48khz soundcard versus 96khz

[burunduks]

Hi

Which one is better for listening purposes? I just switched from uca202 to m-audio fast track and difference in sound was huge with same speakers. So if I upgrade from 48khz to 96khz will I be able to hear the difference or it just some paper spec?

 

[bikdav]

Hi

Which one is better for listening purposes? I just switched from uca202 to m-audio fast track and difference in sound was huge with same speakers. So if I upgrade from 48khz to 96khz will I be able to hear the difference or it just some paper spec?

That's a hard call. I'd probably go with the 96khz, because on occasion I've heard some very subtle differences. But, it depended on the program material itself.

 

[jliedeka]

If you plan to do any sound editing, mixing, mastering, I'd definitely go for 96k. It will minimize any rounding errors. Nothing there is likely to be audible but I'd rather have the extra bits earlier in the signal chain because you can't make the sound any more accurate than what you start with.

For playback, it really doesn't matter. Since the sampling rate (48kHz or 96 kHz) is twice the highest frequency that can be encoded, 48k already gets you to 24000 Hz. Unless you are a bat, you won't hear the difference.

If you are feeding the output to an external DAC, that might be a justification for using a high bitrate. The top end filtering that may be in the DAC will cause fewer anomalies if you are feeding in a signal with a higher bitrate. So-called brick wall filters can cause some ringing at nearby frequencies. Again, I doubt it would be audible with even a 48k bitrate but it will be way above audible frequencies using 96k.

Jim

 

[sholling]

I'll go with it depends on the source and the quality of your speakers. 48bit should be fine for CDs and MP3s but there are companies selling albums encoded as 24bit 96khz FLAC files and less commonly 24bit 192khz. But honestly the difference is very subtle if even audible with most speakers. FWIW Amazon has a mid-level 192khz capable Asus Xonar on sale for less than $50 - $20 rebate. It can't decode the latest lossless Blu-Ray audio but it should be fine for music and most anything else. I was looking at it myself and the only thing funky about it seems to be that you have to use an included adapter to connect it to a digital input on a receiver. The card is rated 4 stars on Newegg.

 

[bikdav]

That Was Helpful

If you plan to do any sound editing, mixing, mastering, I'd definitely go for 96k. It will minimize any rounding errors. Nothing there is likely to be audible but I'd rather have the extra bits earlier in the signal chain because you can't make the sound any more accurate than what you start with.

For playback, it really doesn't matter. Since the sampling rate (48kHz or 96 kHz) is twice the highest frequency that can be encoded, 48k already gets you to 24000 Hz. Unless you are a bat, you won't hear the difference.

If you are feeding the output to an external DAC, that might be a justification for using a high bitrate. The top end filtering that may be in the DAC will cause fewer anomalies if you are feeding in a signal with a higher bitrate. So-called brick wall filters can cause some ringing at nearby frequencies. Again, I doubt it would be audible with even a 48k bitrate but it will be way above audible frequencies using 96k.

Jim

Thank you for elaborating on that. You actually answered some questions that I had in the back of my head.