24/96 vs 24/192

My last system totaled at around $24,000. I've got a brand-new McIntosh MC275 VI (which cost $5,759), and a McIntosh D100 (which cost $2,400) with JBL speakers from Kenrick Sound. That's all I'll ever need. I didn't buy the McIntosh D150 with DSD because it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to me and doesn't justify spending an extra $1,000. With that said, I don't believe nor do I hear a difference in quality to what the OP is asking. I'm also not a firm believer in cables, magic beans, cable risers, magic markers, suspending my equipment in mid air, and many other things ClaytonD mentioned earlier.
And it's one hell of a system! :D
 
My last system totaled at around $24,000. I've got a brand-new McIntosh MC275 VI (which cost $5,759), and a brand-new McIntosh D100 (which cost $2,400) with JBL speakers from Kenrick Sound. That's all I'll ever need. I didn't buy the McIntosh D150 with DSD because it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to me and doesn't justify spending an extra $1,000. With that said, I don't believe nor do I hear a difference in quality to what the OP is asking. I'm also not a firm believer in cables, magic beans, cable risers, magic markers, suspending my equipment in mid air, and many other things ClaytonD mentioned earlier.
That is a very impre$$ive system indeed. A lot of money when it is a known fact (among certain circles) that ears simply cannot be trusted? Also no mention of what you play your digital files with either. If you are like others who have made claims that digital source doesn't matter then with that logic it would seem that even an internal PC card or a cell phone will be all that is needed and anymore is snake oil, reserved for audiophools with deep pockets and golden ears.
 
I'm using the latest iMac to store my digital music. I only play lossless music in the form of FLAC, WAV, or APE. The platform I use is called JRiver (as recommended by McIntosh).
Can it be assumed that you use the IMac's internal DAC then? Also no hi rez music on your drive? If so then how do you know that there is no audible difference (other than the tiresome can't trust the ears argument)? I would think even to start to realize the difference you would want to spend a little money on a DAC, and then it doesn't hurt to actually have some 24/96-192 to listen to (if you don't already).
As for JRiver, I use that too exclusively but it simply serves up the files in a multitude of ways to the DAC. So long as it's audio output setting bypasses the OS, I don't see it adding to the SQ any.
 
Wow I didn't expect this thread to get so much attention. As you can see in my signature my system is modest but I find it great sounding. My bottleneck would also be my speakers. One thing I learned if I am reading correctly is that the 24/96 and 24/192 part of the equation has to do with playing music files which I don't do as of right now. I will be the first to admit that I am one that has fallen for the more is better thing. I bought a Harmon Kardon HD990 CDP because it was rated 24/384. I have had it 6 years and now have to send it for service as it has developed static in the left channel that isn't being caused by any other component in my system. So I was asking this question because I needed another CD Player for the time being. I ended up buying a used Kenwood DV-403 which is a very nice player but unfortunately will not play CDR's. Should have looked that up first. Now I see that I should buy a good CD Player with a good dac and not worry so much about the bitrate.
 
I have "hi rez" music on my drive, and there's no audible difference between the three sample rates.
Would you care to share which recordings you have in three different resolutions? Unfortunately, it is true that not all recordings were mastered at high rez.
 
Given that the upper limit of human hearing is in the low 20 kHz range, why would it matter?
That's a canard that misses the point why engineers choose to record at higher resolutions. So, which recordings do you have and from where did you download them?

If they are poor recordings, it would be helpful for others to know.
 
As for hearing the difference between sample rates:
I get it now. You don't have any hi rez downloads. :)

ABX tests proved that you cannot hear difference between properly encoded mp3 320Kbps and lossless source.
While other tests (I've linked to in this thread) demonstrate the ability for some to consistently differentiate between 24/88 and 24/44.1. Did you ever figure out how to click my hyperlink? Return to post #63 and click the text in blue.

I'm constantly amazed at the energy and fervor some exert to inform others of what they themselves cannot do.
 
Last edited:
I get it now. You don't have any hi rez downloads. :)


While other tests (I've linked to in this thread) demonstrate the ability for some to consistently differentiate between 24/88 and 24/44.1. Did you ever figure out how to click my hyperlink? Return to post #63 and click the text in blue.

I'm constantly amazed at the energy and fervor some exert to inform others of what they themselves cannot do.

I read that link. Very interesting and a good read
 
Nothing short of magical or omniscient interpolation will give you anything but a sawtooth waveform at 1/2 the Nyquist frequency.

ABX is to proof as shit is to Shinola.

Have a nice day! :)
 
chicks and echowars, thank you for posting. That was an interesting read and video that I had not seen before.

You're welcome. This thread has gone the usual way of these things, with the willfully ignorant trying their best to spread doubt. I'm not sure of their motives, but it's best to ignore them, as they are quite harmless, really, just misguided. Any rational observer will see their arguments for what they are. I'm outta here.
 
I read that link. Very interesting and a good read
Indeed. I have to smile whenever Chicks or Lioh continue to misinform others that such studies don't exist. Especially the non-referenced assertion that no one can tell differences between lossy MP3 and even Redbook! Which by association means that lossy MP3 is as good as it gets. What a sad notion if such were true!

Understand that the question is not whether everyone can hear differences on all systems using all content. It is remarkably easy to find any number of folks who lack the ability to discern differences.

It is that some practiced listeners can consistently tell the difference between Redbook and higher resolutions (perhaps not between 96 and 192 or DXD) using complex content. Led Zeppelin or the forty-sixth remaster of DSOTM don't qualify. :)
 
Last edited:
perhaps not between 96 and 192.....
Since this is the sole focus and subject of the op a.k.a. post #1…is it too much to ask that you & et alia elaborate on this specific point henceforth instead of relentlessly contributing further to the exorbitant amount of thread drift? Perhaps indeed....
 
Since this is the sole focus and subject of the op a.k.a. post #1…is it too much to ask that you & et alia elaborate on this specific point
Why didn't you make that observation from the very first response, i.e. post #2 which compared Redbook to 24/192?
 
Last edited:
When I record a live event @ 24 bit 96Khz PCMI, afterwards I can and do play the recording through my system. Now I'm still discovering things when I mix, but almost everything, even the order in which I do things, does make a difference. So if I get everything right my Redbook CDs are almost indistinguishable from the original PCMI recording, but it is really pretty difficult to avoid changing the sound.

My point is that the same song at different resolutions probably will sound different, but not necessarily because of the resolution alone.
 
Did I miss anything?
Reading the results of the AES study to which I linked and brought to your attention multiple times.

This study aims at investigating whether listeners can perceive differences between musical files recorded at 44.1kHz and 88.2kHz with the same analog chain and type of AD-converter. Sixteen expert listeners were asked to compare 3 versions (44.1kHz, 88.2kHz and the 88.2kHz version down-sampled to 44.1kHz) of 5 musical excerpts in a blind ABX task. Overall, participants were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2kHz and their 44.1kHz down-sampled version. Furthermore, for the orchestral excerpt, they were able to discriminate between files recorded at 88.2kHz and files recorded at 44.1kHz.

I don't believe for a single second that people can hear the difference between 16bit/44.1kHz and 24bit/96kHz..because it's IMPOSSIBLE.
And yet, thirteen of the sixteen participants have performed The Impossible". :)

I didn't really believe you had an honest interest in actually learning anything - just droning on about your preconceptions and clicking the bold button.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom