Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ardemus]

I'm evaluating JRiver for use with my high end audio system.  I currently have Bryston SP2 and Amps with PMC FB1s.  I need to replace the SP2, probably with a NAD 187 or a Bryston BP25 and a stand alone DAC.  JRiver seems pretty slick but I'm having a number of problems.  I'll post them separately:

Can someone point me to, or provide, an objective justification for using file types that exceed the human capacity for hearing?  I understand the benefit of mastering at higher rates but if I just want to listen I don't see how a higher rate could do anything for me.  Moreover, I don't want to tax my system trying to reproduce inaudible signals, particularly since it could introduce audible distortion.

Thanks

[BryanC]

Can someone point me to, or provide, an objective justification for using file types that exceed the human capacity for hearing?  I understand the benefit of mastering at higher rates but if I just want to listen I don't see how a higher rate could do anything for me.  Moreover, I don't want to tax my system trying to reproduce inaudible signals, particularly since it could introduce audible distortion.

If your source is a lower rate than your output settings, it is just padded with zeros. No audible distortion is created.

[eddyshere]

I'm evaluating JRiver for use with my high end audio system.  I currently have Bryston SP2 and Amps with PMC FB1s.  I need to replace the SP2, probably with a NAD 187 or a Bryston BP25 and a stand alone DAC.  JRiver seems pretty slick but I'm having a number of problems.  I'll post them separately:

Can someone point me to, or provide, an objective justification for using file types that exceed the human capacity for hearing?  I understand the benefit of mastering at higher rates but if I just want to listen I don't see how a higher rate could do anything for me.  Moreover, I don't want to tax my system trying to reproduce inaudible signals, particularly since it could introduce audible distortion.

Thanks

I find it a pitty to not be able to get SACD out at high rates. I'm unable for the time being to output SACD higher than 192/24 with MC as I haven't found a good multichannel DSD DAC at a "pretty normal" price. The Music at listening tests is sensible one some recordings (ie. when i feed my amp with dsd over denonlink from the Universalplayer) the music is more present. At blind test I get more or less a 50% success rate so it's by far not day and night.

[Ancient_Audiophile]

Can someone point me to, or provide, an objective justification for using file types that exceed the human capacity for hearing?  I understand the benefit of mastering at higher rates but if I just want to listen I don't see how a higher rate could do anything for me. 

I found a couple in some searches:

A higher sampling rate allows two things. The first, an increase in the Nyquist number, doesn't really matter, as our ears just can't hear frequencies above 20 kHz (and that's on a good day, when we're young.) But a higher sampling rate also allows for greater precision in timing, and our ears actually do really, really well here, and that ability doesn't degrade as we age. (See this very cool New Yorker article for more on this.)

As an anti-aliasing/low-pass filtering would be used, there would be no sounds at 96 kHz. In fact, let's say say that the filter is set at 48 kHz. But those samples would still be recorded 96,000 times a second, which would help with the temporal resolution.

(And if the low-pass filter were set at 21 kHz, a scan of the file would reveal no frequencies above that number, even though the file was recorded at a higher sampling rate).

and

In 16/24 bit comparisons what the Dynamic Range number focuses on is called "macro-dynamics" or "large scale" dynamics which equals the raw dynamic range.  The important part to me is "micro-dynamics" or "small scale" dynamics which a larger bit word with more values equals increased intricate sonic details, smoother and more comfortable sound.

and

I listened to enough 24/192 (and 24/96) downloads to know they sound different and better than equivalent 16/44 music. Then, I am positive, 99% people on this forum would agree with me.

All from a different Forum.
YMMV.

[dean70]

Can someone point me to, or provide, an objective justification for using file types that exceed the human capacity for hearing?  I understand the benefit of mastering at higher rates but if I just want to listen I don't see how a higher rate could do anything for me.

Its not just about super-sonic hearing.
Deeper/wider sound stage, smoother and more realistic sounding cymbals, better separation between instruments with complex musical passages.

I did see a chart somewhere on a Dirac pulse test between Analog, DSD, 192/24 and 48/16 - the analog, followed closely by DSD were the only 2 to reproduce the Dirac pulse (3us) accurately. As you go down in sample rate, the pre/post pulse ringing gets progressively worse.

[jmone]

When I got my first 24/192 material it was shocked by how much better it sounded.  When I posted my findings on this (a few years ago) JimH pointed out that many example of 24/192 material is a new master not just using an old master.  The resultant increase in quality could therefore be due to the better production process used when creating the new masters over the distribution format itself.   

[Ardemus]

Thank you everyone.

Ancient_Audiophile quoted an unnamed source as saying:

But a higher sampling rate also allows for greater precision in timing, and our ears actually do really, really well here, and that ability doesn't degrade as we age. (See this very cool New Yorker article for more on this.)

I have wondered about the impact of summing audible wave forms with sub-sample time offsets. When I stopped to think about this quote, it implies that we are highly sensitive to timing errors of 1/192000 of a second (about 5 microseconds and a quarter of the time between 44.1kHz samples).  In other words, we notice the difference between two recordings where a half second tone starts at 0.8000000 seconds in the first and at 0.8000052 seconds in the second. That seems pretty incredible. Can you provide the sources for this quote?

[Ancient_Audiophile]

Thank you everyone.

Ancient_Audiophile quoted an unnamed source as saying:
I have wondered about the impact of summing audible wave forms with sub-sample time offsets. When I stopped to think about this quote, it implies that we are highly sensitive to timing errors of 1/192000 of a second (about 5 microseconds and a quarter of the time between 44.1kHz samples).  In other words, we notice the difference between two recordings where a half second tone starts at 0.8000000 seconds in the first and at 0.8000052 seconds in the second. That seems pretty incredible. Can you provide the sources for this quote?

see:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/25/110425fa_fact_bilger?currentPage=all

[hulkss]

Can someone point me to, or provide, an objective justification for using file types that exceed the human capacity for hearing?  I understand the benefit of mastering at higher rates but if I just want to listen I don't see how a higher rate could do anything for me.  Moreover, I don't want to tax my system trying to reproduce inaudible signals, particularly since it could introduce audible distortion.

You can compare various audi playback options with this tool. No need to guess or or pay attention to audiophile BS:

http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm

[J-a-k-e]

see:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/25/110425fa_fact_bilger?currentPage=all

That's a rather lengthy article but what a fascinating read!!

[Ancient_Audiophile]

You can compare various audi playback options with this tool. No need to guess or or pay attention to audiophile BS:

Unfortunately that is a logically false conclusion.

By removing the actual perception, you can no longer tell if the catalyst has an effect on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalyst