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.

128x128mcdonalk

yes, significant difference between 48k and 96k, has already been done in studios quite a few times. 

next level up is 192k, which is slightly better than 96k, but at these 192k sampling rates and higher, you need a master clock to sync the data. 

The only way you can be sure is to compare apples to apples:

Dr. Aix

  Then post your results. Lotso luck.

 

 

 

To help sort this out you might try visiting the download bench at 2L recordings for great music in a variety of formats and resolution levels w same master… quite helpful… mostly free :-) 2L the Nordic sound :-)

jim

Qobuz has both high rez. and CD rez. files and I can distinguish the higher resolution ones as richer and more 3D sounding, smoother and more colorful. I find the difference significant, by far less important as the actual mastering.

On the other hand, I have recorded myself playing the digital piano. The midi file can then be made by the Pianoteq software into a wav and I can choose the resolution. The 24/192 file sounds marginally, and I emphasize marginally, better than the 22/48 file, the sustain or decay, whatever you would call it, is a bit longer and richer in detail.

All of the above on a quite resolving system (Marin Logan hybrids and Accuphase electronics).

There's no question that I can hear the difference between CD and high rez. As important, however, is the quality of the recording setup and the art of the sound engineer. I've heard some poorly recorded music that is high rez. It might as well have been played on my car radio.