96kHz vs. 192kHz at 24 bit

[bakerman]

Originally Posted by Pider

If your DAC is capable of 192, but your music is 96, does it matter? Or is there processing going on even with the 96 music that could be a problem? Obviously I don't understand this topic, so please forgive the naive question.

Many DAC's on the market today don't upconvert files, it is done by some type of audio software, i.e. Pure Music, Amarra, etc... I personally want my DAC to be able to play files up to 192, or whatever the highest resolution is at the time, but not do any processing of said files. I think this makes for a "cleaner" signal path.

[mraudio]

I have 4 albums from HDTracks that I bought in both the 24/96 and the 24/192 versions. I use an Olive 04HD that outputs to a Eastern Electric MiniMax DAC.

I really think the 24/96 versions sound better. The 24/192 versions seem to have all of the "air" sucked out of them. There is something that just doesn't quite sound right. It's as if the ambiance is gone. They sound sterile and unmusical, to me anyway.

[Still-One]

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

The Wadia upsamples everything to 192 for output, I believe. I have some 192 Khz files and they sound better than 96KHz, at least on the 121.

Are you just speaking of the 121?? I think there other units are upsampled to 1.4112MHz

[bakerman]

I don't hear much difference between 24/96 and 24/192. Maybe it's my hearing, my system isn't resolving enough, or there isn't much of a difference anyway. I'm happy sticking with 24/96 for now and saving the little extra to buy more music.

Whether Benchmark has an agenda or not, I appreciate their information but in the end each of us will decide what we want to do with it. I don't think it's their place to say what sounds better and what doesn't.

[Josquin des Prez]

Originally Posted by bakerman

Many DAC's on the market today don't upconvert files, it is done by some type of audio software, i.e. Pure Music, Amarra, etc... I personally want my DAC to be able to play files up to 192, or whatever the highest resolution is at the time, but not do any processing of said files. I think this makes for a "cleaner" signal path.

I believe my Naim ND5 XS plays files at native rate, and supports up to 24/192.

[Rayooo]

I've got a mix of everything from 44.1k 16bit to 192k 24bit.

If I have a choice of 92/96K or 192, I've pretty much settled on 88 or 92k. Not that 192k sounds worse to me, but, for the added cost it doesn't sound any better.

...and in the end I still have 44.1k/16 bit ripped CDs that sound fantastic, and, 192k 24bit recordings that are not great sounding. To this day it seems the production values, or lack of, still account for about 80%.

In my case I don't do any re-sampling at the application level, the DAC (W4SDAC-2) receives all the various playbacks @ their native rates. It then up-samples everything thrown at it to something like 864k?? I believe prior to D to A conversion.

I can take all the experts comments on bits, sampling rate, up/down sampling, filtering, compression, yadda yadda, throw em into a bucket and believe what I want. In the end, I still would say as an example, the MFSL gold CD rip of Beck/Seachange, sounds better than the 88k/24 bit "hi-rez" copy I also have. Go figure. 'course my ears are assuredly UN-golden.

[The Sandman]

Originally Posted by Rayooo

In the end, I still would say as an example, the MFSL gold CD rip of Beck/Seachange, sounds better than the 88k/24 bit "hi-rez" copy I also have. Go figure. 'course my ears are assuredly UN-golden.

This is the kind of stuff that TAS puts in their reviews - they certainly do not always prefer the high res download versions of a particular album - sometimes it's the SACD, or redbook remaster even.

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by Still-One

Are you just speaking of the 121?? I think there other units are upsampled to 1.4112MHz

Yes, Jim, the 121....sorry for the confusion.

[bzr]

Originally Posted by Rayooo

I've got a mix of everything from 44.1k 16bit to 192k 24bit.

...and in the end I still have 44.1k/16 bit ripped CDs that sound fantastic, and, 192k 24bit recordings that are not great sounding. To this day it seems the production values, or lack of, still account for about 80%.......
.

This is the same for me, well said!!

[djwhog]

Well HD tracks had the The Righteous Brothers on 24/96 and then a redo and a free re-download on the 24/192, I would say on the Oppo playing through the mx150 the later does sound better to me. They are both great, but the 2nd on this recording is cleaning and a sound stage with more range and feels less compressed.

Maybe what happens is that some times the source is old poor etc and is over mixed to the point of saturation, coloration and added distorition and thus you end up with compression introduced into the the final cut?

However, I agree that even the 44 on a good rip or a HD cd sounds nice too.

I think the key is the source and the engineer that laid the tracks down in the 1st place