96 vs. 48 hz ??? - Page 2 - Home Theater Forum and Systems - HomeTheaterShack.com

Thread Tools
post #11 of 16 Old 03-03-08, 01:50 PM
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 357
Send a message via AIM to khellandros66 Send a message via MSN to khellandros66
Re: 96 vs. 48 hz ???

Unless the source is recorded in 96khz I see no difference in taking 48Khz and upsampling to 96, especially if it is a very well done recording.

IMO a TrueHD/PCM track in 48kHz/24bit is far better then a DD+ track at 96kHz/24bit.


khellandros66 is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #12 of 16 Old 03-03-08, 11:11 PM
Senior Shackster
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 636
Re: 96 vs. 48 hz ???

Telarc is the only company I'm really aware of that does their studio recording specifically with the intention of creating high quality discs, both SACD and Red Book. It doesn't do any good to take something originally done for PCM and then just stick it on SACD to get a multi-channel mix.

I'm also going to guess fibreKid has at least some decent gear to hear the difference, but you'd really want some good gear to clearly hear differences. I don't think I would be able to hear much difference on say an $800 receiver and $1500 speakers, but move to a $3k pre-pro and $8k speakers and it's a new experience. (Retail prices.)
Josuah is offline  
post #13 of 16 Old 03-22-08, 10:52 PM
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 316
Re: 96 vs. 48 hz ???

Josuah wrote: View Post
96kHz upsampling allows for better mathematical/electrical manipulation. Since your electronics are doing things to the signal, this can help. For example, introduced jitter might be lower at 96kHz than at 44.1/48kHz. You can see the effects of sampling frequency listed in the data sheets of various audio components.
However, accept in the case of seriously defective equipment, the jitter levels are far below audibility for music signals.

So given good gear, you should hear a more accurate representation of the original music because you don't have the quantization issues of 16-bit PCM

Any properly dithered 16 bit recording and/or properly dithered system or properly dithered down-sampled signal will not exhibit quantization artifacts of significance. Actual quantization error noise is a rare thing to encounter in modern (gear newer than 20 years old) audio gear.

The main difference of potential audibility is the quality of re-sample algorithm used. A poor one can result in high amplitude ripple and/or a high level of aliasing artifacts contaminating the DAC output. A good re-sampling algorithm will be measure virtually perfect and have no audible consequence.

Now, what is the statistical trend for 'quality' re-sample algorithms in any particular price class? I don't know if a significant trend is present, or how many are possibly audibly different; I am basing this on the computer sound card market. In the computer sound card market, poor re-sampling algorithms are usually only found on the cheapest/lowest quality products. But today, even lower price products in this realm have high quality re-sampling systems.

WmAx is offline  
post #14 of 16 Old 03-22-08, 11:10 PM
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 316
Re: 96 vs. 48 hz ???

Josuah wrote: View Post
I'm also going to guess fibreKid has at least some decent gear to hear the difference, but you'd really want some good gear to clearly hear differences. I don't think I would be able to hear much difference on say an $800 receiver and $1500 speakers, but move to a $3k pre-pro and $8k speakers and it's a new experience. (Retail prices.)
While it's true that usually, a higher price speaker system is usually superior to lower priced speaker system(and of course, this is merely a statistical generalization - there are many cases where expensive speakers are no better than very cheap ones); it is not safe to assume the same statistical trend for many electronics, generally speaking. For example, it is often the case that when two solid state amplifiers of similar power ratings are compared in blinded, level matched comparisons, the results are usually no better than guessing, even if the price differential between the compared products is huge. The same goes for CD players or DACs in these types of comparisons. However, I am not aware on any information regarding the typical re-sample algorithm quality used in home stereo hardware.

WmAx is offline  
post #15 of 16 Old 02-11-09, 07:05 AM
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4
Re: 96 vs. 48 hz ???

there seem to be many topics colliding here. the original question was 48KHz vs 96KHz -- i think the answer is that yes, 96KHz offers the chance of better sound than 48KHz, most people speculate because the anti-aliasing filters can be more gradual (owing to having twice as much bandwidth over which to roll-off the high frequencies), and that more-gradual filters allow for less ringing or other artifacts down in the audio band.

jitter is a different topic -- and 96KHz is no less prone to jitter problems than 44/48 is.

SACD is different again -- let's take the dark side of the moon SACD as an example. i own it -- if you listen to it, you realize that much of the benefit is from an amazing remastering job, period. but part of that is due to the mastering decisions which can involve fewer compromises because of the SACD's wider dynamic range (read: less compression needed) and possibly to wider bandwidth. i've tested this SACD and found it had content out to better than 30KHz (the hard cutoff for a 48KHz version would be 24KHz). flip the disc to the CD side, and you'll notice how the compression is more pronounced, making it all sound flatter. i think you'll here the less natural high frequencies too (probably artifacts from anti-alias filtering, but who knows for sure?).

contrast that with the dire straits "brothers in arms" SACD. i sounds a bit better than the CD, probably due to the mastering engineers easing up on the compression. but on the scope, it shows that its high frequency content cuts off abruptly at 24KHz, meaning the original recording, or some part of the master chain, was done at 48KHz. nowhere near the difference of the floyd disc.

btw, i also seem to recall some DVD manufacturers were purposefully disabling "hi-rez" digital outputs to discourage copying -- so that could be the reason you cannot engage that output.

but unless you have DVD's with 96KHz content on them (say, DVD-A's or the older DAD's some company's released), i don't think it matters.
smorse is offline  
post #16 of 16 Old 02-11-09, 08:03 AM
Elite Shackster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NYC + CT
Posts: 1,745
Re: 96 vs. 48 hz ???

bobh33 wrote: View Post
Thanks everyone! So is 96 hz. better than 48 hz. as far as DVD's are concerned. And why won't my Onkyo DVD player let me switch to 96. It only lets me use the "96 > 48" option.
Because your AVR is telling the player that it cannot handle 96. The HDMI is a partly 2-way link and the receiver's capabilities are transmitted to the sender.

Kal Rubinson is offline  


48 , 96 , hz

Quick Reply

Register Now



Confirm Password
Email Address
Confirm Email Address
Random Question
Random Question #2

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address



Activation requires you reply to an email we will send you after you register... if you do not reply to this email, you will not be able to view certain areas of the forum or certain images... nor will you be able download software.


See our banned email list here: Banned Email List

We DO NOT respond to spamcop, boxtrapper and spamblocker emails... please add @hometheatershack DOT com to your whitelist prior to registering or you will get nowhere on your registration.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML is not allowed!
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome