96Khz vs 192Khz

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Repeatedly saying it does not make it true.

Saying it without context is the lameness here.

After I cited Benajmin and Gannon's work reporting thresholds of jitter audibility, to write 'jitter is audible', is simply trolling. Scifi is a troll.

The correct claim is Jitter is audible if there's enough of it (and with jitter the story is even more complex...not just enough, but the *right kind* in the *right context*)

Audiophiles are always blaming some perceived flaw in the sound they hear when they place music on their systems, on a difference they never demonstrate they really heard in the first place. Jitter hysteria is along those lines. The burden is on them to prove that the difference they heard was a) real and b) due to jitter. (Good luck waiting for them to do that.)

Arny Kruger would certainly agree. He was a tireless, passionate warrior for decades against audiophile nonsense....and so is the Hydrogenaudio forum itself. Claims made by the likes of scifi --- and many others -- here, would be quickly garbage-binned on HA as violations of its Terms of Service.

Arny's jitter tests -- which of course were designed to be done blind -- used increasingly extreme levels of jitter added to carefully chosen signals to explore when jitter could be audible. (This is akin to, though less formal than, Benjamin & Gannon's 1998 work that reported thresholds of jitter audibility). He would absolutely never jump from those results, to accepting some random audiophile's report that he heard jitter.

Anyone interested in the results and their interpretations should carefully read that entire HA thread. Something scifi undoubtedly never did.
 
I can hear it here. Saying you can't hear it doesn't make that true, either, it just means some people can't hear it. I can hear it.

Saying you *can* hear it -- on a maximally revealing test like Arny's -- doesn't mean you *are* hearing it, in your system, listening to music.

I can see the pixels in my TV if I sit close enough. From where I normally sit, they're invisible.

Show that your system has audible levels of jitter in your normal listening. That would be a start.
 
Last edited:
I never heard 24/192 before, only 16/44.1, 16/48 and 24/96 as well as SACDs and could hear a significant difference between them. I guess I'll have to try it out. I'll have to get something, maybe a USB to D/A converter for 24/192 which I've seen before.

You Haven't Lived Until You've Streamed Pure 24/192 Music! Do It Free With The Neil Young Archives



WIll this work on 24/192?
https://napkforpc.com/apk/com.shakey.nyarchives/
Its free!!!
I've also seen free 24/96 and 24/192 samples on some websites.
 
Assuming we can clear up the miscommunication over sample rate clock jitter vs old school unbuffered CD player read error jitter...
(Spoiler: Doesn't look like it.)

How exactly are we isolating and comparing jitter riddled audio?
Files with jitter baked in?
So... These genuinely were analog recordings done with an ADC with known levels of clock jitter just for such an experiment?
What are we listening back with? And how is the sample rate clock stability of the playback DAC compared to the different levels of ADC clock jitter baked into the test samples? How is that variable being normalized in this experiment?

I can't help but think of silly TV commercials trying to demonstrate the improvement of a higher def display - as watched on an old 19" TV screen. Yeah, I can sure see how the HD display looks clearer through my display that is even worse than their "bad' example!

Right, so that variable madness is taken into consideration in these shootouts?

The era of adding an external sample rate clock and people thinking it made an improvement was the 1990s. With ADAT decks and early audio interfaces. Before stock 24 bit converters became the norm.

You can hear plenty of examples of cheapness with fidelity nowadays! Perhaps more than ever? Sample rate clock jitter should be low on the list. Some shit line level preamp stage with a trashy cheap capacitor coupling and unbalanced I/O is more likely the culprit.
 
I never heard 24/192 before, only 16/44.1, 16/48 and 24/96 as well as SACDs and could hear a significant difference between them. I guess I'll have to try it out. I'll have to get something, maybe a USB to D/A converter for 24/192 which I've seen before.

You Haven't Lived Until You've Streamed Pure 24/192 Music! Do It Free With The Neil Young Archives



WIll this work on 24/192?
https://napkforpc.com/apk/com.shakey.nyarchives/
Its free!!!
I've also seen free 24/96 and 24/192 samples on some websites.



s-l1600.jpg
 
I remember when all those keychain "sampler" devices first appeared in the head shops. You hold them over the pickup on your electric guitar and they amplify through the system. I had a few of them. Got more applause than my actual guitar playing... I used to have a big cordless drill solo too! :D
 
96 vs 192 vs 16/44.1 vs SACD
If you hear a difference
  1. There is a difference in the source file
  2. Bias tells your brain to hear a difference cause you believe there should be one.
A debate that's more or less irrelavant today since most sources except CD and some streamers use a higher than Redbook 16/44.1 rate. (just cause they can and some market segments desire it.)
 
No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their universal generalization from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly.[1][2][3] Rather than abandoning the falsified universal generalization or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, a slightly modified generalization is constructed ad-hoc to definitionally exclude the undesirable specific case and counterexamples like it by appeal to rhetoric.[4] This rhetoric takes the form of emotionally charged but nonsubstantive purity platitudes such as "true, pure, genuine, authentic, real", etc.[2][5]

Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt.[1] The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
 
You hi-rez naysayers are just jealous because you have tin ears and can't hear the beautiful music that us golden ear people can hear. You know you are missing out. You bums have no culture.

The best-selling physical format in music is the vinyl LP, which is more than 70 years old. I’ve seen no signs that the record labels are investing in a newer, better alternative—because, here too, old is viewed as superior to new.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...ng-new-music/621339/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
 
One needs to read what Dr. AIX Mark Waldrep has to say on the subject of music at various sample rates.
This is an honest man who was making and selling hi rez files and has done research on his university sabbatical that shows that most people (and he had the largest sample that has been done to date) can't hear the difference between CD rez and higher rez reliably. This finding is against his economic interest since he spent many years and zillions of dollars and promoted high rez from microphone to user amplifier input.
His telling the truth (and I have never seen a video, nor an article accusing him of being strident or rude) has gotten him disinvited from the Orange County Audio Society and various industry committees. Which to me is proof they don't like folks that tell the truth.
https://hometheaterreview.com/mark-waldrep-high-res-facts-fiction-audiophile-review/
One of his main points is that if you take old music , that was recorded on analog tape originally and put it in a hi rez bucket , it is not hi rez. I do enjoy being able to hear everything on a master tape. But that can be done EASILY on/at CD resolution. Most of Neil Young's stuff was probably done on analog tape.

Finally it is well to remember the rhetorical techniques ascribed to Joseph Goebbels. Make it a Big Lie, Keep it Simple, and repeat it over and over. Eventually they will believe it and it will become fact.
He probably didn't actually say it. That's the interscreen for ya.
 
Last edited:
The first "sort of" 16 bit DACs were made with a 12 bit DAC chip and a 4 bit DAC chip before even proper 16 bit chips were available. Those last 4 bits were nearly useless and more of a noise source. This is where the desperation led to creating dither.

Then we got the first 24 bit converters and HD sample rates. The steep analog eq filter needed when the sample rate is RIGHT next to the audio band with SD turned out to be hard to do well and the cheap units has a blanket over the speaker effect.

Early software sample rate conversion was incredibly damaging. To the point that going DA -> analog -> AD at a new sample rate was the professional SOP. Especially the SD to SD conversions (44.1k <-> 48k) got artifact riddled.

Apparently this all got set in stone!
Modern 24 bit professional DACs?
Nope nope nope everything still works like 12 bit and any sample rate under 192k is going to sound like a photocopy of a wire recorder! Nothing has changed! This will never change!
 
Back
Top