Are high sample rates making your music sound worse?

@goofyfoot  
 
Just saying your findings differ from most human trials I’ve seen. 

mzkmxcv,
I didn't tell anybody about a file, I played the CD. I've never made claims about being a scientist. Maybe you could explain in aesthetic terms what I'm actually hearing. I have academic experience in the area of aesthetics, otherwise I'm somewhat disinterested.

@goofyfoot 
 
Telling them anything about what the files are, and the fact that you know which file is being played invalidates any findings from a scientific point.  If another person did the same and the people said it was no different, what then?  
 
As I’ve asked, what benefits does 192kHz have over 44.1kHz? Do you believe we can hear higher than 22kHz or that those inaudible frequencies still influence our hearing?

mzkmxcv, 
I've played the same vinyl transfer to CD for friends and they've remarked about the improvement to the overall sound between playing it at 44 kHz and then up sampling to higher frequencies. I can see that you're absolutely certain that your opinion is factual and that dissenting views are wrong but I would make the radical assumption that many would see you're factual observations of audio without listening as presumptuous and arrogant.

@cleeds

So now you are saying even if the bits are the same it sounds different?

I have listened, didn’t hear a difference. Whose correct, me or you? Why? Because your ears are better or your system is better?

@goofyfoot  
 
To put it blunty, yes. Everything I found shoes that if people don’t know, they don’t even get up to 70% accuracy (picking CD or better over 320Kbps MP3), it’s usually 40%-60%.  
  
320Kbps was chosen for a reason, as that’s what they found was good enough.

mzkmxcv
' Also, the people I’ve heard from who are in the industry, all agree that digitized vinyl sounds identical. You finding this different either means you listened to garbage conversions or your brain is telling you what you want to hear, which since you hear a benefit from going to 192kHz leads me to think it’s the latter. Open to discussion, so please find the error in my logic.'

So you are saying that I'm imagining an improvement?

mzkmxcv

You don’t even need measurement gear, all you need is a program that loads the two digital files and shows you the difference between them.

If you truly think listening doesn't matter, then you're the single best example of confirmation bias that this group has ever seen, imo. And we can all go home now. There's no need to listen to anything at all, except for whatever mzkmxcv proclaims.

@lalitk

Measurements are far more accurate and far more reliable than our ears. Stating your ears are better and thus that’s why you hear a difference is such a typical response.

I’d like one explanation for why 192kHz is better than 44.1kHz, let’s say using a Chord Qutest as it’s filter is pretty much the best I’ve seen (well, let’s say the Chord Dave to get ahead of comments saying the Qutest is too cheap to be transparent).

Sampling rate only deals with how high of a frequency you want to capture, there is 0% difference within frequencies captured from a lower sampling rate, this is all proven by Nyquist, it’s a 100% capture, or else digital music wouldn’t Moro in the first place, as every sample relates to one specific waveform.

I’m willing to bet you can’t hear above 18kHz (if you are over 50, probably 12kHz), so stating that the inclusion of frequencies at 80kHz makes a difference is just nonsensical (unless you have an explanation).

I’ve asked why you think/know it makes a difference and all I got was “my ears are better”. You don’t even need measurement gear, all you need is a program that loads the two digital files and shows you the difference between them.

@mzkmxcv,

I trust my ears more than any logic or argument. Couple of variables here, it could very well be your components that are not upto the task or maybe it’s your hearing that are hindering your abilities to discern the subtleties in the high resolution music. 

IMHO, you should open yourself to the possibilities that stems from trying than simply relying on theories and subsequent futile discussions. 

@goofyfoot

It’s no different for vinyl unless you want the possible distortion that may arise from driving your tweeters higher than they can handle, same distortion as would be for playing the actual vinyl. Not saying all/most vinyl does this, but some do. Disregarding this caveat, it makes no difference.

@lalitk
@tatyana69

Find the error in my logic:

Sampling rate: Due to Nyquist, as long as we are 2x more than what we want to capture, it captures it 100% identically. Impossible for transient response for instance to be better with higher sampling rates, as that by definition means the 44.1 version didn’t sample it 100% identically. One caveat would be how good the filter in your DAC is, but even most cheap DACs don’t attenuate below 19kHz (and especially not more than 0.1dB), and since I doubt you can hear that high, it’s all good.

