Author Topic: The next step in computer audio  (Read 7735 times)

Offline richidoo

  • Out Of My Speaker Cabinet
  • ******
  • Posts: 11144
Re: The next step in computer audio
« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2012, 06:09:17 PM »
Is it worth it? Can normal hifi gear reveal the benefit of 192kHz over 96kHz?

Offline mdconnelly

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1439
  • new ways to dream...
Re: The next step in computer audio
« Reply #16 on: January 27, 2012, 05:52:59 AM »
All my hi-res listening is done via my Squeezebox Touch which can only handle up to 96kHz.  Personally, I think it would take some awesome electronics and very good ears to hear the difference between 192 and 96.  I seem to recall that  the biggest improvement comes from increasing the bit depth to 24bits.

Offline hometheaterdoc

  • Obsessively Audiophilic
  • ****
  • Posts: 667
Re: The next step in computer audio
« Reply #17 on: January 27, 2012, 06:44:15 AM »
Is it worth it? Can normal hifi gear reveal the benefit of 192kHz over 96kHz?

I've only done a couple "tests" of this.... I can tell a difference...  very subtle though... there are a couple sites that offer the same track in various resolutions.  I've also downrez'ed 192 files by forcing the bit rate on the DAC to be 96, etc. and definitely noticed a difference there...  on mid-fi gear would it be noticable??  not sure....
Shane Sangster
Used to be Night & Day Audio.......

Offline richidoo

  • Out Of My Speaker Cabinet
  • ******
  • Posts: 11144
Re: The next step in computer audio
« Reply #18 on: January 27, 2012, 06:51:21 AM »
Interesting, thanks guys. I would think the tweeter type would influence how audible the improvements in HF waveform shape are.

Offline _Scotty_

  • Obsessively Audiophilic
  • ****
  • Posts: 676
  • “Sic transit gloria mundi”
Re: The next step in computer audio
« Reply #19 on: January 27, 2012, 10:44:26 AM »
Rich,you opened a can of worms with this one. I think the tweeter type,crossover design and components in the crossover would be factors. The associated cabling and the the electronics in the signal chain would also contribute to audibility of the sample rate difference.
Scotty

Offline richidoo

  • Out Of My Speaker Cabinet
  • ******
  • Posts: 11144
Re: The next step in computer audio
« Reply #20 on: January 27, 2012, 11:35:39 AM »
Yes... I like worms...   But we all agree that  hearing all 192 of those kilo Hertz is not guaranteed. I think a pretty serious system is necessary deliver the value and justify the price and storage premiums.

What is the storage rate for uncompressed 24/192 stereo?
http://www.theaudioarchive.com/TAA_Resources_File_Size.htm
67.5MB per minute! 24/96 is 33.8MB per minute, and redbook is about 10.3MB.

Offline jimbones

  • Audio Neurotic
  • *****
  • Posts: 1290
  • Two plus Two Speakers
Re: The next step in computer audio
« Reply #21 on: January 27, 2012, 11:59:14 AM »
I was able to hear an improvement at my local hifi shop but I must say it was not a big difference. Some of the music recorded in 192 is only available in 192 and are incredible recordings. So i am wondering if it worthwhile to purchase these files solely because they did a splendid job of recording them (2L has some real good ones)
Rogue RP7 Pre, Art Audio Vinyl Reference Phono,CJ Premier 12 Pwr, VPI Classic II/Dynavector 20X2L, Roon Rock, Auralic Vega DAC, Emotiva ERC-3, MIT, TWL, WireWorld, Wywires, Shunyata