2496 can you hear difference

The increased resolution will give more accurate high frequencies and should give tighter bass response. Whenever a project involves vocals or drums - anytime I use my C mics - I'll record at 96khz. I claim to be able to hear the difference. Especially with a vocal group a-capella.

Bottom line is: if you can afford the extra disk space and CPU overhead that 96khz requires, then by all means use 96khz. Th difference is subtle but fine.

It can't hurt. Most software runs at 32 bit. So its already stepping up your 24 bit audio to 32bit. Why not at least give it 96khz instead of 48khz to chew on as well? Costy wrote: Something in English - a research paper, a doctoral thesis masters may do as well on the posted subject. I'm afraid I do not have a master's or doctoral thesis, though I do have a page primer on digital audio available if that might help?

The best place to look for validation on Nyquists theorem would probably be: Shannon, Claude E. You could also look at the original proof offered by Nyquist at: Nyquist, Harry. Each of these are fairly short reads and are in my opinion a lot easier to get through than doctoral dissertations on the subject. Most dissertations I've read that relate to the audio industry take Nyquist as an assumption, so it is difficult to find something that rehashes the eloquent 11 page proof by Shannon.

As far as the circle analogy and where you find a flaw, I do not understand. The Nyquist frequency merely tells us what information is required in order to reconstruct the shape. The accuracy with which we acquire it will certainly change the results, and thus the quality of the conversion process is essential.

Please explain more about the breakdown in the correlation between this mathematical analogy. Each explains merely the minimum amount of data necessary with which to represent a particular shape, no? Nika, if you weren't so condescending I may have considered buying your book. Not a chance now.

I was looking for some answers, not for attitude. Dave, Yes. I realize. I'm having a really, really awful day. Sorry to take it out here. My apologies. When I feel better I'll try to go back and revise my posts to be more helpful. Nika, I can vouch for you and tell the others you're generally a nice fellow and you've always got something interesting to say.

And I freely admit it here as well; I don't care who knows it :lol: I just happened to stumble onto this thread, and believe me, i'm not looking to get into any more subjective back and forth about it all. As a movie analogy, I just wasted a couple of extra quid on the Blu-ray of The Addams Family for a bit of family fun, only to find that the quality of the master they used meant it would have looked shoddy on DVD possibly even on VHS - it was that bad.

As it was, all I got for my extra money was the chance to see precisely how shoddy it was in p detail. I have been playing around a lot with hi- res since Qobuz integrated.

As a generalisation I would say that with older, analogue recordings the instruments themselves sound much clearer but something is lost overall - the soul of the track. My system can tell the difference, JRiver MC puts it in the information window for the now playing track. Mark W. Until recently my position was that it comes down to the mastering.

Unfortunately life intruded and this went out of my mind. Music I had been loving had lost a degree of detail and oomph technical term. A few days later, having tried a number of other things, I remembered about the HiRes trial.

I have now switched and contentedness is restored. The greater the intensity of the stimulus, the shorter the duration typically required to detect it. The lower the intensity of the stimulus, the longer the duration. For example, if someone smacks you on the arm, you will only require a tiny instant to recognize what you felt.

On the other hand, if a fly or spider is crawling across your arm hair, it may take as long as seconds before you recognize the feeling as out of the ordinary and shoo it away.

This is not terribly abstract stuff. Do you really have that much free time on your hands? Do you really enjoy ABX testing that much? Then lets' be specific and not make up bad analogies that do not apply to the human hearing and auditory perception.

But you have that much time running an uncontrolled test? The nice thing with short tests done right is that they are very sensitive and saves you time. The file is MB in size, can this board take files that large? This does not make sense. Obviously there was no harsh sound from the microphones if it went away by going up in sample speed.

Also when if you hear something when switching sample speeds you still don't know what you are hearing. It may be a difference in HF components but it could also bee a difference in aliasingdistortion or something else.

Just don't draw to many conclusions from limited testing, that's my point. File sharing. Software file sharing. Free file hosting. File upload. They have an annoying 30 wait period before they give you the working link. Go to the bottom of the page, click and get the same page again with sec counter But the file is there.

Hell no, I wish I could get this good of a sound working out of My system breezes through I have to make sacrifices to work at I do now, and to me the difference is night and day and is well worth it for the sound working at Major League. You would quadruple your file sizes, etc. Can you demonstrate the achieved gain? I don't want to argue about what others hear or why. But as for me, I hear much more difference by increasing bit depth than I do by increasing sample rate.

When 24 bit came along yeah, I know it ain't really 24 , I quit complaining about the sound of digital. I'd rather have Luckily when I got into audio I never had that problem!! Thankfully now we have 32 bit float! I would've used tape back then!! Plush is right. If the ears aren't trained to appreciate music delivered at a higher resolution it's often hard to tell what's missing like looking at impressive photos of the same subject but with different lenses and printing techniques.

At a glance they may look the same, but the quality of one is better than the other - more interesting and revealing when studied. An untrained eye may not catch it because that kind of quality is just not obvious.

I definitely find higher resolution recordings easier to mix and master because there's more information in them, including ambiance. If we really wanted to train our ears we'd be listening to live music, wouldn't we? To support it by saying you will not support it is even stranger.