2. digital
  3. 175065-151049

48kHz vs 96kHz: audible?

As a so-called audiophile, it is easy to lose one’s balance within many discussions and end up doubting, or at least questioning, whether that subtlety which one hears is real or imaginary.
 
Today, while engaged in a pastime, I was playing Holst’s "The Planets" in the background, but not at a low volume. I thought that it didn’t sound right. The strings in particular sounded a little abrasive. I noticed this on "Mars," the first composition, so it didn't take me long to perk up. On closer examination, I noticed that the DAC front panel was reporting 48kHz sample rate. I knew that this version of The Planets is 96kHz. Sure enough, JRiver Media Center (MC) was converting all PCM data (whether higher or lower) to 48kHz upon playback. I fixed the MC settings back so that all PCM rates play back at their native rates (up to the capability of my DAC), and all is well now.
 
Sometime in the recent past, whether due to an application or OS upgrade (of which there was one a few days ago), the MC sample rate conversion table got corrupted or reverted to a default configuration.
 
It would seem that I am able to hear the difference between 48kHz and 96kHz, at least under these circumstances. The difference was enough that I noticed it while passively listening (I was focused on drawing; the music was “background”) before I suspected a technical issue.

I wonder whether I could have heard this difference in a formal ABX test session? From my past experience with ABX testing, when the differences between the test objects are subtle, observations could easily have been obfuscated due to mental noise consisting of test anxiety, listening fatigue (to same passage over and over) and tedium. Whereas, in my case above, I noticed the difference when I was relaxed and focusing on something else entirely.

I am interested in thoughtful replies.

128x128mcdonalk
fuzztone's avatar
fuzztone
5,510 posts
 

sandstone best me to the real point.

You cannot be sure of hearing things that do not exist. We know that the downsampling DOES exist by your description.

havocman
350 posts
 

it should be no problem hearing a difference 96 Khz is much better than 48 kilohertz.

pabs85
53 posts
 

I have found similar situations but with streaming from Qobuz. I regularly go in search of new music and pay no attention to the sample rate when selecting songs. Many times I’ll be listening and the difference in how smooth the tones are makes me check the sample rate and it’s almost always 96 or above. However, if I then start to try and replicate this actively I find sometimes I’m assuming a CD quality file might be high res. There is a definite difference for me when I’m just normally listening, but it clearly depends how good the mastering is of a CD quality file as some of them can sound superb. Whenever my ears perk up to check a sample rate it’s always because of how much smoother it is, I’ve always just assumed more data means a smoother crescendo of sound, if that makes sense.

orgillian197
119 posts
 

It is possible that JRiver Media Center's downsampling was done poorly and became more noticeable than if it had been done correctly. A lot of what we "hear" comparing different resolutions is dependent on how familiar we are with the music being played. Obviously you know the Holst very well, but would you have noticed the difference (or any difference) on a less familiar one?

yoyoyaya's avatar
yoyoyaya
635 posts
 

This whole area is a bit of a minefield. The ideal way to test this hypothesis would be to take a piece of music that can be mechanically performed -using something like the technology that was used for the Zenph reperformance of the Goldberg Variations. One would then have the computerised piano play the piece of music twice and record it at the two sampling rates/word lengths, and then double blind test it across a stratified sample of listeners using a high resolution playback system.

In other situations where upsampling and downsampling is involved, it's hard to discern cause and effect.

More to discover