DAC: 24 / 192 Supported, Does it really matters for Music ?

[Safar]

Hello Friends,

This vacation, I was investing my time understanding the technical details of Digital to Analog bridge on the stereo component chain. I was also researching to find a suitable DAC for my Stereo Setup.

Almost all modern DAC supports 24 / 192, but some of them are limited to 24/96 on USB input. USB was my major factor, and there I am getting into these thoughts. For music, does it really matters sampling at 192 ? When the original recording in CD is sampled at 44.1 Khz, what is the point of buying one with more complex electronics to support 24 / 192 ? Are we ever going to use it for music ? Even then, can a human ear differentiate those extra detail (above 20 Khz)in a music track ?

Probably movie tracks may contain high frequency detail which demands a higher sampling rate. Does electronic music and Trance music in digital era use those higher spectrum ?

(I just remembered an accusation against Enigma in late 90s for including sonar frequencies not audible to human ears in their recordings , for the hypnotic effect ) , whatever may be the truth !!

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

If you have gone to the trouble of buying music in 24/192 format, probably downloaded, then I'm sure you'll think it matters because you are going to use it for music . If, on the other hand, you only want to play CDs and CD rips, then even 24/96 is more than you need.

Depending on what you want and how much you are going pay, you might well think that 24/192 capability is desirable for future-proofing, just as you may think that a choice of digital interfaces (SPDIF optical, coax) as well as USB might come in useful with equipment you might buy in the future.

Shopping is not an exact science

 

[Safar]

Shopping is not an exact science

Very true

But 24 / 192 format itself, Is it going to reveal any detail that we can differentiate ? Even if, will it add anything to the musical experience ?

I never got a chance to compare 24/ 192 and lower sampled track on a decent setup

 

[Staxxx]

I think higher rez files do sound more natural (in the most revealing of systems that can actually provide the experience). However so saying, I have been buying downloads for months and can tell you I rarely come across a 24/192 download - mostly the high-rez files I tend to find are 24/88.2 (some people like this as it resamples more accurately apparently) or 24/96.

 

[Safar]

I think higher rez files do sound more natural (in the most revealing of systems that can actually provide the experience). However so saying, I have been buying downloads for months and can tell you I rarely come across a 24/192 download - mostly the high-rez files I tend to find are 24/88.2 (some people like this as it resamples more accurately apparently) or 24/96.

If my understanding is correct, more bits means more details. So higher bit rate will be resolved by a capable system into a more detailed sound stage. A music file with 512 bps will be more dynamic than a music file with 256 bps. But capability to handle a higher bps file, is it linked to sampling capacity of the hardware ? (probably needs to revise my digital lessons)

 

[iaudio]

Very true

But 24 / 192 format itself, Is it going to reveal any detail that we can differentiate ? Even if, will it add anything to the musical experience ?

I never got a chance to compare 24/ 192 and lower sampled track on a decent setup

I feel it does make a significant difference if your set up is highly revealing.

 

[reignofchaos]

As Staxx mentioned, 9/10 are 24/96 or 24/88.2. Its very very rare to get a 24/192. So don't use that as a criteria to not buy a particular dac. Just buy it based on sound quality of whatever music you listen to.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

My setup only goes to 24/96 ...so I am unable to comment at all on 192.

If I digitise a record, I do it at 96, not because I can hear the difference, because I'm fairly sure that I can't, but because, hey, one day someone might, and it only costs me disk space. There are threads about HD audio, so no point in getting into the details (if we can hear them ) here, but, maybe, when recordings and mastering is being done for HD, the whole process will be regarded as more of an audiophile exercise, and, whether it is because of the number of samples or not, better quality recordings will result.

Anyway, recording and playback technology will march on, even if only to give the record companies a chance to sell us the same stuff yet again.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I feel it does make a significant difference if your set up is highly revealing.

Well, if it, and your speakers can't output anything over 20k, and your ears can't hear anything over 20k, then however revealing it is, it is not going to give you frequencies over that. (Did I read somewhere that feeding higher freqencies than the designed range can actually cause bad things to happen to the sound? not sure)

but...

• Those Tanoy supertweaters go up to about 50K
  
• Recent experiments show that people's brain waves are affected by frequencies higher than they hear. As far as I know, this was research into the existence of an effect, not into musicality or pleasure --- but it is all interesting and challenging stuff.

 

[manoj.p]

If my understanding is correct, more bits means more details. So higher bit rate will be resolved by a capable system into a more detailed sound stage. A music file with 512 bps will be more dynamic than a music file with 256 bps. But capability to handle a higher bps file, is it linked to sampling capacity of the hardware ? (probably needs to revise my digital lessons)

The 24 bit here is the bit depth. Bit depth limits the signal to noise ratio. Each bit depth translates into SNR of 6db. So, a 24 bit music file has theoretically 144 db SNR. Now, when you translate this to real life, to take full advantage, you need to have all the equipment starting from source player, DAC, pre-amp, amp and speakers capable of 144 db SNR. Moreover, to test it, you will need to run the system at 144 db (This is assuming that the noise floor is at 0 db which in reality is quite high itself). Has anyone listened to music at that loudness level? Just for the info, CD's have bit depth of 16, which translates into 96 db SNR. Again, that itself takes quite a bit of achievement in real life to listen at 96 db.

