Hi/High Resolution Audio EXPLAINED – Is it worth it? (192kHz/96kHz & 24-bit)

July 30, 2019 posted by


Hi, it’s HandyAndy Tech Tips here, and today
I’m going to be giving you the truth on high-res audio files. You know, those files which are
very expensive, which are supposedly better-than-CD quality, and which pop up on many websites,
including the store for Neil Young’s infamous Toblerone-shaped Pono player. Now, if you’ve
got a good eye for detail, you might notice that, throughout this video, little numbers
will pop up in the corner of your screen – like this one! So, if you want any more info on
any of the topics that I talk about, just go to the area in the description that begins
with the number! There, you’ll find links and additional info. Now, back to the most
important question – are high-res files any better? Well, to understand this, first we
need to know about these two numbers here. What you see on the screen now is CD-quality
audio – 16-bit, 44.1kHz. But if you’re buying high-res tracks, you’re likely to see 24-bit
as the first number, and the last number might be something like 96kHz or 192kHz. So, what
do these things mean? The first one, 16-bit, is what we call the “bit depth” of the recording,
and essentially what it controls is the dynamic range – that is, the loudest and quietest
possible sounds that can be reproduced. Examples of high dynamic range music include classical
recordings, which have a large difference between the loud and quiet sections, which
probably makes them annoying to listen to in the car. Now, the important thing to know
is that CD, or 16-bit audio, can support up to 96 decibels of dynamic range. Whereas 24-bit,
high-res files can support 144 decibels. So, can you notice the difference? No. Now, 96
decibels of dynamics is more than enough. In fact, I’m pretty sure that even the most
dynamic classical music recordings still wouldn’t use all of that range. And neither would any
pop or rock albums released during the past 20 years. Because, over that time, a phenomenon
called the “loudness war” has taken over the music industry. The idea is that the louder
a single or an album is mastered, the more copies it will sell, so music producers have
been bumping up the volume. But the problem is that that results in a loss of dynamics.
In fact, most pop albums today use less than 1/10th of the potential dynamic range on a
16-bit recording. So, there’s not really much point going to 24-bit if even 16-bit’s potential
is being wasted. So that’s the bit depth covered, but what about the other number? Well, that’s
called the sampling rate, and it tells you the highest possible frequency that can be
represented. You might know that other animals are capable of hearing far higher frequencies
than us humans can. For example, most bats are capable of detecting frequencies up to
80kHz, but unfortunately, humans don’t quite go that far, we can only hear up to 20kHz.
But what about at the other end of the frequency spectrum, the really low bass? Well, around
15 or 20Hz is probably the limit of our hearing there. So, with these two figures in mind,
it makes perfect sense that a CD-quality audio file is sampled at 44.1kHz. Why? Well, there’s
something called the Nyquist theorem. You don’t need to worry about it too much, but
essentially what it says is that the maximum reproducible frequency – eg. the highest frequency
you can possibly record – is half of the sampling rate. So, if we have 44.1kHz, and
divide that in half, the maximum frequency is 22.05kHz. And look at that, the frequency
range that’s covered is almost exactly the same as the range of human hearing. Now, think
about it, if 44.1kHz covers the entire audible frequency spectrum, then why would we need
any higher sampling rates, like 96k or 192? The answer? We don’t. And, with that, I think
we’ve just disproven all of the so-called benefits of high-res audio. The improvement
in the dynamic range is not necessary, the improvement in the frequency range is not
necessary. And honestly, unless an album is released with completely different mastering
than its CD equivalent, it will sound – wait for this – exactly the same! Anyway, I’m HandyAndy
and I hope you enjoyed this video! If you did like it, then please subscribe to my channel
and leave a comment below.

100 Comments

100 Replies to “Hi/High Resolution Audio EXPLAINED – Is it worth it? (192kHz/96kHz & 24-bit)”

  1. Ronen Beniaminov says:

    i didn't quite understand what 44khz or x-khz got to do with hearing Frequency (15-22). 44khz format or 192 khz is the sampling rate of the original file.
    Quote by Sony: Higher sampling rates mean that more samples per second were taken when the original analog sound was converted into digital.

