Digital Audio and sampling rates. Are more samples actually better or maybe worse? Video.

[Ar9Jim 6,050]

Interesting video. Is Nyquist Theorem outdated? 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Ar9Jim

[Nahash5150 10,005]

Very high dynamic range does not sound good. Very high sampling rates (over 48kHz) is useless. Bit depth beyond 16bit isn't useful either.

 

The problem with digital audio is not these numbers, but the shenanigans that audio companies have developed to 'save on costs' in DACs, Analog Filters and Media.

 

However, some people swear by their 192kHz/24bit audio files. You won't ever change their minds.

 

 

[Ar9Jim 6,050]

3 hours ago, Nahash5150 said:

Very high dynamic range does not sound good. Very high sampling rates (over 48kHz) is useless. Bit depth beyond 16bit isn't useful either.

 

The problem with digital audio is not these numbers, but the shenanigans that audio companies have developed to 'save on costs' in DACs, Analog Filters and Media.

 

However, some people swear by their 192kHz/24bit audio files. You won't ever change their minds.

 

 

Recently seen some close examination of DSD files. Advertised as 356kHz but the only information it carried above 48kHz was noise. Surly they can market a solution for that problem of HiRes noise.😀

[PhilDent 1,714]

5 hours ago, Nahash5150 said:

However, some people swear by their 192kHz/24bit audio files. You won't ever change their minds.

I used to be in the hi-res camp and wasted a lot of money downloading 96k/24bit tracks from HD Tracks.  My mind changed when I took a hi-res challenge from Mark Waldrep aka Dr AIX.  He was a proponent of Hi-Res and thought his test would affirm his claim that hi-res was superior. The results of his test showed otherwise.

 

The recording and playback of music is unbelievably complex. I think there is a tendency to focus on one part of that chain (in this case sampling rates and bit depth) and to ignore all the other variables that go into creating great sounding recordings. 
 

 

[4krow 5,077]

  After all the fuss over whatever spec was due, it came down to what sounded best in my system. So, if I can have great sound and simple plug and play, that will be my choice every time.

[Ar9Jim 6,050]

22 hours ago, Nahash5150 said:

Very high dynamic range does not sound good. Very high sampling rates (over 48kHz) is useless. Bit depth beyond 16bit isn't useful either.

 

The problem with digital audio is not these numbers, but the shenanigans that audio companies have developed to 'save on costs' in DACs, Analog Filters and Media.

 

However, some people swear by their 192kHz/24bit audio files. You won't ever change their minds.

 

 

 

 

In the 30 year old Audio Critic interview that was recently posted, Bob Carver was talking about "beliefs" that are instilled by these "shenanigans" in marketing to consumers in audio print magazines at that time. 

Today, we have the internet and printless "shenanigans" at nearly the speed of light. Junk science is everywhere. 

Its interesting to note how often Bob's teachings and ASR measurements and findings are in agreement. 

30 years ago Bob was saying many of the same things ASR is saying today. ASR calling out audio companies and junk science is nothing new. Bob was doing it decades ago and paid a price for it. There are enough science minded people that Carver was #1 for many years.

I'm thankful Bob stood his ground and does it his way. Hindsight and the more common ability of consumers to test accurately is proving Bob truthful.  

Edited January 14, 2023 by Ar9Jim

[AndrewJohn 8,184]

18 hours ago, PhilDent said:

and to ignore all the other variables that go into creating great sounding recordings. 

 

And, don't forget all the other variables in the reproduction chain to produce through our amps and speakers..., those recorded sounds... Everyone's actual "experience" is likely different, with all these variables from beginning to end..., (at least how I see it...)

Edited January 14, 2023 by AndrewJohn

[AndrewJohn 8,184]

And, timely..., Our buddy Paul has been posting on the same/similar topic(s), the past two weeks..., 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ar9Jim 6,050]

I'm not a big fan of ASRs testing of high voltage, dynamic, tube amplifiers into resistive load drain test, and believe Bobs testing at the dynamic, variable impedance, speaker load is proper, although, most of ASRs findings agree with what Bob has been teaching for decades, on many topics. Its actually Bobs scientific truths, that caused him to be considered a maverick in this industry. 

