Are high sample rates making your music sound worse?


ishkabibil
Snopes is a very reliable source for debunking urban legends such as the green marking pen used on CD's. Where's the evidence they are unreliable? ... thought so.

Cables can sound different in different systems, but above a certain level of materials and build quality you are hearing ONLY differences. They may sound small to some and significant to others. A $5000 power cable DOES NOT sound better than a $500 power cable. This is even more true with USB and other cables carrying a digital signal. Super expensive cables often look really cool, but you're kind of getting ripped off once you get into the four and five figure pricing. If you can afford it and think you like the resulting changes it makes to your system then just rock on!

As Stereophile has reported when testing high-end 16bit CD players and DACS, either technology, 16b or 24b, or a 44k sampling rate or much higher like a 196k rate can both sound fantastic when implemented in well designed gear. It is not at all a given that the higher sampling rates always sound better. So no, more is not always better.

Personally I prefer the sound of vinyl records and all analog playback over digital despite some of the advantages of the latter. It's just a personal thing, but vinyl sounds more "musical" to me. 

There is a LOT of snake oil being sold to audiophiles and there is little doubt in my mind that many of these products rely more on psychology than they do science. Your mind will change what you hear based upon your own confirmation bias-- and of this there is no doubt.

Every system will sound different based upon the combination of gear and the room that it's in. Your room will have a vastly greater impact on the sound of your system than anything achieved changing to more expensive cabling-- assuming you are already using something decent.

My phono cartridge will have a much greater impact on the sound of my system than my amplifier. So will my speakers. So will my phono preamp. Digital gear has improved immensely over the last fifteen years or so regardless of the bit rate. Does that mean I'd prefer a lower bit rate? Nope. Just saying...

Where is the evidence Snopes is nothing more than a bunch of mud-raking know-nothings? What would they know about the Green Pen? I’m guessing about as much as you do. No offense to you personally.
If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?  and if so is it 44.1, 192 or 16bit? 

My 2 cents;

I spent a lot of time using Adobe Audition and evaluating what was the best conversion of my 33/LP album collection to MP3s. I've been doing it now for more than a decade and ended up with Audition capturing at 32-bit/44Khz Windows-compatible wave files. I also edit in 32-bit. When the WAV file is complete, I use LAME to convert directly from the WAV file to MP3 at 128/variable. The result is roughly about 1Mb per minute of MP3 music file(s). I have had multiple people say the MP3s are the best they have ever heard. (from LP) Audition can 'Analyze' the WAV and the resulting MP3, and the resulting dynamic range is usually better than CDs, even though the source is from LPs. With that result, I have not changed my conversion process in more than a decade, as I see no reason to change it. Please don't flame me, maybe it can be done better, this just how I did it with modest gear. (I am not Bill Gates)

@lvrooman54 
 
the resulting dynamic range is usually better than CDs, even though the source is from LPs.
 
Vinyl is reported to have a noise floor of roughly -65dBFS, so I don’t see how any ADC or conversion technique can make it better than CD at -96dBFS, unless you are adding noise-shaped dither, in which case the same can be done for 16/44.1.