Overclock.net banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I just need factual evidence that 192KHz make the sound worse, I've heard this many times but I DO can hear a difference between the two, I feel the 192KHz to be more of a quality warm sound, while 48KHz after hearing 192KHz sounds like a little bit more pitching, I could even call it Placebo effect, but I don't know, so here I am, asking to you Audiophile with wisdom and experience on the matter.

I got integrated Audio, the best one there is for integrated Audio (At least that says on the Asus Sabertooth MOBO) it's a Realtek ALC High quality sound and I got it paired with a nice Logitech Z623 2.1 System, which is capable of playing 192KHz at the highest sound depth and quality.

I've heard around that 192KHz just supersample the sound, somehow making it worse, My ears would like to disagree but that would be subjective, I'd like to know some actual objective facts about these two frequencies, or the most recommended frequency. I'm on 96KHz, but I'd like to use 192KHz for my PC games and songs.

What do you think? Should I just put 192KHz on my driver and call it a day? Or should I choose a different frequency without drawbacks? is there even any drawback to using 192KHz? The frequencies are all selected on the driver, picture below.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,939 Posts
Which model Asus Sabretooth do you have?

"192k" is somewhat more a marketing tool, then an improvement in audio quality.
Really cheap low quality DAC chips can be labeled "24-bit/192k"
Chances are you will not hear audio improvement in gaming or CD-Audio songs, with setting audio above 24-bit/48k.
When watching modern Blu-ray movies or listening to high definition music audio (like the ones you by at HDtracks) then setting audio to 24-bit/96k might be a good idea.

Chances are spending $200 on a sound card or external DAC/amp will improve audio quality, over what your motherboard currently provides.
 

·
( ━☞´◔‿ゝ◔`)━ ☞
Joined
·
6,605 Posts
I don't hear much difference between 48K~192K, even for high-quality audio (Blurays with FLAC). I also use integrated audio with a tweaked equalizer (without eq, it just sounds super flat and box-y) and Sennheiser HD555s with the foam removed.
 

·
Overclock Failed...
Joined
·
13,565 Posts
There's confusion here;

The OP is talking about playback, not recording.

The playback bit depth (16,24,32) and the sample rate (44.1, 128, 192, etc.) should match the bit depth and sample of the recording. If they are different, then the DAC (Digital to Analogue Converter) has to upsample or downsample to get to the different playback bit depth and sample rate you have chosen. This almost always makes a "change" to the sound being played.

Depending on your equipment, this degradation of the original signal may actually sound better, but usually not.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: Dargonplay

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by billbartuska View Post

There's confusion here;

The OP is talking about playback, not recording.

The playback bit depth (16,24,32) and the sample rate (44.1, 128, 192, etc.) should match the bit depth and sample of the recording. If they are different, then the DAC (Digital to Analogue Converter) has to upsample or downsample to get to the different playback bit depth and sample rate you have chosen. This almost always makes a "change" to the sound being played.

Depending on your equipment, this degradation of the original signal may actually sound better, but usually not.
Thanks, it's clear now, since games use standard audio )24 Bits 48KHz I guess) that's the rate I should be using. Upsampling from 44.1KHz to 48.KHz doesn't really sound like a noticeable change in audio quality, if there's any.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
Theoretically you should set it to
Quote:
Originally Posted by billbartuska View Post

There's confusion here;

The OP is talking about playback, not recording.

The playback bit depth (16,24,32) and the sample rate (44.1, 128, 192, etc.) should match the bit depth and sample of the recording. If they are different, then the DAC (Digital to Analogue Converter) has to upsample or downsample to get to the different playback bit depth and sample rate you have chosen. This almost always makes a "change" to the sound being played.

Depending on your equipment, this degradation of the original signal may actually sound better, but usually not.
Theoretically you should match the sample rate to that of the original recording to avoid resampling, which means 44.1KHz for Audio CD's and 48KHz for most games. As for the bit depth set it at 24 and leave it there, all this will do with 16 bit audio is add 8 empty bits to the signal as far as I'm aware which makes no difference to the reconverted analog signal. Set your windows volume to 100 though, if I recall right the way windows works with audio in the digital domain it basically chops off bits from the audio to reduce volume, some software can get around this by using 32 - 64 bit for the volume calculations for volume but usually just leave it at max. It should also feed a much healthier analog signal to your amp so long as your DAC is decent.
 

·
Overclock Failed...
Joined
·
13,565 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidNonsenze View Post

Set your windows volume to 100 though, if I recall right the way windows works with audio in the digital domain it basically chops off bits from the audio to reduce volume, some software can get around this by using 32 - 64 bit for the volume calculations for volume but usually just leave it at max. It should also feed a much healthier analog signal to your amp so long as your DAC is decent.
Very important point, unless, as you say, your audio system is incapable or reproducing the subtle differences that will result.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
862 Posts
If ones was to Blind test 44.1 vs 192 playback on decent audio gear and the source material comes from the same modern master, I doubt anyone here could tell the difference. Why cause they have conducted these tests multiple times and it's always the same conclusion. Well recorded and mastered audio is they key factor to achieving that warm, vibrant analog sound. 16bit to 24bit (source)can help make a bigger difference. 44.1 to 192 makes no difference to the human ear. Usually when people hear a difference it;s because:

1. Different source material(including master)
2. The audio gear/DAC they are using is fine tuned to work best at it's native 96 or 192 sampling rate.

