Are high sample rates making your music sound worse?

Trying to compare diverse systems and their reactions to a single change is somewhat of a fools errand.

The level of complexity introduced by so many different components, not to mention the quality of the source material makes what seems to be a simple comparison very difficult.

Once you get past the vast array of hardware difference, then you get to cords, connectors and wires.

What may affect one system may not be discernable in another.

That does not mean the effect is not very real is some systems, but it may not translate across all systems.  IMHO bad source material, regardless of point of origin is the worst problem we all face.

@goofyfoot

It’s no different for vinyl unless you want the possible distortion that may arise from driving your tweeters higher than they can handle, same distortion as would be for playing the actual vinyl. Not saying all/most vinyl does this, but some do. Disregarding this caveat, it makes no difference.

@lalitk
@tatyana69

Find the error in my logic:

Sampling rate: Due to Nyquist, as long as we are 2x more than what we want to capture, it captures it 100% identically. Impossible for transient response for instance to be better with higher sampling rates, as that by definition means the 44.1 version didn’t sample it 100% identically. One caveat would be how good the filter in your DAC is, but even most cheap DACs don’t attenuate below 19kHz (and especially not more than 0.1dB), and since I doubt you can hear that high, it’s all good.

Bit-depth: All this is means is how large of dynamic range you can have, it describes the noise floor. 16Bit (undithered) has an average noise floor of better than 96dB, dithered brings it up to 110-120dB, 24-Bit is 144dB. Your average treated room has a noise floor of no lower than 30dBC, so that’s limiting you to less than 16Bit anyway. 

Also, the people I’ve heard from who are in the industry, all agree that digitized vinyl sounds identical. You finding this different either means you listened to garbage conversions or your brain is telling you what you want to hear, which since you hear a benefit from going to 192kHz leads me to think it’s the latter. Open to discussion, so please find the error in my logic.

@mzkmxcv,

I trust my ears more than any logic or argument. Couple of variables here, it could very well be your components that are not upto the task or maybe it’s your hearing that are hindering your abilities to discern the subtleties in the high resolution music. 

IMHO, you should open yourself to the possibilities that stems from trying than simply relying on theories and subsequent futile discussions. 

@lalitk

Measurements are far more accurate and far more reliable than our ears. Stating your ears are better and thus that’s why you hear a difference is such a typical response.

I’d like one explanation for why 192kHz is better than 44.1kHz, let’s say using a Chord Qutest as it’s filter is pretty much the best I’ve seen (well, let’s say the Chord Dave to get ahead of comments saying the Qutest is too cheap to be transparent).

Sampling rate only deals with how high of a frequency you want to capture, there is 0% difference within frequencies captured from a lower sampling rate, this is all proven by Nyquist, it’s a 100% capture, or else digital music wouldn’t Moro in the first place, as every sample relates to one specific waveform.

I’m willing to bet you can’t hear above 18kHz (if you are over 50, probably 12kHz), so stating that the inclusion of frequencies at 80kHz makes a difference is just nonsensical (unless you have an explanation).

I’ve asked why you think/know it makes a difference and all I got was “my ears are better”. You don’t even need measurement gear, all you need is a program that loads the two digital files and shows you the difference between them.