An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

I have and 90/10 can tell the difference between high res and not high res. Not saying I have good ears but I can still hear above 18K and I am 57 - I am lucky and I know that.

Define high res vs low res. And how was the test performed? What type of system was used?
 
I have and 90/10 can tell the difference between high res and not high res. Not saying I have good ears but I can still hear above 18K and I am 57 - I am lucky and I know that.

Well I know how good my ears are and just had a hearing test and at 52 mine hasn’t changed much from my original base line, waiting for the day age takes over :(. I do A/Bs a lot, mostly trouble shooting, I hear stuff all the time in turbines and reduction gears that others don’t/can’t. Open it up and/or do a sound measurement and yep something is in the beginning stages of failure.

And my comment about measurements is spot on IMO, most of those do not matter because we can never hear it. We still do sound analysis on Navy equipment for a reason, the test equipment can hear things we as humans will never hear. It’s cool to have them when designing but those kind of distortion measurements will never be noticed.
 
Oh and I would love to be part of one of those A/B tests! That would be sweet :rockon:


:beerchug:
 
Last edited:
I would think an oversampling DAC, which is what most people have these days, could make it more difficult to appreciate the benefits of high-resolution material as even 44.1/16 gets converted to a higher rate blurring the differences.
 
A as the Boston Audio Society did in an extensive test, which found that professional recording engineers on numerous very high end systems could not hear the difference between 44.1 and 96.
Kindly reference that study.

Surely, you do not refer to the farcical 2007 Meyer and Moran study where an A/D/A loop was introduced to SACD playback employing a lot of content that wasn't even high resolution. Love the primary "reference" system used. Yes, they really used a $249 Pioneer player for some of the tests. :)

mm.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kindly reference that study.

Surely, you do not refer to the farcical 2007 Meyer and Moran study where an A/D/A loop was introduced to SACD playback employing a lot of content that wasn't even high resolution. Love the primary "reference" system used. Yes, they really used a $249 Pioneer player for some of the tests. :)

View attachment 1045879

Yes, that study is referenced above.

There were other very high end systems used that yielded the same results.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kindly reference that study.

Surely, you do not refer to the farcical 2007 Meyer and Moran study where an A/D/A loop was introduced to SACD playback employing a lot of content that wasn't even high resolution. Love the primary "reference" system used. Yes, they really used a $249 Pioneer player for some of the tests. :)

View attachment 1045879

Damn it, why did you put that rabbit hole in front of me?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, that study is referenced above.
That has been soundly refuted over the years as unscientific in so many ways. They didn't even bother to verify that the chosen disks were actually of higher than Redbook resolution. Many weren't!

Since you were not even aware of the nature of how the study was conducted (it wasn't about 44.1 vs 96), perhaps you might want to actually read it. Quite funny.

Rather than using a Rube Goldberg-esque scheme that would never be used in any audio system, why not just compare an established high resolution source feeding through separate 88.2. and 44.1 outputs? Well, a group of AES researchers did just that and arrived at different results.
 
Last edited:
That has been soundly refuted over the years as unscientific in so many ways. They didn't even bother to verify that the chosen disks were actually of higher than Redbook resolution. Many weren't!

Since you were not even aware of the nature of how the study was conducted (it wasn't about 44.1 vs 96), perhaps you might want to actually read it. Quite funny.

Next!

Yes, Yes, it was SACD and DVD audio. I have read it many times, have a printed out copy in my folder, etc, etc. It doesn't change a thing.

The study has not been proven to be unscientific at all. The entire test was set up in such a way, I believe to actually give every opportunity for the participants to distinguish the higher res versions and higher sample rates over the low res and low sample rates.

If the participants couldn't tell the difference between the original high res versions and the A/D/A loop version then it is highly unlikely that they would distinguish a properly downsampled and dithered 44.1/16 version. Sorry.

NEXT!
 
The study has not been proven to be unscientific at all.
That they didn't even establish that the recordings used were actually of higher resolution than Redbook? And many weren't? Ever heard the term "control"?