  2. Chunksville says:

    The Hi-Res issue will go on forever where I see it is that the general census of opinion unless you have a lot of money to spend on Hifigear or have "golden ears" most rock and pop music will not benefit from Hi Res playback, the more acoustic, classical or jazz may pick up on the fact that the ultrasonic frequencies can have a benefit on some instruments but they are very subtle.
    Seen as microphones can capture ranges to 40khz then recording studios can run to 24Bit – 88.2 or 92 khz thus capturing all nuances of the recording, so having the ability to store this data but as a listener unless you have some serious cash to spend for your system to handle these frequencies then the average music lover will not hear it , also remember this goes for future recording anything already mastered from years before IE Analogue tape then these cannot be classed as Hi Res files even though they are branded as so, as the dynamic range may only be 60 to 70 DB if you are lucky so you are only getting 11 to 12 bit of bit depth and frequency range would have been no higher than 20Khz under most recording circumstances

  3. MrBlueBrains says:

    Timbre.. Study it..

  4. tompparaideri says:

    Almost correct. I record analog synth every day and there is a huuuuge improvement in the sound between 96 and 44.1. 44.1 doesn’t even sound like an analog synth. It’s missing a lot of depth and nuances of the sound. Just because you don’t think there is a use for 96khz doesn’t mean there isn’t a great use for it. So i think it’s stupid to just dissmiss 96khz all together.

  5. Natan Skorput says:

    Alright, yes, nobody can hear above 20kHz, HOWEVER, some people will NOTICE a difference, and not because they HEAR anything above 20kHz but rather because they sense the "body" of the soundwaves (if you can call it that) as being more resonant. My wording might be wrong here, what I'm trying to say is, sometimes I hear hi-fi audio files and the sound comes out….crispier. You will not HEAR the actual frequencies but you may hear a fuller sound, more detail.

  6. To Pi says:

    if a turtle could talk…..lol

  7. Aaron Friedman says:

    DUD I have a 61-year-old hearing. Still, I can definitely hear that 24/44.1 is better sounding than 16/44.1. I can also easily hear that 24/96 is much better than 24/44.1. Obviously its not that simple. There are timing, phase issues, as well as digital filtering reasons why it works much better with higher rates.

  8. Biswajeet Singh says:

    Excellent explanation buddy keep it up. Subscribing.

  9. Abd Rahim says:

    Until i able to match the high res audio with my overall performance (separation,sound stage, detail.. etc) of my cd…i will continue buying cd…currently the diffrences is noticeable on my old sansui .

  10. A Sunny says:

    This sounds exactly like someone who doesn't have decent gear or quality music having convinced themselves that they don't need either. It is an incomplete argument that displays ignorance or willful disregard of the most significant variables. It's much like someone saying that no one needs a 200mph Ferarri since the speed limit is 60, and a Prius is just as good.

  11. Aphen Twix says:

    I wish I could articulate scientifically that you're wrong but I can only speak from experience in listening to music over 38 years and feeling at this point. I've listened to the same music over and over again all my life.. and I can guarantee you that details that are certainly not noticeable on CD just jump out at you on HD tracks. It's like every tone just gets more space to be there.. the tones are more identifiable and distinguishable. So it seems to me, again without me being able to back it up scientifically, that it's not about frequency but.. spaciousness or just more room for every single tone to have it's own character fully expressed without being cluttered together with other tones that just makes it sound messy. If CD quality is really just as good than why is everyone always talking about how good analog is? Why was CD a step back in quality from analog? Did analog recording.. perhaps emitted sounds that where outside of our hearing range yet you could feel them? Maybe you have to look closer. Also you seem a little frustrated and mad almost..

  12. Raymond Isbill says:

    This is technically correct if you are only talking about music. Sound effects and ambient files are a different story. Higher bit depth and sample rates allow for more flexibility when it comes to modifying the sounds.

  13. Otto Bobis says:

    not quite accurate… nyquist refers to a minimum sampling frequency, so at the upper end sampling at twice the fundamental frequency produces a very distorted copy… filtering can recover some of this, but im sure playback on a quality system will reveal significant differences… not important to most ofus, but the conclusion is incorrect here.

  14. Greg says:

    The frequency part of the sampling method is not about high, or low frequencies!
    It is a frequency/second of how many times the device takes a sample of the audio signal.
    so the more times you take samples, the better you capture the original analog audio signal.

