Hi-res sample rates - a genuine improvement in SQ, or a marketing trick?

[Docfoster]

Some years ago I had a fiddle and think I agreed with the above post from CN about bit rate.
At least at the values I experimented with, for me increasing bit rate was where it was at. I seem to recall that I preferred 48/24 to 192/16. 192/24 was probably best of all. I can’t remember.

[keepitsimplestupid]

If checking hires vs redbook you have to start with the hires master and down sample to ensure an identical master for the redbook version. Otherwise you could be hearing different mastering.

Likewise any DUT has to be checked with upsampled redbook being used to prove that the hires data path itself and effects of filter feedback arent audible.

Then and only then can you proceed with a valid test using downsampled hires as the source.

Ime theres no difference beyond the audibility of filter feedback.

I'll buy hires when available though because it's usually more sympathetically mastered than brick walled and dynamically compressed redbook

[CN211276]

https://www.fairobserver.com/more/scien ... tky-39078/

This article is relevant to the thread and interesting. There is a lengthy thread about it on Wam, but I first came across it on the Chord Facebook page, the content of the article supporting the views of Rob Watts.

The gist of the article is that the 44kHz cap on CDs is too low and that frequencies well beyond the range of human hearing have a major influence on the frequencies which are audible and our enjoyment of music. For this reason analogue is still popular and many prefer it to digital, although in terms of measurements it is not in the same league.

From personal experience I concur with the above. Preference between analogue and Redbook digital is subjective and I can understand why there are diverging opinions about which sounds best. It is swings and roundabouts. However, to these ears, upsampling takes digital to a different level. In hifi terms this mainly concerns the sound stage, but there are other aspects which are not easy to describe. For me the reproduction of frequencies well beyond my range of hearing increase emotional involvement and encourage me to play more music. Although I have not heard super tweeters I would imagine that they have a similar effect. Our enjoyment of music is enhanced by frequencies above 20,000kHz, the extent to which I believe is dependent upon the individual.

As well as individual perception of frequencies beyond the range of human hearing I have found that reproduction equipment has a major part to play. In this respect I think the NVA less is more design philosophy is a big winner because there is less getting in the way, most notably filters, of ultrasonic frequencies. When I heard the Chord Mscaler at a dealer I was not greatly impressed. When in my system it was a night and day difference in comparison. My system without the Mscaler sounded better than the more expensive dealers demonstration system with it. I am coming round to thinking that it is the ability of NVA equipment to reproduce frequencies beyond the range of human hearing which attracts it to so many vinyl devotees.

[montechristo358]

i totally get why higher sample rates can sound better but i really struggle with upsampling its just guesswork

[keepitsimplestupid]

The point is that maybe its just the fact that the filters for high res dont fold back in title audible spectrum that makes high res sound better, not the higher res itself. Hence my prior advice to eliminate both confounding results from dac data path and mastering differences before assuming one knows what differences one is actually listening to.

[TheMadMick]

Ultimately, it's a cost benefit decision. If you can buy a CD on, say, e bay for under £10.00 and the high res is, say, £17.00 - is the extra worth it?

Personally, I read that downsampled hi res to CD was almost indistinguishable from it's hi res original. That suits my prejudices and I'm inclined to believe it. Let's face it, it's all about the music.

[Fretless]

Is it me - or is there some confusion here between 44.1KHz sampling rate and the audible sound-wave frequency that with most speakers & headphones rolls off at about 20KHz?

The sampling rate, the number of times per second that the musical signal is digitally stored, is indicative of how accurately the sound-waves are reproduced. Higher rate => smaller increments => more accuracy.

Ultrasonics are often filtered out in most DAC's which is one reason NOS devices can sound more 'natural'.

[CN211276]

I share the confusion. Audio frequencies do roll off, especially with vinyi, but there is something that comes through, which cant be measured, which we can precieve and contributes to the musical experience.

[Lurcher300b]

The sampling rate, the number of times per second that the musical signal is digitally stored, is indicative of how accurately the sound-waves are reproduced. Higher rate => smaller increments => more accuracy.

Not sure what you mean by "accuracy", but the sample rate alters the maximum frequency that can be stored. Remember that to sample at 44.1k, there is a low pass filter in front of the ADC that removes the signal above 22kHz (more like 20k n practice to allow for filter roll off).