We have very different perspectives of valid scientific process and most certainly what constitutes a "high end" system.

I'm not sorry at all. :)
 
That they didn't even establish that the recordings used were actually of higher resolution than Redbook? And many weren't? Ever heard the term "control"?

We have very different perspectives of valid scientific process and most certainly what constitutes a "high end" system.

I'm not sorry at all. :)

Seriously, what is the likelihood that the SACDs and DVDs they used were defective; especially the Chesky and Telarc ones? Very unlikely. But, since I am a reasonable person, I would say that what you suggest would have been a good idea - to double check to be sure the discs are in good working order. But you are really reaching for straws here. And don't most SACD players indicate when the SACD layer is being read by the player vs the CD layer?

And what evidence do you have that many were not higher than Redbook?

A high-end system, like the mastering facility in Boston they describe? I used to live in Boston. Do you realize the quality of mastering studios that do classical work there?

Besides, as mentioned, I think there is a good case to be made that a lower end D/A converter would more likely reveal the differences between high and low res than a top end D/A.
 
Seriously, what is the likelihood that the SACDs and DVDs they used were defective; especially the Chesky and Telarc ones? Very unlikely...And don't most SACD players indicate when the SACD layer is being read by the player vs the CD layer?
You're missing the point. The SACD layer of some were sourced from upsampled Redbook masters. I, Robot was recorded analog in 1977. Patricia Barber's Nightclub was recorded in 2000 prior to the introduction of SACD! Surely you understand that DSOTM was recorded nearly forty-five years ago. Speaking of which, the engineer who produced the SACD remix is an avid promoter of high resolution recordings, including 192/24.

And what evidence do you have that many were not higher than Redbook?
Ever seen a spectrum analysis of recorded content? You can clearly see when they are bandwidth limited.

A high-end system, like the mastering facility in Boston they describe?
Read the description again:

"I do not currently have a detailed equipment list for this venue, but the speakers were very large and capable high-end monitors, approximately 7 feet tall, and the power amps were sufficient to drive the speakers to very high levels without audible distortion."

Perhaps that impresses you...

Besides, as mentioned, I think there is a good case to be made that a lower end D/A converter would more likely reveal the differences between high and low res than a top end D/A.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Crappy gear won't reveal what better gear can.
 
Last edited:
I would think an oversampling DAC, which is what most people have these days, could make it more difficult to appreciate the benefits of high-resolution material as even 44.1/16 gets converted to a higher rate blurring the differences.
I find that you cannot recreate what was never captured despite tricks to "interpolate" the missing information.

The Music Hall DAC 25.3 in my garage system allows me to choose native resolution or to upsample to either 96 or 192. Native sounds better overall to me.
 
I find that you cannot recreate what was never captured despite tricks to "interpolate" the missing information.

The Music Hall DAC 25.3 in my garage system allows me to choose native resolution or to upsample to either 96 or 192. Native sounds better overall to me.

Definitely cannot recreate, however for example there is an obvious difference when listening to 44.1 vs 96kHz on a NOS DAC, and on an OS DAC it is much closer.
 
Definitely cannot recreate, however for example there is an obvious difference when listening to 44.1 vs 96kHz on a NOS DAC, and on an OS DAC it is much closer.
You're welcome to your opinion - which as previously noted is different than mine. I can simply switch between modes.

If you're comparing different DACs, there is much more to the results than merely the front end.
 
Last edited:
You're missing the point. The SACD layer of some were sourced from upsampled Redbook masters. I, Robot was recorded analog in 1977. Patricia Barber's Nightclub was recorded in 2000 prior to the introduction of SACD! Surely you understand that DSOTM was recorded nearly forty-five years ago. Speaking of which, the engineer who produced the SACD remix is an avid promoter of high resolution recordings, including 192/24.