  15. Ian Syme says:

    I have what I would consider to be a pretty high end streamer based system and the biggest problem I find is that the quality of encoding on older vinyl on tidal is sometimes so dreadful that I prefer not to listen to it.  There is definitely a case for very high end vinyl systems but you lose out big time on the convenience factor.  I have a fairly large number of 24bit recordings and to be honest, the difference is not all that great. There is a difference when moving up to very , very top end DAC, amp and £25,000 speakers.  Things then begin to boil down to how well the sound engineers have done their job.  I have a Lou Reed Transformer CD which was cut from a magnetic master tape and it still to this day sounds fabulous. It is equally as good as the vinyl recording I have.  On the other hand, I tried listening to Straight Shooter from Bad Company via tidal and it had lost so much in the transcription process it just felt completely flat…… such a disappointment!  Old story, it's all in the recording quality not the musical content.

  16. Scott Hatfield says:

    I'm 56 years old, and as such I no longer have much upper-range hearing. When I was in my 20's, I could hear frequencies around 23 K, which is exceptional. These days, depending on the speakers used and the amount of ambient noise, my upper end taps out between 14-16 K. But here's the thing: despite the reduction in my ability to perceive higher frequencies, I can STILL hear the difference between an mp3 and a CD, and between CD and 96 K. Why? The sound is more DETAILED. It has more life. The low end is punchier, especially when compared with a mp3, because there are all sorts of harmonics that are 15 or so overtones above the fundamental that I can still hear with my 56-year-old ears. I'm not an audiophile by nature, nor do I have the exceptional ears that many pro engineers have. But I can hear the difference.

  17. Polly Ann says:

    I,ve got a marantz cd 5005 and it never ceases to impress me.

  18. Polly Ann says:

    Absolutely absolutely worth it.
    85 out of 100.
    I can plug my cordless headphones directly into my Marantz HE and get breathtaking sound.
    Just try doing that with a standard cd player! LOL

  19. Nicky Scarola says:

    Finally a good explanation to people thinking they hear as good as bats and whales.

  20. reeshnuts says:

    Here's a better explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1914891025&feature=iv&src_vid=r_wxRGiBoJg&v=geaoEt-9V-w

  21. GSamuelGuitar says:

    Consumer = idiot. No, an idiot format does not need to sound good

  22. KS_SkipperGames KillStreak says:

    Ok , in my case i'm playing Escape from Tarkov. I need to hear steps and different noises of human moves. What would you recommend? I put 32 bit- 48khz . Or better 16bit-48khz/32bit 96khz? Please give me a good advice. Thank you very much.

  23. Fuzzy's Studio says:

    Stupid video. Sample rate does not = frequency range……

  24. Temet Nosce says:

    Jesus christ FINALLY a genuine individual explaining it all properly! Thumbs up Andy!

  25. David Henriquez says:

    Yes it is

  26. DAMIEN says:

    Switched from 48k to 192k with my new RME yesterday .. OMG was it worth it!!

  27. Iam a Good person says:

    I have simple question, i have sony h500a headphone, with hi-res support, my phone is galaxy a5 2017 which is dont support 192khz (hi-res audio).

    does my sony hi-res audio headphone work on my smartphone?
    I mean, the usefulness of hi-res audio?

    is hi-res audio related to mp3 / flac quality?

    please convey it easily, so that I easily understand it.

  28. Daniel Shane Chapman says:

    There is a big difference, but you need a sound card that is capable of using the files at their native quality and an excellent sound system or a very good set of headphones. There is also over tons and under tons that can be herd that is made by sounds that are out of the rang we can hear. like when you look at a color mixed with color that is out of the eyes rang it can be brighter and it is called fluorescent.

  29. Sam Hung says:

    It's a money fact. We love digits , the higher the better as well as your saving amounts

  30. Alejandro Perez says:

    This is a retarded expert in audio.

  31. nayan basistha says:

    I disagree.

  32. Yys Yssyss says:

    If you have good hearing and a good system it is so easy to hear the difference. But some only listen to numbers on a paper … it is mostly numbed who do that luckily

  33. devildad1620 says:

    nope

  34. GunstarGizmo says:

    I notice a huge difference between headphones with a 20hz to 20khz and headphones with a 18hz to 24khz. The latter is always superior. Just like there's a difference between an MP3 and a WAV file. When it comes to audio, removing high range frequencies affects the other frequencies.