Bit-depth: All this is means is how large of dynamic range you can have, it describes the noise floor. 16Bit (undithered) has an average noise floor of better than 96dB, dithered brings it up to 110-120dB, 24-Bit is 144dB. Your average treated room has a noise floor of no lower than 30dBC, so that’s limiting you to less than 16Bit anyway. 

Also, the people I’ve heard from who are in the industry, all agree that digitized vinyl sounds identical. You finding this different either means you listened to garbage conversions or your brain is telling you what you want to hear, which since you hear a benefit from going to 192kHz leads me to think it’s the latter. Open to discussion, so please find the error in my logic.

Trying to compare diverse systems and their reactions to a single change is somewhat of a fools errand.

The level of complexity introduced by so many different components, not to mention the quality of the source material makes what seems to be a simple comparison very difficult.

Once you get past the vast array of hardware difference, then you get to cords, connectors and wires.

What may affect one system may not be discernable in another.

That does not mean the effect is not very real is some systems, but it may not translate across all systems.  IMHO bad source material, regardless of point of origin is the worst problem we all face.

I have some great 16/44 recordings on vinyl so i dont think high sampling rates are needed. I cant get those same recordings to sound good on CD unfortunately. 

Upsampling does not increase resolution it only makes possible to make the filtering easier. The point of 192KHz sampling is not to hear it, but NOT to hear it.
I second the notion that CD re-issues of old vinyl masters is disappointing. But more convenient.
Recording at highest possible resolution makes perfect sense. The Red Book spec was written a very long time ago. Error correction is limited, no real checksums and such a data file can have. The realtime nature of the data stream is also unnecessary. Buffering the data makes it possible to do error checking and corrections.
The purpose of higher resolution formats is not automatically better sound, but the possibility of a more accurate recording. 
More resolution could potentially unmask flaws in the process.
There are plenty of opportunities to screw up a recording regardless of resolution. Very good recordings seem hard to find.
Hundreds of feet of microphone cables are used in recording studios. Is their impact less than the type and placement of the mikes?

I've been considering purchasing a Schiit Bifrot 16 bit DAC for a more modest system. Schiit Audio also offers a multibit Bifrost but I don't know that the added cost would really be justified.
I have a friend who said that in many ways he prefers a lower bit rate, he claims that it's easier for him to listen to. I just believe that so many variables are complex and subjective. Which is why I believe that everyone has a vote and that no one has a veto. After all, isn't that why we're sharing.

You are invited to look up about the Nyquist Theorem which is the basis of all analog to digital encoding. But to cut to the chase regarding sampling rates more is better. To wit the last and some would argue ultimate method of audio digitization is Direct Stream Digital DSD format which samples at 64X CD or 2.8 megahertz and uses one bit quantization.  The huge dump of data bits on optical disc is called SACD. 

My long term dealer and I sat in DCS demonstration room and agreed that upsampling to 192, generally but not always, resulted in a better listening experience, and indeed preferable to upsampling to dsd. I have then at home set my DCS upsampler to 192 after I confirmed the findings in my home environment.

I don’t doubt your experience at all. But, the quality and implementation of the DAC analogue stage must be taken into consideration. The article mentions that the rest of the system must be up to the task of clean reproduction. But after upsampling the data, the analogue output stage must be up to the task.
So this exercise should be measured in a case by case basis.YMMV.

“Since no one >10 can hear over 20kHz, there is no point to listening to something like 192kHz in the first place, if your amp can even properly playback such high frequencies, all you are doing is increasing the chances of driving your tweeter into distortion“

Total BS......

Basically speaking, the higher your bit-depth/sampling rate, the "better" quality recording you’ll get. You just to need make sure your equipment is up to the task.