Of course, upsampled Redbook would not qualify as high res. But you name one. How many were there? Patricia Barber's Nightclub would have been recorded in High Res PCM and converted to DSD and so counts as a high res in my book. And I think it was very smart to include SACD releases of earlier analogue recordings since many at the time, and some still today, claimed that DSD was closer to analogue than PCM and gave a more faithful representation. That is why so many early analogue recordings were re-released in SACD. So yeah, I agree that should have been included.

Ever seen a spectrum analysis of recorded content? You can clearly see when they are bandwidth limited.

Yes, I probably see a spectrum analyzer several times a week. But my question was based on a misunderstanding regarding what you meant by, "They didn't even bother to verify that the chosen disks were actually of higher than Redbook resolution". You said there were many. Can you tell me how many? Because the numbers based on over 500 listening tests don't look good for your position.

Read the description again:

"I do not currently have a detailed equipment list for this venue, but the speakers were very large and capable high-end monitors, approximately 7 feet tall, and the power amps were sufficient to drive the speakers to very high levels without audible distortion."

Perhaps that impresses you...

I saw the description. I just don't presuppose that the Boston Audio Society are a bunch of incompetents as you do. I was involved in recording projects when I lived in Boston and took a couple of my own to mastering studios and I know that the level of the mastering studios in Boston is very high - Soundmirror is one example. There are a ton of recording studios out there run by very competent recording engineers that would be laughed at if they called themselves a "mastering studio". I highly doubt that the Boston Audio Society took their study to some hole in the wall studio and then claimed they took it to a mastering studio in the Boston area. For Boston Audio to call a place a "mastering studio" of classical music means it has, as a basic requirement, an unbelievably stellar audio system suitable for classical mastering.

In case you want more proof, here is the studio at sound mirror that has speakers that meet the description,

http://www.soundmirror.com/studio/

When I read the description of the speakers I immediately thought of Soundmirror - one the the top mastering studios in the country - maybe the world. I've heard their systems I can verify that...they will blow you away.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Crappy gear won't reveal what better gear can.

Disagree. It is harder to design a 44/16 DAC and many cheap ones, and older units, have crappy filters.

But keep in mind, this thread is really about sampling rates even higher than 96k. Both Lavry and Benchmark claim that converters do not function as well in those extremely high samples rates. Why bother with them?
 
Of course, upsampled Redbook would not qualify as high res.
I'm delighted you have now come to that conclusion.

But you name one. How many were there?
I named three, but the Steely Dan recordings are also not natively high resolution digital recordings. Any answer over zero invalidates the bogus test.

Patricia Barber's Nightclub would have been recorded in High Res PCM and converted to DSD and so counts as a high res in my book.
Would have been? What does that mean to you when it was recorded in 2000 using the technology available at the time? Do tell of the high res format used in 2000.

So yeah, I agree that should have been included.
I thought the comparison was between multiple digital formats.

Yes, I probably see a spectrum analyzer several times a week. But my question was based on a misunderstanding regarding what you meant by, "They didn't even bother to verify that the chosen disks were actually of higher than Redbook resolution". You said there were many. Can you tell me how many?
Do review my previous post where I've listed a few and with this post have listed more. At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, the answer should have been : NONE.

Because the numbers based on over 500 listening tests don't look good for your position.
Comparing Redbook resolution to Redbook resolution. Brilliant!

For Boston Audio to call a place a "mastering studio" of classical music means it has, as a basic requirement, an unbelievably stellar audio system suitable for classical mastering.
Feel free to speculate as you choose in the absence of knowledge.

But keep in mind, this thread is really about sampling rates even higher than 96k. Both Lavry and Benchmark claim that converters do not function as well in those extremely high samples rates.
Extremely high sample rates? Perhaps you are unaware of DXD. And as I've previously documented, the "measurable differences" are virtually non-existent. Did you follow my link?

Why bother with them?
Indeed I would not since they employ cheap op amp analog stages. :)
 
You're welcome to your opinion - which as previously noted is different than mine. I can simply switch between modes.

If you're comparing different DACs, there is much more to the results than merely the front end.

Do you realize that you cannot fully defeat oversampling in your DAC? Your notion of "native" just means less oversampling.
 
Back
Top Bottom