There is a more perceivable difference when moving from 16bit to 24bit source material when done right. Don't get me wrong recording in 92Khz or 192 is all dandy, but for playback it's not going to make any difference. The placebo effect is responsible for making you think it sounds superior.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,508 Posts
I do all my professional audio work with the recordings I make at a min of 32/192 and usually 48/384.

However, the ONLY benefit from this is while editing/mixing.

I have never seen anyone reliably tell the difference between 24/48 and anything higher, it simply doesn'thappen. The equipment itself is top of theline, and is more than capable of handling twice that resolution.

Furthermore, with ANY "pc speakers", you are not going to be able to reliably ABX anything above Red Book, and even that's a stretch...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Hello everybody,

I just want to state something:

I've got a CREATIVE X-Fi Xtreme Music (Sb0460) runing on Windows 7 Pro (Genuine) with XFI_SupportPack_3_8_SE drivers installed.

Everytime I read posts made by some audiophiles i see: Everything above 48000hz is nonsense.... Guys, I know i must be crazy but!
Everytime I listen to music using 24bit/48000hz the sound, sometimes, seems buffled and with some kinds of a very low reverb. It sounds somehow limited! BTW I'm using an old Onkyo stereo amplifier + 2x ATL HD 308i + Elac ESP 101 active sub. Maybe i'm crazy and I hear sound... by i can't agree with someone who says that 48000hz vs 192000hz it's the same
frown.gif
sry.

The only way I can have some correct audio on my PC is with 24bit/192000hz.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
780 Posts
You probably will hear almost no difference because your source won't be 24 bit, if anything it will get worse

16 bit is the standard for CDs and games I'm sure don't use 24 bit audio.

Maybe on bluray rips you'd have 24 source/ I'm not sure to be honest. But "upscaling" to 24 bit probably won't be good for quality.

Try to find out what your media looks like. Look at your movies and music and see what you've got.

IME the only thing going around that's 24 bit are rips of vinyl.
 

·
Never Finished
Joined
·
2,454 Posts
I leave it at default (16/44.1). Other applications (internet stuff like youtube and local apps like games and media//audio players) will override that when needed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
I just need factual evidence that 192KHz make the sound worse, I've heard this many times but I DO can hear a difference between the two, I feel the 192KHz to be more of a quality warm sound, while 48KHz after hearing 192KHz sounds like a little bit more pitching, I could even call it Placebo effect, but I don't know, so here I am, asking to you Audiophile with wisdom and experience on the matter.

I got integrated Audio, the best one there is for integrated Audio (At least that says on the Asus Sabertooth MOBO) it's a Realtek ALC High quality sound and I got it paired with a nice Logitech Z623 2.1 System, which is capable of playing 192KHz at the highest sound depth and quality.

I've heard around that 192KHz just supersample the sound, somehow making it worse, My ears would like to disagree but that would be subjective, I'd like to know some actual objective facts about these two frequencies, or the most recommended frequency. I'm on 96KHz, but I'd like to use 192KHz for my PC games and songs.

What do you think? Should I just put 192KHz on my driver and call it a day? Or should I choose a different frequency without drawbacks? is there even any drawback to using 192KHz? The frequencies are all selected on the driver, picture below.
i had the same experience when testing the difference in sound. , i tested it only 3 times give or take but,i couldnt agree more with what you said
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
You probably will hear almost no difference because your source won't be 24 bit, if anything it will get worse

16 bit is the standard for CDs and games I'm sure don't use 24 bit audio.

Maybe on bluray rips you'd have 24 source/ I'm not sure to be honest. But "upscaling" to 24 bit probably won't be good for quality.

Try to find out what your media looks like. Look at your movies and music and see what you've got.

IME the only thing going around that's 24 bit are rips of vinyl.
actually this is false information want a source? look it up on the internet lmao
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
i had the same experience when testing the difference in sound. , i tested it only 3 times give or take but,i couldnt agree more with what you said
You are responding at one deactivated forum member account.
Taking in to account topic date, prior answering, this is useful too for future use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,727 Posts
With modern hardware and software, I just leave Windows (and the Sound Blaster Command control panel) at 48 kHz 24 bit.

But I use toslink output, not the internal DAC. Internally, the software will accept 32 bit audio, but almost no games or content uses it. My toslink equipment doesn't really like 96 kHz half the time.

Resampling audio to a higher rate is better when converting non-integer multiples... There can be ultra-sonic distortion that some claim that they can hear when you don't resample it to a high enough requency beyand the input frequency.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top