192kHz vs. 96kHz

[Randy Myers]

Originally Posted by Cohibaman

An interesting read...

The Science of Sample Rates (When Higher Is Better

Great article... I believe at this point in time I will stick to 96kHz. It seems to sound good (from a quick listen) and many articles seem to zero in at this being the best of both worlds solution.

I wonder if Acoustic Sounds would let me re-download the albums I purchased at DSD to the 96kHz version?

Don't think I will worry about the ones purchased at 192kHz. I am sure they are fine, just moving forward I will lean towards 96.

Again, great input everyone. It was very much appreciated!

[BuffaloBill]

Originally Posted by 2fastdriving

Count me in as skeptical. I think the original master is by far the most important factor in the chain. I've got DSD and 192khz pcm which sound no better than Redbook, because the original was not that great. I've got Redbook that sounds incredible because the master was done really well.

Correct. Unless the original recording was done live using actual 24/96 equipment the produced version is not true HD-Audio.

[scirica]

Originally Posted by 2fastdriving

Count me in as skeptical. I think the original master is by far the most important factor in the chain. I've got DSD and 192khz pcm which sound no better than Redbook, because the original was not that great. I've got Redbook that sounds incredible because the master was done really well.

I don't think your take is mutually exclusive from the previous post. The science is real regarding sampling rates frequency ranges, headroom, etc, but it all starts with the quality of the recording. I believe the original recording is the most important factor.

[Randy Myers]

I would personally believe that this is a given... of course no matter how good the playback path is, from media to equipment, it can only be as good as the original source, the recording

[2fastdriving]

Originally Posted by Randy Myers

I would personally believe that this is a given... of course no matter how good the playback path is, from media to equipment, it can only be as good as the original source, the recording

Right, what I was trying to say is, it is much more important than bitrate.

[Family Progtitioner]

Well considering that most of us probably would struggle to hear anything above 16000 hz, I'd say that 48 is more than enough

[Cohibaman]

FWIW....although I do purchase some HD Tracks downloads, I still regularly purchase CDs, both new and used.

[Yamaki]

Personally I prefer the 24bit/96kHz file playback.

I hear nothing more at 24bit/192kHz so I figure why pay more?

[tweet]

Originally Posted by Family Progtitioner

Well considering that most of us probably would struggle to hear anything above 16000 hz, I'd say that 48 is more than enough

[BowiePop]

I think 96/24 or 88,2/24 is good enough for music. The most important thing is the master, somme 44,1/16 sounds better some time !