As the title asks I'm curious if people have noticed audible differences between 96/24 and 192/24 high res files? With high res PCM files now available up to 352/24 at what point do the numbers cease to mean anything? I'm currently limited to 96/24 on the digital input of my SSP however there are some albums I'm interested in that are in both 96/24 and 192/24 but since I can't actually listen to 192/24 I've been putting off purchasing the albums. Am I making a mistake thinking there will be differences is audible quality and I should just get the 96/24 version or am I right to hold off until I eventually upgrade my SSP and can get the 192/24 files?
My SSP only has unbalanced inputs and I have no interest in say purchasing an external DAC like the BDA3 only to feed my SSP an unbalanced signal. If I ever go to an external DAC it would only be when I can use balanced inputs into a future SSP.
Hi!
I've been researching this for several years now and in the end came to a conclusion that for all intents and purposes, these two sampling rates "sound" the same.
There cannot possibly be any difference since 96 kHz in the audio band translates to a frequency that's a little bit lower than 48 kHz. These frequencies carry no information. No musical instrument emmits tones at these frequencies. Apart from some ceramic or beryllium alloy, no transduecer will reproduce these frequencies faithfully or with any accuracy.
Many audio engineers believe anything above 96 kHz has no practical benefits.
Recordings at sampling rates of 192 kHz or higher are said to increase D/A conversion accuracy. But even if accuracy is increased, we are talking about levels which are 100 or more dB below the actual musical signal. It is therefore more quiet than the actual transducer distortion or even hiss of the analogue circuitry within the D/A converter or elsewhere.
The biggest favour the music industry could do us if they started caring about how they record the music -- whether the microphone is at the right distance and at the right angle when recording an acoustic guitar, how much effects processing to use or to use it at all -- that's the stuff they should care about,
The sad truth is, good equipment in studios is rarely there to make the thing sound good but rather to make it sound acceptable DESPITE the often less-than-competent recording crews, as a part of their responsibility towards the client. That's the hard truth.
WHat I have found is that the best recordings I have are my own recordings of an orchestra I used to play in. I Know how these instruments sound in open space, in large or small auditoriums and in an acourstically treated rooms like redorcding studios. If I tell you all of these were made with Alesis ADAT machines in 16 bit and at 44.1 kHz sampling, then I think it proves my point more than well.
As for analogue transfers, a single mistake on the part of technician who mis-calibrated the reel-to-reel deck, so that it wasn't in sync with the exact spect it was operating under when the tape was first made, WILL destroy all efforts thereafter to make the digital copy as faithful to the original magnetic tape.
So, to conclude, in some cases 96 kHz will bring benefits to the listener over the lower sampling rates, presuming we are talking about qualified engineering/producer crew, in others it will not. Sampling at 192 kHz won't make a difference won't bring any benefits to the listener in any case.
Cheers!
Antun