  35. Thom Carter says:

    thank you for such a clear explanation

  36. theonly_ronzky says:

    Hires audios have a better, less angular, shape than cd quality audios. That’s why high frequencies don’t hurt your ears and low frequencies sound rounder and more powerful.
    Also high frequencies “attenuate” to a lower frequency so it is important to have them properly captured even though they are higher than what we can hear as they ultimately become part of the frequencies within our hearing range.

  37. Buntre Zit says:

    You are just against corporatocracy & loan shark
    Bravo, hold on!

  38. jpwheeilng2000 says:

    I agree with your statement Shanyne, you can Hear the Difference, I love DVD Audio or 24/96 High Res Music, there is a Huge Difference in Sound Quality, much more Spatial, you can hear the Instruments Better, if someone is Singing, sounds more Clear, like there in the Room. Now on a Cd Quality, it's Boxier not so Spatial or open, sounds Boxed in, doesn't sound like he or she is singing in front of you. This Dude looks to me like a Geek, Groveling over the Numbers, all it takes is a good Receiver, good set of Speakers and of Course a Good BlueRay Player, if needed. I'm into Streaming DVD Audio to my Stereo now-a-days, use to Burn my High Res music to a DVD Disc, Streaming is much Easier. To Listen to the Difference for your Self look for a High End Stereo Store and Listen for yourself

  39. Mukhammad Dliyaaul Khaq says:

    its completely different when you hear compressed audio mp3 file compared with flac file.

    dunno if u have a problem with your ears

  40. Kevin Lind says:

    High res is 32bit

  41. DJLoly Loly says:

    it is defiantly worth it and i will just say one thing These are Sounds Few to Listen and Few to Just Feel it and the who point of leaving those Frequencies out of the "PRODUCTION" is pointless. Now not all can hear those Feel sounds reasons might be not a good system but that dose not mean it should not be MADE. This is something you really need to DIG More out in this section and say that its not worth it or not and this Topic should be left on the Listener side who knows what they are listening to but i say lets make the 'SOURCE' better then what we get in these days (Terrible),

  42. Christopher Liphart says:

    The lisp disappeared at 24bit, 192000hz

  43. Carlos Molina-Rodriguez says:

    Excelente, gracias.-

  44. Gary Auty says:

    First person I have seen who mouth actions are just like wallace and gromit's mouth movement. Lol

  45. Jean-Philippe Ghilbert says:

    Always the same misunderstanding…and the same fake ! First : misunderstanding. It's not a question of sound frequency but of…sampling !!! The purpose of high resolution is not necesseraly to give you always a better perception of high and low frequency but to obtain a better graphical curve, more linear and not hashed, in fact…close to an analog one ! Second : fake. Whatever everybody can say. Only listen to the same recording in 16/44 khz and in 24/96 khz, say in DSD…and tell me what you think !!! Of course that means your audio system is at least middle midrange value !

  46. King Bora Beats says:

    44 sounds more clear when i bounce track out with videos, when I bounce out with 192 my hats sound weird on phones and IG posts

  47. Jeffrey Oliver says:

    Please don’t feed the “marketing department” Therve gotten too fat as it is! If something can’t be heard obviously by humans then I don’t waste time with it. The fact that there’s so much debate should tell us something…A well performed, well written and arranged song is why I record.

    Other than that , we’re just geeking out over technology. And that can be fun! Tone wood debate has been settled but ppl still fall for it. This debate has been settled but to each his/her own.

    At some point the trade off is not worth it for me to record at such a high rate. The law of Deminishing Returns is definitely in effect here.

  48. Andres D says:

    Hmmm, to put in my two cents, I just got done listening to You got lucky by Tom Petty on both my CD and an HD track 96/24 on a Marantz SR5013 receiver paired to a couple of MartinLogan XT60 speakers, and I could not notice a huge difference in the sound quality if any, maybe my ears are not that good. I can get the CD on Amazon for $ 10.54 or the HDtrack for $13.98, that is a difference of $3.44. Is it worth it even if I can’t tell the difference? I think It is worth it. I will do a blind listening test soon and see if I can tell the difference, can’t do it now since I am alone and I can’t lie to myself. LOL. Maybe a younger person with better ears will be able to tell the difference but I know it will be difficult for me to do it. I guess listen to what sounds good to you but I tend to agree with HandyAndy, it is very difficult if not impossible to hear a difference.

