…like i said…. check out 2L….recording engineer of renown runs the place…
48kHz vs 96kHz: audible?
As a so-called audiophile, it is easy to lose one’s balance within many discussions and end up doubting, or at least questioning, whether that subtlety which one hears is real or imaginary.
Today, while engaged in a pastime, I was playing Holst’s "The Planets" in the background, but not at a low volume. I thought that it didn’t sound right. The strings in particular sounded a little abrasive. I noticed this on "Mars," the first composition, so it didn't take me long to perk up. On closer examination, I noticed that the DAC front panel was reporting 48kHz sample rate. I knew that this version of The Planets is 96kHz. Sure enough, JRiver Media Center (MC) was converting all PCM data (whether higher or lower) to 48kHz upon playback. I fixed the MC settings back so that all PCM rates play back at their native rates (up to the capability of my DAC), and all is well now.
Sometime in the recent past, whether due to an application or OS upgrade (of which there was one a few days ago), the MC sample rate conversion table got corrupted or reverted to a default configuration.
It would seem that I am able to hear the difference between 48kHz and 96kHz, at least under these circumstances. The difference was enough that I noticed it while passively listening (I was focused on drawing; the music was “background”) before I suspected a technical issue.
I wonder whether I could have heard this difference in a formal ABX test session? From my past experience with ABX testing, when the differences between the test objects are subtle, observations could easily have been obfuscated due to mental noise consisting of test anxiety, listening fatigue (to same passage over and over) and tedium. Whereas, in my case above, I noticed the difference when I was relaxed and focusing on something else entirely.
I am interested in thoughtful replies.
- ...
- 30 posts total
My understanding is that filters are used to eliminate noise from digital processing above 1/2 the sampling rate. For a 44.1khz sampling rate this puts the filtering pretty close to the audible range and can cause distortion in that range. 96khz puts the filtering at 48khz well above the audible range. Of course digital filtering is improving so any harm it does is probably lessening as time goes on. I’m not a technical person so maybe someone who is can give a more accurate explanation of what is going on between 44.1 and hi-res.
|
@tomcy6 is correct. The reason oversampling gives the impression that it may sound better is not due to the oversampling process itself but due to the fact that at higher sample rates, filter artifacts are pushed to higher frequencies which you cannot hear. If a standard CD player employs very good filters (more expensive to build than oversampling), they would sound just as good. |
There have been multiple suggestions here that Media Center may not be performing the conversion well. That certainly seems a plausible explanation, but my perception of jRiver is that they know what they are doing. However, I'll raise this issue on the jRiver forum and report back here. oldaudiophile: by "background," I am referred to what has my primary attention. I am working at a drafting table with my primary attention directed to what I am working on there. The speakers have been aimed and the subwoofer adjusted for this spot using instrumentation. tomic601: I haven't visited 2L yet but shall soon. |
- 30 posts total