 

So what is in the high res file? There is no magic in audio. Its a sliver of bandwidth and can be measured. When companies start talking about all the things that are just not understood and not measurable about audio, beware. 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Ar9Jim

[Kurt 1,389]

Thanks for posting.  This was a great video to watch.  I stream hi-res from Qobuz a lot.  I really like the app and the sound quality I get.  All the songs on Qobuz are at least CD quality 44khz/16 bit and many are higher resolution, up to 192Khz/24bit.  To me, the CD quality songs sound as good as the songs streamed at higher resolution.  I really cannot tell any difference and this video is a very good explanation of why that is.  There were a few cases where I "swore" I heard a difference from hi-res vs CD quality resolution... but, when I really pushed myself to do objective A vs B comparisons, I can't hear it.  So, I'm certain any differences I noted were all "in my head", lol.  Having said all that, I've also convinced myself that there is a major difference between 44khz/16 bit and anything less, or lossy, for sure.  So, as the author of this video suggests, I think Philips did a great job of setting the resolution standard for digital music back in the day.  Also, I was unaware that old CD players were not 16 bit capable.  That could explain why I do sense a difference in sound quality from my vintage CD player vs streaming at CD level resolution...of course that could just be the age of the components in the player, too.

[4krow 5,077]

 I'm talking out of turn, I know. For whatever reason, the best sound that I have ever heard has been from a laptop. It beats all for reasons that I don't even care to understand. So really, when I rip a CD to this laptop and then save it as a FLAC file, I'm done. It does NOT make sense but what do I care? Most of the process for me is easy (very important!), except finding it in the mess of files that I have made. Still in spite of this fact, I prefer to spin one kind of disc or another. Ultimately, I suppose that an all in one sort of box is where I'm headed, but not for the prices demanded at this time.

[AndrewJohn 8,184]

45 minutes ago, 4krow said:

 I'm talking out of turn, I know. For whatever reason, the best sound that I have ever heard has been from a laptop. It beats all for reasons that I don't even care to understand. So really, when I rip a CD to this laptop and then save it as a FLAC file, I'm done. It does NOT make sense but what do I care? Most of the process for me is easy (very important!), except finding it in the mess of files that I have made. Still in spite of this fact, I prefer to spin one kind of disc or another. Ultimately, I suppose that an all in one sort of box is where I'm headed, but not for the prices demanded at this time.

 

Do you use the Laptop's DAC? or do you run it out a USB port, through an external DAC, then to your preamp?

 

What I have read is that cost-cutting makes the laptop makers put a fairly low-end DAC in laptops and PCs.  but if you are playing the music out the USB port to an external DAC, that greatly enhances the sound from a PC - and, really only uses the laptop as a digital storage and server component - not really in the audio chain.

 

That's not to say there aren't some laptops and PCs with great DACs..., only repeating what I have read.  

 

And of course, if it sounds good to you, then that's all that matters!! 😉

 

[4krow 5,077]

AJ,

 

 In my case, I use the external Red Dragonfly as a DAC, and then feed that through the preamp or headphones. You bet. The computer wasn't made for what I am doing with it. So a LOT is bypassed. Windows OS isn't on If I understand what the original wizard did to it. Anyway, CD's are ripped bit perfect and then loaded to a FLAC file. The AudioQuest Red takes it from there. This is an old Lenovo Think Pad. FWIW, I also have an AudioQuest 'Jitterbug' in line with the Red Dragonfly. Don't know that this is really needed but it's there. I tend to run the computer from its battery, but that probably doesn't really mean much. Headphones sound amazing, at least the Hi-Fi Man 400S does. When I feed the signal to my audio system, the sound is 'perfect' as I have ever had it. Really pretty shocking to me after all the horrible ('New and Improved!') stuff that I have heard up till now.

[oldwood 9]

I found the video on WAV VS flac interesting. I have always thought the sound would be the same because it is bit perfect.

 

Paul is right in his statement that drive space has gotten so cheap that WAVs are not big problem.

 

I use a Topping E30 DAC that outputs to a Marantz AV8003 Pre Pro that outputs to a a735X amp. I am running Linux and output through ALSA in direct mode.  I did a test and converted some Flacs to WAVs both 24 bit and standard 16 bit. I have been listening for a few hours and would say there may well be a slight improvement but it could be my expectation as much as anything.

(Confirmation bias)

 

I gave up on high resolution flacs as I can not tell the difference when listening.

 

I think some of the high resolution flacs are remixed and remastered off the masters and some of that sounds better just because of the new mix or mastering?

 

Thanks for the videos, very interesting stuff.