  49. experience says:

    For everyone going on and on with bullshit about how HD sounds better, do yourself a favor: download a 24 bits / 96 KHz track, convert it to 16 bits / 44 KHz while keeping the original, and do an actual blind test with Foobar2000’s ABX module. You won’t hear a difference. If anyone is able to hear the difference with a p-value below 0.05, message me with the signed message from the software to prove it and I’ll send you 10 bucks

  50. TN0wl says:

    "the answer, we don't (need higher recording frequencies)"

    This is correct, go read this page. https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_1bv2b disregard what I said below barring my praise for electrostatics.

    I disagree. As most an aspiring edm artist knows, shapes of waves make a big difference. If you are not able to faithfully reproduce the shapes of waves, the sounds will not be as accurate. Now, at 44.1khz we have a loooooot of room for lower frequencies… but higher frequencies are harder to define the shape of with only 44.1khz. Another thing to take into consideration is phase. I think that phase is a big reason why some still prefer analog audio sources to this day. If the phase of a high frequency sound is out of phase with the recording then the recording device will not faithfully record it well. Imagine a ~10khz wave being recorded at 44.1khz… depending on the phase of the sound, the peaks may be all over the place in the recording especially considering that 44.1k is not a a multiplicative product of 10k. So not only do out of phase sounds not record well (and everything is somewhat out of phase, and there is absolutely no way to tell accurately a recorder's phase during recording), but anything that 44.1khz is not an product of also is flawed in a 44.1khz recording.

    So what the fuck does that mean? Aliasing. Alright, how do I say this… Okay, going off of what I said earlier about people still preferring analog over digital… Consider how a CRT renders an… never mind no one fucking noes what I'm talking about…

    Okay, so baaaaasically listening to a low resolution digital recording is a lot like watching something on a low resolution monitor. There's jaggies. And while it's not really anywhere near as noticeable because well, our eyes are different from our ears, aren't they? Well, still, let me try to explain this… although most of the time, you cannot see individual pixels on say, a 1080p monitor, there's obviously a reason that 4k monitors exist. Because despite the fact that you're not able to pick out the pixels on a 1080p monitor, you can still see the smoothness of a 4k monitor over 1080p. The smoothness IS increased with a higher resolution format.

    I have no audio engineering work experience or degree. This is just my 17 year old ass throwing my two cents in of what I know about hi-fi audio.

    Oh yeah… but…
    If you're listening on a pair of dynamic headphones, or dynamic speakers… Yeah you're not gonna hear much of a difference, probably. With planar magnetic headphones or speakers it will be more noticeable but if you really want to hear the difference between low res and high res recordings I would recommend buying a pair of electrostatic speakers or headphones. They will give the most faithful reproduction of high frequencies and will more faithfully reproduce the nuances of digital recordings. I mean, I just recommend electrostatics anyway because they're amazing but they are scientifically OBJECTIVELY the best (mass produced) transducer for audio reproduction.

    The reason you won't hear the difference on dynamic headphones or speakers is because the inertia of the speaker cone would nullify any microscopic digital nuance anyway. It's a lot like watching converting an hdmi signal for a crt to render. It reproduces it and it looks smooth because it's an approximation more than anything. Electrostatics' diaphragm is a lighter than air membrane that has virtually no inertia that is electrically charged to move. It creates the most faithful reproduction of recorded audio.

    Okay, wow. Now that I'm done writing my thesis, I would like to apologize to anyone who had to read through that shit show. If any of this information is particularly incorrect, please comment and tell me because I am not a well educated electrician, audio engineer, or any of that. Advice and feedback appreciated =)

  51. TameElof says:

    Why are so many tech guys like this one so militantly against high res audio? Why? Why not have it, many audiophiles like me think we can hear a difference, and memory space is not an issue anymore. Many say that there are differences and that surely the Nyquist theorem and all that actually is wrong. It's like if we were talking wine – I have this bottle of excellent vintage French red wine in my cellar, a really high quality rare wine, and then you say "no you don't need wine like that, it is ok with low cost, massproduced, sugared, chemically enhanced crap wine". Yeah, you'll get drunk on that too, but why not have the high-class wine if you can? Just because you can't appreciate it doesn't mean others can not.

