[Rod_S]

unfortunately for me I can't test beyond 96 as my SSP outputs no sound when the digital input is above 96 (it runs internally at 96) so I can't personally do a 192 vs 96 test in order to make a determination on my own

[Rocket_Ronny]

I once read about Rupert Neve - a recording manufacturer of signal chain gear and worshipped - how the audible difference when going hi rez was actually in the bass.

The real advantage of going hi rez is in the recording process where more bits are available, as they can be reduced by various processes.

Myself, not worked up about hirez at all. Even listen to a lot of mp3s. How your system is set up makes a way bigger difference than all this hirez talk. When I see people all worked up about this minor tweek and this sample rate, etc, and see how they have their system set up I roll my eyes. Straining at nats and swallowing camels.

Rocket Ronny

[NekoAudio]

This series of measurements by amb may be of interest: γ3 high resolution DAC development.

[werd]

There are audible differences between 192 and 96 but they are not worth the premium. There I said it. The most improvement is with the bit depth going from 16 to 24 bit. 96k is my go to, I quit buying 192

[Anonamemouse]

There are audible differences between 192 and 96 but they are not worth the premium. There I said it. The most improvement is with the bit depth going from 16 to 24 bit. 96k is my go to, I quit buying 192

Seconded. 16 to 24 bit is clearly audible, 96K to anything higher isn't.

[Rod_S]

Ah, interesting comments about the bit depth vs frequency. So even those albums on HDTracks etc., available at only 24/48 (not sure if there are any 24/44.1) would have an audible advantage over their CD brethren provided of course they are sourced from the same master. I've been passing on those and opting for just the CD thinking there would be no real differences. I may have to go and pick some of those albums up now.

[Anonamemouse]

Ah, interesting comments about the bit depth vs frequency. So even those albums on HDTracks etc., available at only 24/48 (not sure if there are any 24/44.1) would have an audible advantage over their CD brethren provided of course they are sourced from the same master. I've been passing on those and opting for just the CD thinking there would be no real differences. I may have to go and pick some of those albums up now.

Be careful with what you buy on HDTracks. Especially with older material the first pressing CD sounds better than the HDTracks version. ALWAYS check http://dr.loudness-war.info/ before buying anything.
HDTracks doesn't do any mastering themselves, they just sell what the recording companies give them. They even sold upscaled CD's...
They recently had Prince and Phil Collins in their shop. Those were EXCELLENT.

[Rod_S]

Yeah anything that's not a new album release by an artist I'm interested in I would already have the CD which for quite a few I would have purchased close to when these original albums would have been released so I suspect probably anything over 10 years would probably be a different mastering. Some old albums are labeled as being re-mastered so those are easier to pick out like say Pearl Jam's Ten that has a separate re-mastered edition. Rush did this as well for the Sector's releases I believe.

[werd]

Ah, interesting comments about the bit depth vs frequency. So even those albums on HDTracks etc., available at only 24/48 (not sure if there are any 24/44.1) would have an audible advantage over their CD brethren provided of course they are sourced from the same master. I've been passing on those and opting for just the CD thinking there would be no real differences. I may have to go and pick some of those albums up now.

24 bit builds the amplitude. The bit size forms the sine wave. The bit size drives the dac. Frequency is just noise and it's becoming  obvious proper power supply implementation using excellent circuits and grounding makes frequency filtering outdated.

That's my opinion.

[werd]

This is what I think Bryston's next step should be. Aside from the aluminum chassis on BDA/BDPs. They should run outboard power supplies on their dacs. Include a digital option with the MPS2 for dacs. It isn't as urgent with the BDPs but the dacs really would become more holographic out of the box with an outboard. I know this because of the what the dac sounds like with releasing the transport screw from the chassis. The other fellow here who did the tweaks knows what I am talking about. He had a thread about tweaks.

The reason I bring it up because it makes frequency even less of an issue since its one of the best noise tweaks you can muster.

[Mag]

24 bit builds the amplitude. The bit size forms the sine wave. The bit size drives the dac. Frequency is just noise and it's becoming  obvious proper power supply implementation using excellent circuits and grounding makes frequency filtering outdated.

That's my opinion.

I agree higher bit rate is better and that's quite obvious when you compare uncompressed dvd pcm stereo 48/16  with cd 44.1/16 pcm tracks.

The real problem with digital whether it be cd/dvd/ Hi Rez is how it's recorded. With my SP2 you can see when playing digital recordings in multi-channel mode which I believe is 2 volts practically every recording is clipping. The recordings are tailors for 2 channel stereo mode which I believe is 4 volts. This characteristic of digital recording gives it the irritating quality compared to vinyl recordings. If you applied the same recording method to vinyl the needle would jump out of the groove.

In addition to that, high gain settings can reveal more detail in a recording but I find it sub-consciously irritating.  Typically I have my gain setting at 5 on my mixer. By reducing the gain to 4.9 I can take the high frequency edge off recordings. I happen to like the high frequency edge so I leave the gain setting at 5.

IMO listening to a smoothed recording of 2 volts versus the typical digital recording is way more pleasant and realistic, even with a lower bit rate.

[CanadianMaestro]

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

[Anonamemouse]

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

I was looking for this a few days ago... Thank you for posting!

[CanadianMaestro]

I was looking for this a few days ago... Thank you for posting!

Pleasure.

After reading thru all that, I am even more skeptical of hi-res PCM in general, let alone 192/24. My upper limit for purchases has been 96/24 (I don't hear any improvements at 192/24). Even some MP3 256kbps  files from iTunes sounded as good as my 44/16 FLAC rips from CDs. That may sound like heresy, but my ears don't lie.  It's the original masterings that are crucial, I think.

Another article about MP3 vs. FLAC:

https://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/

[Atlplasma]

So much depends on your system and the quality of the recording. Better systems can really bring out the bad in a poorly engineered recording.

[vonnie123]

I have a few hi-res flac recordings, mostly DVD extracted from disc media.  Overall, I tend to prefer the 24/96 over the 24/192.  I normally upsample 16/44.1 files using HQPlayer at 96K as well.  YMMV.

[Don_S]

You guys are making me P.O'd all over again.    I was a fan of the few 24/96 DADs released.  I wanted the market to go that way.  It made sense since there were many millions of DVD players already in use and manufacturers could probably tweak the drives and electronics to build new units to audiophile levels for both 24/96 and 16/44.1. 

But NO!!!!!  That dang Sony pushed SACD and the 24/96 guys decided to go with the most horribly complicated format ever---DVD-Audio. Neither format was compatible with wide-scale existing electronics so both formats suffered ignominious deaths. 

Sorry for the rant. As you were.  Carry on.