Print

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

[parisphoto]

Assuming both are supported by my software / hardware, and HD space is not a consideration, why would I chose an 88/24 file over a 176/24 file ?
TIA

[AndrewFG]

Assuming both are supported by my software / hardware, and HD space is not a consideration, why would I chose an 88/24 file over a 176/24 file ?

This is a matter of religion. Some believe that you can hear the difference. Some do not.

But if the track was mastered at 176kHz then it is certainly best practice to store it on disk at the original master sample rate. But by the same token, if the track was mastered at a lower sample rate, then there is nothing to be gained by up-sampling to a higher rate before storing it on disk. (Because, if you wanted to up- sample, you could anyway apply the up-sampling algorithm at the time of playing the track rather than at the time of saving it to disk. And likewise you can also always down- sample it to a lower rate at the time of playing too.)

In general you will find that there is not much music out there that was really released at sample rates of 176kHz or 192kHz (there is some, but not much). Less scrupulous vendors may even be confusing you by up- sampling lo res 44100Hz tracks and offering it as hi-res. So my advice is to paraphrase Albert Einstein "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" by buying your tracks at the highest sampling rate that was actually used when the track was published, but not higher...

[Mikkel]

If you use a lot of dsp it can make sense to use 24 bit bit depth because of the lower noise floor. If not don't worry. You won't hear any differences across sample rates except if your DAC or soundcard acts strange with some sample rates. It probably doesn't.

Best regards,
Mikkel

[parisphoto]

Thanks Mikkel,
I'm aware of the reason to use the 24 bit depth, but was interested in the sample rate, i.e. 88 vs 176.
Isn't there a reason to choose a sample rate evenly divisible by 44.1, for example 176 vs, 192?

[kstuart]

Assuming both are supported by my software / hardware, and HD space is not a consideration, why would I chose an 88/24 file over a 176/24 file ?
TIA

In your question, you eliminated both possible reasons.

Note that 88 and 176 khz files are almost always derived from SACDs or DSD files.  Otherwise, 96 and 192 khz are usually used.

Are you making your own files or do these files originate in those sample rates ?

[TedSmith]

Assuming both are supported by my software / hardware, and HD space is not a consideration, why would I chose an 88/24 file over a 176/24 file ?
TIA

88/24 might be cheaper.  Assuming your DAC treats all sample rates equally well everyone has their own point beyond which there isn't any perceptible improvement.  For me there's a difference between 44.1/16 and 88.2/24.  For me there's no difference from 88.2 (or 96) and higher PCM rates.  (DSD on the other hand is a clear win to my ears.)  When given a choice between 88.2 and 176.4 or 96 and 192 I choose the cheapest unless I know that the material was recorded/mastered/produced at the higher rate.  Theoretically things are more complicated, ignoring all other differences the best sample rate converter might the deciding factor: there are a lot of possible sample rate changes that could happen anywhere along the production/listening path, including sample rate conversion(s) in your playing software, OS and (multiple places in) your DAC.

[Edit - replies have been coming in while I was typing] RE "Isn't there a reason to choose a sample rate evenly divisible by 44.1, for example 176 vs, 192?"
It depends on the how you got there.  If the original material was produced in 48, 96 or 192 then 48, 96 or 192 probably is best.  If the production was in 44.1, 88.2, etc. then some multiple of 44.1 is probably best.  Once again it depend on the quality of the sample rate converter: it's quite possible to do excellent conversions to just about any sample rate, it just takes more hardware/software for the more complicated conversions.

[parisphoto]

TedSmith,
IIUC, everything is crapshoot, if we don't know the origin of a file.

kstuart,
These are files to be downloaded from HDTracks, etc.

[TedSmith]

TedSmith,
IIUC, everything is crapshoot, if we don't know the origin of a file.

Yep

One of my favorite albums was recorded and produced in 24/96.  It was released in DSD.  Before I could easily rip DSDs I got a version of it from a DSD editing workstation at 24/88.2 and I play it on my DSD DAC which converts it back to (double rate) DSD.  It still sounds great and you can still clearly hear that the singer was recorded in a different acoustic space than the instruments.  Good sample rate conversion was used at each step and
it shows.  Not all albums are that "lucky".

I tend to buy all of my high resolution music from reputable vendors (luckily I personally know some of the masterers/remixers involved and that helps.)  As I mentioned if I know the providence I weight the cost against my impression of the production "damage".  If not I buy the cheapest version that's DSD or at least at 88.2 or 96 and is a simple integer relation to the original recording.

[Mikkel]

Thanks Mikkel,
I'm aware of the reason to use the 24 bit depth, but was interested in the sample rate, i.e. 88 vs 176.
Isn't there a reason to choose a sample rate evenly divisible by 44.1, for example 176 vs, 192?

The honest answer is that I don't know. My intuitive guess is that it doesn't matter. The difference is there but I have doubts that you can hear the difference. Can't give you an authoritative source on that claim though.

Best regards
Mikkel

[kstuart]

Two different professional mastering engineers (who have likely worked on some CDs you own) claim that they hear differences between 88.2 and 176.4 or between 96 and 192.

However, in any specific case, it depends on what has gone before.  HDtracks does not always know what the record label has done with the files that they receive to sell.   In some cases, record labels have upsampled files in order to fill requests for higher resolution.   And, some SACDs are known to have been produced from PCM files, rather than directly from DSD files.

So, 176.4 and 88.2 files from HDtracks have uncertain history - there may be a difference, or there may not be.

[parisphoto]

As i said before, IIUC everything is crapshoot, if we don't know the origin of a file.
Correct ?

[TedSmith]

As i said before, IIUC everything is crapshoot, if we don't know the origin of a file.
Correct ?

Sure, but how's that different than it's ever been?  There are multiple releases of records, CDs, DVD-As, SACDs, etc.  Tho I don't usually buy a "newer" version of something just for the heck of it I do have enough duplicates to know that I almost always like, say, SACDs better than CDs, a little less often I like DVD-As better than CDs (too often I don't like DVD-A surround mixes.) and mostly 88.2 and higher rates better than CDs.  But some music's source was too low of resolution to start with or was so overdubbed that the music is eternally muddy, etc...

You can at times find out from a review that there's something special about one particular release or another...  You can learn which masterers, labels, etc. produce the music the way you want, etc.  For argument sake you might find a label whose 192 recordings you always find superior to lower resolution recordings.

If HDTracks was trying to rip us off they'd have everything in say both 88.2 (or 96) and 176.4 (or 192)  My experience is that they take reasonable care.  As I explained earlier I still don't pay extra for 176.4 or 192 over 88.2 or 96 unless I know something for certain because I don't regularly hear a significant difference.  Personally I hope that Acoustic Sounds (and others) provide a lot more DSD releases as time goes on: I often find I often find I like them the best.  In the mean time I visit HDTracks and various label's sites quite often.