing the amount of bits and sample-rate will have its toll on the data-rate, demanding more and more bandwidth... and for what ?

There is something to be said for processing 16 or 24 bit data in 32 bit, but not for conversion.

Indeed finding 16 bit DAC's is harder these days as DAC chips that are cheap as chips are abundant.
It is much easier to find 16 bit files (CD) which are also accepted by 24 and 32 bit DACs but are simply padded with 0's.
Maybe some clever DAC's or intelligence may even 'dither' the biggest padded '0' ?
 
OP
Ron Texas

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,078
Likes
8,914
Increasing the amount of bits and sample-rate will have its toll on the data-rate, demanding more and more bandwidth... and for what ?

For marketing.
 

Kal Rubinson

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
5,273
Likes
9,789
Location
NYC
I don't think so, I simply don't like it. I also don't like the way headphones make the sound "in" my head and not in front of me. What I like is the "classic" stereo sound, but that is only my personal preference and in no way I claim it is better than MCH.
De gustibus non disputandum est.
 

Hemicrusher

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2018
Messages
94
Likes
47
For me it comes down to how well the recording and mastering was done. To say 24/192 is better than 16/44 without using a specific example has no merit. A crap mastered 24/192 will sound worse than a well mastered 16/44 any day of the week.

Also this BS of upsampling makes little sense to me. Taking a 16/44 and upsampling it to 24/192 or 8xDSD will not add magical or missing data.
 

Hemicrusher

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2018
Messages
94
Likes
47
Why would anyone actually use DSD?

I have heard some native DSD's from Blue Coast Records. These were recorded in DSD with no mastering....meaning they were never converted to PCM. These sound very very good. The problem is, the music I listen to was never DSD native....so, DSD for me is moot.
 

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,440
Likes
632
A DAC that accepts 32 Bit audiowords will probably have the exact same noise floor and dynamic range as a 24 bit accepting DAC.
Both won't be reaching 24bit resolution in analog signal.
It's just like the sample-rate race above 192kHz ... utterly pointless and just to be able to produce nice numbers to increase sales.
It just can 'accept' 32-bit words.
Increasing the amount of bits and sample-rate will have its toll on the data-rate, demanding more and more bandwidth... and for what ?

There is something to be said for processing 16 or 24 bit data in 32 bit, but not for conversion.

Indeed finding 16 bit DAC's is harder these days as DAC chips that are cheap as chips are abundant.
It is much easier to find 16 bit files (CD) which are also accepted by 24 and 32 bit DACs but are simply padded with 0's.
Maybe some clever DAC's or intelligence may even 'dither' the biggest padded '0' ?
Yes, the only useful purpose of 32-bit DACs is for digital volume control, with absolutely no loss of useable bit depth and S/N. I don't think anyone claims otherwise. If they do, look elsewhere. Recordings don't even get close to 24 bits.

But, digital volume control with a 32-bit DAC not only eliminates the need for an analog preamp, it also smokes just about any analog volume control on the planet in any measurable and audible way, while being dramatically less costly to implement, since 32-bit DACs chips are quite abundant.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
The question is whether the last 8 bits in theoretical resolution are of any practical use as the actual noise level on the analog side is the big elephant here.
As that lies around 24 bits what good would the steps smaller than that contribute to the volume control ?
 

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,835
Likes
16,497
Location
Monument, CO
Does any audio DAC actually claim, let alone achieve, 24-bit (~146 dB) SNR? Do not know, curious... Note the noise floor seen in an FFT is not the SNR.
 

Fitzcaraldo215

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
1,440
Likes
632
The question is whether the last 8 bits in theoretical resolution are of any practical use as the actual noise level on the analog side is the big elephant here.
As that lies around 24 bits what good would the steps smaller than that contribute to the volume control ?
Well, the analog noise level that is sufficient is probably closer to 22 bits maximum in digital, optimistically.

But, the rest is just digital math. Turn down the volume a click or two, and you might lose a bit, an LSB in bit 32, and so on increasingly. The extra 8 bits in 32 vs. 24 bits provide considerable extra padding for volume reductions such that the real input signal in the most significant 22 or 24 bits remains completely unaffected as volume reductions occur over a very wide dynamic range. The MSB signal is shifted toward the LSB end of the word only as necessary a bit at a time as bits are dropped off the LSB end in volume reductions. But, the "lost" LSBs were never real signal in the first place.
 
Last edited:

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
Mola-Mola claims near 24 bit :eek: and so does MSB

I reckon 22 bit is closer to the actual limit.
The extra bits below 24 bit do nothing as the noise floor remains the same and the signal just gets closer to the noise floor the more attenuation is used.

The volume control (in a practical sense) is valid for 16 bit words in a 24 bit DAC. The 8 bits will actually allow the 16 bit signal to be not compromised when attenuated about 50dB.
As the noisefloor is 'fixed' and not really reducable any 'steps' smaller than 24 bit are simply pointless as they are smaller than the always present noise at the output of the DAC.
So while this works as advertised for redbook in a 24bit DAC it does not apply to 24bit in a 32 bit DAC
 
Last edited:

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,579
Likes
38,280
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Does any audio DAC actually claim, let alone achieve, 24-bit (~146 dB) SNR? Do not know, curious...

They'd be foolish to claim it. Even with a very low 2uV of residual noise (B/W 20K), it'd need a ~40V RMS rated output on the D/A converter wouldn't it?

Let's face it, the specified S/N ratios on a lot of these built-up standalone D/As are blatant lies.

As for sampling rate, I'm more than happy with 44.1KHz or 48KHz and 16 bit data, with 16x4OS D/As or 18x8OS D/As as I play CDs as my digital source.
 
Last edited:

astr0b0y

Active Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
273
Likes
201
Location
Melbourne Australia
I need pictures! Can’t someone please produce measurements of a single tone waveform analogue output comparing various inputs from redbook 16/44 then that same signal upsampled to various PCM and DSD rates? Personally I’d like this done in the DX7s as this I the DAC I have ;)
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,606
Location
Central Fl
For me it comes down to how well the recording and mastering was done. To say 24/192 is better than 16/44 without using a specific example has no merit. A crap mastered 24/192 will sound worse than a well mastered 16/44 any day of the week.

Also this BS of upsampling makes little sense to me. Taking a 16/44 and upsampling it to 24/192 or 8xDSD will not add magical or missing data.
I tend to live by the KISS principle "Keep It Simple Stupid" and belive the best possible playback will be done by playing back a digital recording in it's native sample rate without a bunch of conversions. I've heard the arguments of some filters giving better performance at higher rates which I can't dispute. I'll only say that I'm still firmly in the camp that the best SQ will problably come from the simplest decoding path and I'm doubtful of any improvements from upsampling. Outside of streaming, some blu-rays and CD's, all my music currently comes from computer files either of CD rips to flac, or LP needle drops recorded by audacity to 16/44 flac files. They are played back by Clementine music player serving a bit perfect stream to my DAC. Done.
I have heard some native DSD's from Blue Coast Records. These were recorded in DSD with no mastering....meaning they were never converted to PCM. These sound very very good. The problem is, the music I listen to was never DSD native....so, DSD for me is moot.
I own a few Blue Coast recordings downloaded in 24/96 PCM, they sound excellent. No way of knowing off hand if the DSD's sound any different but as I said they use top level recording techniques so they should both sound great.
 
Top Bottom