24/96 vs 24/192

Mike

Mike

Audioshark
Staff member
Joined
Apr 2, 2013
Messages
30,489
Location
Sarasota, FL
Has anyone else found that the 24/96 files just sound better (richer, more natural) than the corresponding 24/192 files? I wonder if it's because the masters are often 24/96 and the 24/192 files are up sampled??
 
I know we've talked about this before Mike, but I'll add my .02 again. I agree with you that 24/96 files sound better to me than 24/192. The 192's have a harshness to them that's not there with 96's. Perhaps it has something to do with "adding" information, I'm not sure but to me it's not worth the added cost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dlb2 said:
I know we've talked about this before Mike, but I'll add my .02 again. I agree with you that 24/96 files sound better to me than 24/192. The 192's have a harshness to them that's not there with 96's. Perhaps it has something to do with "adding" information, I'm not sure but to me it's not worth the added cost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

+1
 
Native rate is always best!

24/192 done to a 24/96 master is not an improvement.
 
When the 192 players first came out, they seemed to me to be just like you said. I assumed it was that they just didn't get their voicing in the dac correct.

I don't notice it much anymore, but that could be what DACs I'm using.
 
24/96 is more common compare to 24/192, is that correct?
Only 3-5% of my music libraries is 24/192, and I can't hear a differences between 24/192 vs 24/96.
Probally, that's my ODAC isnt good enough or my ears is too old. :P
 
Mike,

Thanks, this is one of those topics that are new to me, begin that I've just entered the world of Hi-Rez, so in hindsight you've saved me a few dollars right off the bat, yet a friend of mine - Slippers.....on ( Byron ) had mentioned this very said matter to me while visiting a friends home. I'm learning to re-think matters already.

And In my mind, knowledge is key.

O_o scar
 
I think it varies, depending on how good the original master was (always key, IMO). I've heard great 24/96; I've heard great 24/192. I've heard stellar DSD...and I've heard all of the proceeding, sound "just OK" as well.

Oh...and I've heard remarkable Redbook too :)
 
Thanks guys,

I guess the best thing I can do on my end is buy both and see if I'm able to hear said differences through my rather modest system, I'm certain the truth shall be heard one way or the other.

Regards,
O_oh
 
24/96 vs 24/192 well, who knows. I think it mostly depends on a person's dog like hearing and the quality of their speakers and DAC but most importantly I feel it depends on the overall quality of the recording. You start with crap and you will end up with crap regardless of the format chosen. I say buy both and give it a try, or not.
 
I have stopped purchasing 24/192. I only do 24/96 now. Not because I think 96 is better but 192 is definitely not better than 96.
 
Kt77 said:
Thanks guys,

I guess the best thing I can do on my end is buy both and see if I'm able to hear said differences through my rather modest system, I'm certain the truth shall be heard one way or the other.

Regards,
O_oh
Click to expand...

This is about the only way to figure out if you can hear a difference and if so whether or not you like the sound. In the past when I've listened to 96 vs. 192 I've always thought that 192 seemed to have a brightness to the top end. Kind of an unnatural sizzle to it, whereas 96 was more full bodied and dynamic.

Glad to see you here Oscar.
 
dlb2 said:
This is about the only way to figure out if you can hear a difference and if so whether or not you like the sound. In the past when I've listened to 96 vs. 192 I've always thought that 192 seemed to have a brightness to the top end. Kind of an unnatural sizzle to it, whereas 96 was more full bodied and dynamic.

Glad to see you here Oscar.
Click to expand...

Hi Doug,

It's great to be here, as I was merely getting tried of some of the other forum I used to enjoy, it seem that some guys would rather pick arguments, then try to share worthwhile insight into ways of bettering ones system through tweaks ( which I happen to believe in ), I'm very very very happy with the overall sound of my system, and am more concerned with getting into little important matters like - music - tubes a few tweaks here and there, and not worrying about the next greatest component, as far as I'm concerned my system suit my preferences and music to a " T ", why then change things, just for the change of losing what I've built upon - I think not.

Some listen and learn, while some are closed minded and are forever chasing gear.

Thanks for sharing your added insight as well, I'll definitely be trying both.

Be well, Doug.
O_oh
 
I admittedly have limited experience with digital downloads (DD).

I've always felt the original recording and mastering is a far more important factor in SQ regardless of the bit or sampling rate.

And the SQ appears to have a relationship to the producer as I've heard some great sounding DD from labels Analogue Productions, Blue Coast; above average sound from labels Premonition, ECM, Rhino, Capitol, very average sound from labels Epic, Columbia, Polydor, and Rounder.

I've also heard some very good RBCD in my collection. Joe Jackson: Body and Soul being one good example.

But on average the most consistently great sounding albums in my collection are SACD; classical titles, a good number but fewer jazz titles, a minority of pop/rock. With SACD I find many more producers having consistently great SQ.
 
CPP said:
24/96 vs 24/192 well, who knows. I think it mostly depends on a person's dog like hearing and the quality of their speakers and DAC but most importantly I feel it depends on the overall quality of the recording. You start with crap and you will end up with crap regardless of the format chosen. I say buy both and give it a try, or not.
Click to expand...

This is my experience as well, whether it be 24/96 vs 24/192 or CD vs. SACD vs. HDCD or 120g vs. 180g vs. 200g. With hi-rez downloads, most of the time (small sample size of about 7-8 recordings, mind you) I've found that there is little to no difference. But when there is a difference... whew! Jan Chapin's reVisions, already outstanding in 24/96, sounds noticeably better in 24/192.
 
Really can't hear any difference between 24/96 & 24/192.
I downloaded several tracks in booth formats just to test and...nada !

May be my system is not revealing enough, or...it may be my ears :-)

So, like Mark, I also have stopped purchasing 24/192. I only do 24/96 now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top