The 24bit/196khz files on Qobuz sounds much more dynamic over 16bit/44.1kHz files on Tidal.

tatyana, my reference to a vinyl to digital transfer wasn't to imply that this recording was good, bad or indifferent. It's just something that is different from my experiences with other digital files and I am curious as to why. Like I said, various components have there own characteristics due to filters, power outputs, etc...
Some DAC's are built for non up sampling. My DAC does up sample and so I up sample to 96 kHz in most cases.
I don't mean to imply that my equipment or opinion is superior to any one else's, just that oversampling in most situations, for me, has proven to be problematic when it comes to sound quality.
I happen to prefer DSD to PCM but I don't up sample DSD.

mzkmxcv353 postsSince no one >10 can hear over 20kHz, there is no point to listening to something like 192kHz in the first place, if your amp can even properly playback such high frequencies, all you are doing is increasing the chances of driving your tweeter into distortion.

That is, I am afraid, nonsense. My long term dealer and I sat in DCS demonstration room and agreed that upsampling to 192, generally but not always, resulted in a better listening experience, and indeed preferable to upsampling to dsd. I have then at home set my DCS  upsampler to 192 after I confirmed the findings in my home environment. Your upsampler may be inferior of course .... And my speakers are B&W800d3s and are not adversely affected by 192 as you falsely claim again, so again you are possibly listening to inferior speakers and making generalisations on a totally a false premis. I can ask B&W if they agree with you, but I won't bother.
And by the way I find digital copies of vinyl records totally lifeless and pointless.  I prefer listening to the actual vinyl or a properly recorded digital version, upsampled if appropriate. Naysay if you wish, but that is pointless as all that does is to falsely tell me my listening is inferior, which it isn't.

The nature of this topic is obviously discursive and subject to multitudes. What seems important here is that all of our experiences are valid. High resolution recordings and up sampling are nebulous, in that there may not be absolutes about what works best in all cases. Hence, my question about the playback of a vinyl to digital transfer.

No not at all I was saying the article confirms my thinking about Dacs and digital components in general nothing about the thread.

It seems from what you said that we're somehow not living up to your standards.

@goofyfoot I was joining the conversation I thought and what do you mean by you don't?

I don’t know jond, we’re just having a conversation.

So if you read the article it's not really about upsampling being bad it's about Digital recorders with crappy analog output stages sabotaging the sound, Just as with a consumer Dac ultimate sound quality is more about the analog output stage, and power supply, than the Dac chip or sampling rates. Glad it reinforces my own thinking!

mzkmxcv, I agree with you with the exception of the vinyl to digital transfer that I mentioned above. Anyone know why that would stand as an exception?

Since no one >10 can hear over 20kHz, there is no point to listening to something like 192kHz in the first place, if your amp can even properly playback such high frequencies, all you are doing is increasing the chances of driving your tweeter into distortion.

ishkabibil, I use a 2011 Mac Mini with a Wire World Platinum USB cable connected to an ISO Regen with linear power supply, connected to my Ayre DAC. I also run the Audirvana Plus transport app.
I think it's important to note that I installed a Synergistic Energy Blue Fuse in my Ayre. And, I have an XLR Akiko Audio Tuning Stick in the Ayre and a USB Akiko Audio Stick in the Mac Mini.
These tweaks most notably eliminated color in the sound; rendering the sound with neutrality, breath/naturalness and faster transients. The ISO Regen added clarity and detail to the sound. I am very satisfied with the overall sound of my DAC.

@goofyfoot 


Thank you...What if at all do you use to stream from net to your DAC...?

ishkabibil, I wouldn't try refuting that claim but I haven't necessarily noticed that with my equipment; Ayre QB9 DSD DAC, ASR Emitter II Exclusive amp, Quad 2905 ESL's.
As I said, most anything above 96 kHz sounds wrong but in nearly every case, setting the PCM at 96 kHz sounds dead on where it should be.
It is most likely precarious by what type of equipment is being used. Various DAC filters and the like may determine whether or not up sampling is even a good idea.

@goofyfoot 



It stands to reason that if you upsample but have same bit rate as music was initially recorded at you would in essence kind of thin out the track altered.....losing possibly bass or bottom end...

I've found that up sampling to 96 kHz has never presented an issue but that above 96 kHz has and that includes recently recorded material.
A friend however gave me a CD of 'Ziggy Stardust' that was originally a MOFI JVC vinyl pressing and the higher the up sampling that I could go, the better.

The notion that we may be overdoing it has always been at the back of my mind.