# 96 vs. 48 hz ???



## bobh33 (Jan 13, 2008)

I have the Onkyo HT-S894 system and the DVD player won't let me change to 96 hz. Isn't this better than 48???
Thanks!!


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

Marketing folks would have you believe so.

48 will sound identical with a DVD soundtrack. If you get into SACD, you might find a difference.


----------



## bobh33 (Jan 13, 2008)

Thanks again. Is SACD only on music CD's and have you tried it and heard a huge difference??


----------



## WmAx (Jan 26, 2008)

bobh33 said:


> Thanks again. Is SACD only on music CD's and have you tried it and heard a huge difference??


The only way an audible difference is likely to occur is if the re-sampling algorithm used produces substantial aliasing artifacts. That being said, I have no idea of the general quality of re-samplers used in said hardware. But it's easy to re-sample transparently via software on a computer.

-Chris


----------



## Josuah (Apr 26, 2006)

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.

SACD uses a completely different ADC algorithm than Red Book, which is where its claimed better audio quality comes from. It uses the same algorithm, Delta-Sigma, used by the majority of high quality DACs on the market today. From Wikipedia: "The principle of the [Delta-Sigma] architecture is to make rough evaluations of the signal, to measure the error, integrate it and then compensate for that error."

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. Which is why you only find SACD for jazz and classical and other similar types of music.


----------



## bobh33 (Jan 13, 2008)

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.


----------



## thxgoon (Feb 23, 2007)

The setting on your dvd player is probably asking you if you want it to downsample a 96khz bitstream to 48khz before sending it out your digital connection. Some early receivers could not decode a 96khz pcm signal so it had to be downsampled in the dvd player first. Not sure why your player won't allow you to make the switch. How is it connected? I do know that most 96khz recordings are protected heavily. Does it have HDMI? Maybe it has to be connected this way to work??

As for 48vs96 with dts movies... not all dts movies are encoded in this higher quality format, but if they are and your receiver can decode it then it takes place automatically. If it cannot, it is fully backwards compatible and will work without have to change settings anywhere.


----------



## bobh33 (Jan 13, 2008)

Thanks! It is hooked up via HDMI. What's odd to me is that if something usually is not an option, that option will be "gray" and not even allow you to choose it. This is letting:coocoo: me select that option but when I try to enter it, it does nothing.


----------



## fibreKid (Apr 20, 2006)

I have several SACDs, Pink Floyd, Blue Oyster Cult... Some sound beter than CDs and others nada.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

And I bet for the ones that sound better, most of the difference is that they were remastered, not the higher sampling rate.

But, if getting the better master can only be done by SACD, then yes, SACD offer an improvement, but don't instantly chalk it up to 96k.


----------



## khellandros66 (Jun 7, 2006)

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.

Cheers

Bobby


----------



## Josuah (Apr 26, 2006)

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.)


----------



## WmAx (Jan 26, 2008)

Josuah said:


> 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.

-Chris


----------



## WmAx (Jan 26, 2008)

Josuah said:


> 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.

-Chris


----------



## smorse (Feb 10, 2009)

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.


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

bobh33 said:


> 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


----------

