The difference between 32 khz and 44.1 khz is audible to me, but beyond 128 kbps songs sound the same. Anyone else?
No
What is going on here? You can’t compare 32Khz frequency response (which nobody can hear) to 44.1Khz sample rates to 128Kbs bite rates.
The reverse is true for me, but it proves OP’s point. I have hearing loss, especially in high frequencies so anything over 15K is pretty much lost (30 kHz sample rate). But due to my hearing aids, anything 256 kbps or below makes my hearing aids go nuts in a way where it can get screechy or painful.
320 kbps is fine and I usually can’t discriminate between uncompressed and 320.
That’s so interesting, I see this as definite proof that there is a quality difference beyond 192 kbps, otherwise your ears wouldn’t hurt (duh). It’s the same for me when I listen to a 17 khz sound, my Dad thinks I’m nuts cause he can’t hear a thing, but over long periods of times it drives me insane. I’m 24 and have only been to a few concerts and festivals before, so my hearing seems to be sort of intact, although I do have a very mild case of tinnitus since childhood, it does not really annoy me or impact me in any way.
I remember when Sony commissioned a serious piece of research conducted under controlled conditions to see if people could tell the difference between hires audio and Cd.
Sony made everyone sign an nda.
The conclusion was that people could not hear any difference.
Sony refused to publish the research.
But some did leak the conclusions.
There’s the rub
There’s the answer to this question.
I doubt the industry will ever repeat sonys mistake
You see, Sony believed that people would be able to discern the difference and that hires would emerge as the superior format.
When they didn’t get the answer they wanted they suppressed it.
Humans will always struggle to discern actual sample rates.
It’s different equipment that sounds different. Higher quality will give higher quality sound, better soundstages etc.
But they won’t allow us to discern sample rates.
Ultimately.
Does it matter!
Humans will be able to tell the difference between analogue and digital sources tho.
Analogue is the supreme format
Makes total sense, but I always thought 128 and 320 kbps for example would be easy to tell apart. It isn’t, at least for me. At the same time I also thought sample rates would not make any difference, but 32 khz (“fm radio quality” on windows) does sound worse.
I got into recordings of vinyl recently because there is something “warm” about their sound, I don’t know if it sounds “better”, but definitely different. Very interesting story about that Sony research though.
Thanks.
Yes the Sony research is very interesting. Especially when they didn’t like the results.
Too many people get hung up on numbers.
A 16/44 vinyl rip can sound better than a dsd256.
Bit rates and kHz are actually meaningless.
All hi res audio is totally inaudible to the human war.
CD was capped at 44khz for a very good reason.
Basically it’s down the the quality of the source and equipment you use.
GINGO still applies as did decades ago.
Hires from a garbage source is no more than hires garbage. It can never be Anything else.
Low quality recordings usually sound worse the higher quality gear you have.
Too many get hooked on the numbers game. They do it with most technology’s now.
Absolutely agree, bit- and sample rates beyond 44.1 khz / 16-bit sound the same to me. I always listen at that sampling rate even though some people on the forums claim that 24-bit or even 48 khz (the sample rate used for movies and video games) is superior; I could never tell.
You have made me curious about the beatles now. Never been into them, but I will try to listen to a vinyl record of theirs and compare it with a digital one. For Michael Jackson I already prefer the original vinyl over the digitally remastered albums.
I’m currently listening mostly on old speakers and an amp from 1979, plugged into a modern pre-amp and DAC. I’ve got two proper pairs of headphones, but these old speakers I bought for 5 quids from eBay can keep up with them quite well. So well that I rarely find myself using headphones. Judging by “numbers” they should be inferior to my headphones, but in reality they just sound different, not worse. Bigger soundstage, more “real”, less detailed, I’d say.
The early beatles have to be listened to in mono. They weren’t recorded in stereo.
You can find their original mono rips online.
I wouid also recommend the 1982 japanese red wax mono box. It’s sublime.
For stereo then the blue box is thought to be the pinnacle.
But the original mono UK vinyl is so good.
The first all stereo release was Abbey road.
Their albums are really meant to be listened to in mono. Abbey road excepted.
George Martin was a genius and the beatles were way ahead of their time.
My problem with the Giles Martin work is that he adds things that weren’t there. He actually interferes with with original recordings. That is appalling.
Anyone can boost the high end and mid range. And add childish tricks to make them sound different.
All they have to do is repress the original recordings. The masters all exist and in perfect condition. So just repress.
Then you have beautiful original mono recordings on contemporary vinyl at a price everyone can afford.
But that’s too easy
No surprise there, sample rate puts a hard cap on frequency response. If you still have decent (not flat, just not high loss) hearing up to 16k+, 32 v 44 will be easy to identify. Compression works differently. Like a painting with a color missing would be more noticeable than if all the color gradients were “stepped” rather than smooth, but with a very high number of steps.
Take one of the internet ab/x trials and post your results.
I tried one with lossless, 320 kbps and 192 kbps and failed miserably each time. All sounds the same to me.
Probably depends on how revealing you system is. I definitely hear the difference.
If you can hear 16 kHz, I’ll think there’s a chance this is true. I’ve tested it and my limit is around 14 kHz. 15 kHz is simply inaudible. In my youth, I could still hear the coil whine of 15.6 kHz from analog PAL TVs, but no more. Even when I was a teenager, I couldn’t hear 16 kHz, my limit was very close around that 15.6 kHz.
Note that sample rate alone doesn’t define everything. A reasonably high quality sample rate converter may be needed to eke out every last bit of performance that 32 kHz sampled audio can do. If you just use a poor quality resampler, you can maybe cause enough damage to the audio to make the difference audible.
16 khz hurts my ears on high volumes, my left ear can hear up to 18 khz but it gets really hard to notice past 17200 hz or so. I’m almost 25, so it’s not that surprising. It’s definitely true, high-pitched sounds with a 32000 hz sample rate sound distorted to me, but beyond 44.1 khz everything sounds the same, even 96 khz or 192 khz audio. At the same time I have a very hard time telling the difference between 128 kbps and lossless, I tested it yesterday and couldn’t, I might be able to depending on the song or setup, but I doubt it.