The second part of Hi-Rez format is the 192 or 96 KHz. That's the sampling frequency which is twice of the corresponding analog frequency. Meaning a 192 KHz sampling is equivalent to 96 KHz analog frequency. We humans have hearing upto 20 Khz max in theory. Most of us can't hear above 16 KHz or so. Although, there might be some effects of higher rez frequencies on lower range frequencies below 20 KHz. How it affects, I don't know. Even to get that, your DAC, pre-amp, amp and speakers should be capable of playing at those frequencies. Even if we don't hear, the dogs and cats sure will enjoy that music.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

On the whole, I doubt that this high-res is going to give noticable better results, regardless of the equipment that we use to listen to it on --- because it will be equally dependent on the chain the other end, from microphone to mastering. If All the links in that chain from performer to listener are given highly-skilled care and attention, then the result might be worthwhile. This would be a vital part of hi-res actually being the audio of the future.

On the other hand, why should our equipment limit our possibilities? There's certainly no harm in buying 24/192 hardware, so, all other things being equal ...do it!

The "All other things" include stuff like the quality of the DAC implementation, its analogue circuitry, any sound signature that you like, and, especially important for USB, the quality of the digital interface implementation.

 

[manoj.p]

Very well said, Thad.

The entire chain, from recording to mastering in the studio as well need to be high rez. Unfortunately that's not the case. Most of the mics and recording instruments do not have such a high frequency range. A lot of hi-res/Hi-definition music is just re-sampled from the standard sampled masters.

 

[Safar]

I have been buying downloads for months and can tell you I rarely come across a 24/192 download - mostly the high-rez files I tend to find are 24/88.2 (some people like this as it resamples more accurately apparently) or 24/96.

Which sites are reliable to buy high res loseless mudic ?

 

[Staxxx]

Which sites are reliable to buy high res loseless mudic ?

I use Tlchargement de musique en haute qualit. Ecoute en streaming., see under studio masters

 

[msagar]

safar,

The following article might answer your question:

PCM v DSD Comparison: 16/44.1, 24/96, 24/192, 64x DSD, 128x DSD | AudioStream

 

[thevortex]

A nice thread with some solid inputs. Ultimately, it is down to not the specs but the sound. There could be a Vinyl system which does not bother with with all these 192 khz and sound fantastic as compared to a complicated, PC output->DAC->Equalizer->Speaker system! This is why they say it is all personal. Not sure if it is of much help. But since we cannot build a system within a sane budget that would cater to all tastes, the onus is on each individual to select and build a system - if needed, component by component, to bring it to what he thinks is a good state! And then take the time to collect stuff to listen and see, rather than wonder about what else to upgrade in the chain next!

 

[Nalzan]

If you listen to Western Classical music, there are any number of Hi-Rez recordings which have been natively recorded in 24/192 (or higher). If your equipment is revealing enough then you will find that the higher resolution is indeed aurally rewarding!

 

[Safar]

If you listen to Western Classical music, there are any number of Hi-Rez recordings which have been natively recorded in 24/192 (or higher). If your equipment is revealing enough then you will find that the higher resolution is indeed aurally rewarding!

I did listen to some of the remastered High res FLAC versions of Eagles & Modern Talking. Since I had critical listening of their original recordings in my own system, It was easy to note the difference. For sure the sound opened up a lot. I could notice the change in the speed of certain instruments and very different sound stage. Now I can commit that even an untrained ear can notice the difference.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I did listen to some of the remastered High res FLAC

Personally, I suspect that the clue is in the remastering rather than in either the 24 bits or the 192kh. Mastering for an audiophile market,hopefully means more attention to detail generally, and less of the dreaded compression that murders music at birth. There are tools to measure compression, or even a novice can see the difference in a waveform in, eg, Audacity, a free audio editor.

I'm not saying that one issue may not be perceptibly better than another; just that it might be better, but not for the obvious reason. Just theory and suspicion for conversation: I do not claim to know! As I've said before, I could not hear the difference between 44.1 and 96 when digitising, but felt that, as all it cost me was disk space, I might just as well go for the higher sample rate. Never know when the bats will be coming to dinner :lol:

My prediction is that a substantial part of high-rez music will be a con (hey, it's the music industry!) but that the rest will show the benefit of high standard end-to-end recording and engineering. Of course, all music deserves that, but it doesn't get it. Best we should be discerning buyers. For starters, lets weed out the obvious fakes by checking the frequency range of music sold as high-rez.

 

[Safar]

Just to clarify Thad, I could not comment on the the impressions between CD quality High res Music and 94 or 192 Khz music. My impressions were the direct improvement over the original music CD and a high res file of the same (I think it was 96 Khz only).

However I second your thinking on the remastering line... Probably that creates a big difference. Wondering the remastering these days involve a lot of DSP to make the track sound like brand new recording ???Wonder if people who wants to hear the original recording as close as possible will be happy ?