High Resolution Audio
- Thread starter johngrant
- Start date
vitocorleone123
Senior Member
I think that's not entirely true - I think some people can hear somewhere between differences 16 - 24 bit and something like 68khz or somesuch. It's in a GS thread from 2009.
Higher bitrate and higher resolution can usually make it easier to digitally work with some types of audio.
Jerner
Preposterous Incompetence
i have yet to see a series of listening tests showing participants reliably being able to differentiate anything higher than cd audio at a rate enough to justify going higher than 48 khz/16 bit for consumers. that being said, there are some differences of course. if you want the technical wank, it's really pretty simple:
a higher sample rate than 44.1 khz like the cd will extend the treble above 22.05 khz. (that you probably can't hear anyway, very few adults can)
a higher bit depth will get you a lower noise floor.
a cd at 16 bits already has 96 dB of headroom, minus a miniscule amount taken up by the dithering if applied. even on a sound system at properly high levels the dither noise will be at 80 or so dB below whatever you are listening to, good luck hearing it.
24 bits on the other hand will get you 144 dB, useful for massive PA-systems but completely unnecessary for the regular consumer.
also: a sine wave at 100 hz rendered in both 96 khz and 44 khz will not only sound identical at the output but they actually are. you can even reduce the sample rate to literally just above 200 hertz and it will still be identical. a higher sample rate doesn't give a "smoother soundwave" simply because that isn't how digital audio works. dan worrall on youtube has some rather excellent videos on the topic i believe.
anyone who tells you about "a wider sound stage", "depth" or "creaminess" has no understanding of the topic, should be disregarded and is quite likely trying to sell you some snake oil.
a higher sample rate than 44.1 khz like the cd will extend the treble above 22.05 khz. (that you probably can't hear anyway, very few adults can)
a higher bit depth will get you a lower noise floor.
a cd at 16 bits already has 96 dB of headroom, minus a miniscule amount taken up by the dithering if applied. even on a sound system at properly high levels the dither noise will be at 80 or so dB below whatever you are listening to, good luck hearing it.
24 bits on the other hand will get you 144 dB, useful for massive PA-systems but completely unnecessary for the regular consumer.
also: a sine wave at 100 hz rendered in both 96 khz and 44 khz will not only sound identical at the output but they actually are. you can even reduce the sample rate to literally just above 200 hertz and it will still be identical. a higher sample rate doesn't give a "smoother soundwave" simply because that isn't how digital audio works. dan worrall on youtube has some rather excellent videos on the topic i believe.
anyone who tells you about "a wider sound stage", "depth" or "creaminess" has no understanding of the topic, should be disregarded and is quite likely trying to sell you some snake oil.
Virtuoso
Hoarder
Good article here...
benchmarkmedia.com
FWIW I switched from Tidal to Qobuz a few years ago because the difference was very very obvious on several of their recordings (particularly a couple of Brahms Piano Concertos by Brendel on Philips which sounded appalling on Tidal). I think Tidal were using MQA at the time which may have been a factor - they've dropped it now. Since switching I've been 100% happy with Qobuz.
Audiophile Snake Oil
The Audiophile Wild West Audiophiles live in the wild west. $495 will buy an "audiophile fuse" to replace the $1 generic fuse that came in your audio amplifier. $10,000 will buy a set of "audiophile speaker cables" to replace the $20 wires you purchased at the local hardware store. We are told...
benchmarkmedia.com
FWIW I switched from Tidal to Qobuz a few years ago because the difference was very very obvious on several of their recordings (particularly a couple of Brahms Piano Concertos by Brendel on Philips which sounded appalling on Tidal). I think Tidal were using MQA at the time which may have been a factor - they've dropped it now. Since switching I've been 100% happy with Qobuz.
rrichard63
Perpetual Novice
True. My understanding is that increasing the Nyquist frequency above 22 kHz also moves aliasing artifacts (generated by the digital to analog conversion) out of the audible range. But that might be snake oil that I fell for a long time ago.
Pier
Senior Member
Most ADCs (if not all) have analog filters before the conversion to prevent this.
Last edited:
IFM
Senior Member
It's interesting that this topic came up. For a few months, until recently, I switched to writing in 96k. It was no problem on the computer, and I "thought" I could clearly hear a better depth of field. Mind you, I have an RME interface, so converters are about as good as you can get.
Besides some VI issues, which I'll get into shortly, I listened intently to multiple versions of the same thing rendered at 96k and 48k, specifically for the reverb tail effects. The only real way to not hear the difference was to immediately switch between one and the other. Any gap in time would skew my belief that one was better than the other.
The VI issue. Sample libraries had no issue moving to 96k; of course, they won't sound any different. However, I ran into several synths and also built-in FX that would not work/sound in the way they were intended at 96k. Modulation rates, among other things, would be out of whack, and anything OPUS would sound like the wet/dry was 80% wet.
All that to say is I went back to 48k. My live rig, however, lives at 96k but that's a whole other discussion.
Besides some VI issues, which I'll get into shortly, I listened intently to multiple versions of the same thing rendered at 96k and 48k, specifically for the reverb tail effects. The only real way to not hear the difference was to immediately switch between one and the other. Any gap in time would skew my belief that one was better than the other.
The VI issue. Sample libraries had no issue moving to 96k; of course, they won't sound any different. However, I ran into several synths and also built-in FX that would not work/sound in the way they were intended at 96k. Modulation rates, among other things, would be out of whack, and anything OPUS would sound like the wet/dry was 80% wet.
All that to say is I went back to 48k. My live rig, however, lives at 96k but that's a whole other discussion.
unclecheeks
Senior Member
Pier
Senior Member
Yes lossless Flac has been in beta for a couple of weeks now!
The difference with our 320kbps MP3 is almost inaudible though but is night and day compared to SoundCloud at 128kbps.
@johngrant see the link in my signature or this thread for more information.
The difference with our 320kbps MP3 is almost inaudible though but is night and day compared to SoundCloud at 128kbps.
@johngrant see the link in my signature or this thread for more information.
Last edited:
vitocorleone123
Senior Member
Every plugin synth and effect will have a different result. Some, like the new Sonsig ACE (and Ominsphere), are designed optimally for 44.1 or 48. Many plugins now have oversampling below 96khz implemented "smartly" inside (not just brute force like Reaper or Patchwork, etc.) that make working at a higher sample rate a waste of system resources.
Additionally, the signal level of any analog effect has an impact, as each is also designed to be different - you'd need to know whether it's designed for -14, -16, -18 etc.
Ultimately, it's all over the map and depends on what you regularly use. Optimize for your standard and the rest will probably be good enough.
