Are high sample rates making your music sound worse?


Showing 6 responses by tatyana69

mzkmxcv353 postsSince no one >10 can hear over 20kHz, there is no point to listening to something like 192kHz in the first place, if your amp can even properly playback such high frequencies, all you are doing is increasing the chances of driving your tweeter into distortion.

That is, I am afraid, nonsense. My long term dealer and I sat in DCS demonstration room and agreed that upsampling to 192, generally but not always, resulted in a better listening experience, and indeed preferable to upsampling to dsd. I have then at home set my DCS  upsampler to 192 after I confirmed the findings in my home environment. Your upsampler may be inferior of course .... And my speakers are B&W800d3s and are not adversely affected by 192 as you falsely claim again, so again you are possibly listening to inferior speakers and making generalisations on a totally a false premis. I can ask B&W if they agree with you, but I won't bother.
And by the way I find digital copies of vinyl records totally lifeless and pointless.  I prefer listening to the actual vinyl or a properly recorded digital version, upsampled if appropriate. Naysay if you wish, but that is pointless as all that does is to falsely tell me my listening is inferior, which it isn't.

371 posts
This poster is an example of people who JUST DO NOT LISTEN, either to music or other people. I am surprised anyone has risen to such a nonsense debate to continue his moronic thoughts. A highly skilled engineer of mine built an amp for me that has exactly the same measurements as another Bryston amp I had. Did it sound the same? Of course not ... Hang on, it must be my ears that are faulty! And the poster should buy better equipment before labelling ALL equipment the  same. Seems he has less quality equipment to match his inferior thoughts.
mzkmxcv374 posts
Why don't you try yourself, instead of asking stupid questions and making stupid comments,and find out - as clearly you have either ..
a -  not tried or
b - have cloth ears or
c Have rubbish equipment
or maybe as I believe all 3
Please report back as clearly your findings and opinions are so accurate

If I listen to a Jaguar engine when it is away from me in a garage and compare it to the sound if I was standing next to it, would I hear a difference?  It is the same sound isn't it ... so according to you must sound the same

uberwaltz4,443 posts
Yes I have same impression. Tried many times to enjoy upsampling to dsd, but all flavour and air dried up and sounded very mechanical. On the basis that most of the time 192 worked for me best (sometimes 96 suprisingly) I took the view to fix at 192 and just enjoy as much as possible without always wondering ... what if I went down to 96!..
Exactly the view of my long term dealer, who's ears and opinion are usually spot on
My experience is that the worse recordings are improved more than the better recordings - which seems logical to me. As you say, a good recording is a  good recording, regardless. A poor recording of Band of Gold - Freda Payne - gets some sort of life in it, but no matter what, I find nothing can bring Ultravox to any life at all! Were their recordings known to be poor?
mzkmxcv381 posts
It is abundantly clear that this chap has NOT experienced upsampling and is spouting verbage about measurements he does not understand anyway and he gains satisfaction from writing and seeing his own words in print that have NO BENEFIT TO ANYONE. Can he please desist from irritating sensible people who DO know what they are talking about and have EXTENSIVE listening experiences of the benefits. Can we have a rule on this forum that if you have not tried DO NOT MAKE SPURIOUS comments on those who HAVE, disputing their ears and findings.