  52. BirdArvid says:

    I have my doubts about HiRes Audio for many applications, but you've just proved that knowing a little is a bad thing; why is a higher sampling rate a good thing? Well Andy, you may not have heard of the filtering involved in digital music reproduction, but people who like quality sound have; and can hear artefacts from the brick-wall filters needed to stop CD-reproduction just north of 20Khz. (in fact, most people could in CD's infancy: ringing, aliasing, harshness, sibilance, lack of bass, a.s.o.) So Andy; go read up on digital music reproduction and then try again, okay?

  53. Gavin Finley says:

    Great info. Thanks so much.

  54. Salvo Toro says:

    What the hell are you saying? Those KHz are not referred to the range of waves the human ear can listen to. Those khz are referred to the "resolution" of the recording. It means, how much times in a second the recorder is capturing the waveform. It's like a camera that can capture 24 fps vs one that can capture 480fps. Many could not see a difference, well, this is another example: if 44.1 khz is the old dvd resolution, 96 Khz is the full HD of Audio. 192 Khz is the 4K. Maybe 4k could be too much for many, but please let them decide.

  55. bowserlv100 says:

    Ideal HI-FI Sound =384kHz/96kHz & 128-bit

  56. bowserlv100 says:

    I see that there is a militancy that persists in defending regression and the low quality and fidelity of both video and audio without mentioning that in this video, one more internet paladin is confusing resolution per second of audio with the Frequency Rate that humans are able to hear.

    If they doubt, put some music in a media player and then five times the speed, probably the sound will be very sharp, this time multiply by 15 and the sound will probably "disappear" there are many videos on the internet that demonstrate the ability to hear the frequency sound from 1 to 22000 Hz

    Another thing, super compressed audio and video such as HDTVs cause stresses on those who consume them, faster than in the Analog era in their later years.

  57. Michael Wanyoike says:

    I believe you have used frequency range to explain sampling rate. Human frequency range is between 20hz to 20 Khz. Sampling rate is the number of times per second analogue audio is sampled for digital conversion. Basically, a 96Khz sample rate offers a higher resolution than 44.1Khz sample rate. It's like comparing an SD screen resolution with a HD screen.

  58. Astrah Cat says:

    But how about analog tape, waaay higher resolution.

  59. Donald Miller says:

    I have to agree with Garland Cary. And I'll add that if it were purely a matter of mathematics, your argument would hold up well. But it is more than that. Indeed, I believe if one were to take all things into consideration, getting the best sound in any given room would be rather complicated: how the room is designed, its angles, dimensions, etc would all need to be considered WRT the audio equipment one uses and how that equipment is configured.
    Fine for someone who is or knows an MIT graduate, but with specific regard to specs, there are albums that are well recorded and mastered, and it is those one must consider. Also, is the consideration of psycho-acoustics. More than just math involved in all of that. But to the point, the better the quality of the input, the better (as you suggest, up to a reasonable point) the better the output. "Garbage in, garbage out." The trick is to have as little garbage as possible AND to attempt to have as little distortion as possible. Along with the pys-acoustic considerations, the higher resolution does offer a better chance at having more fully realized sense of space and depth perception.
    Or so it seems to me. That said, I settle for 24 bit 48,000 FLAC. The amount of storage space for more than that is beyond the capacity of my hardrive AND my budget.

  60. Kaisun Chiu says:

    Human can hear pure tones from 20 to 20k. Music is not pure tones. All instruments play middle C of 256hz sounds differently. Anyone can tell the difference. Music quality depends on harmonics (multiples of the fundamental frequency) which differs from instrument to instrument even they are playing the same note. If recordings and playback devices can handle more harmonics, the closer to the original sound can be heard that is high fidelity. Having said that, whether one needs hires audio depends on if one can hear the difference when subjected to a blind test i.e. without prior knowledge what one is listening multiples times. Should one be able to tell the difference most the time at least then one needs high resolution provided he can afford it. If not, high resolution audio is still useful to give one's friend an image of a rich audiophile.

  61. PC Master Race says:

    It’s cool seeing the science behind all of this. Personally, I’ve spent a little over $60 on FLAC format music tracks and I wasn’t really satisfied with it. I managed to find a difference in the quality but I had to try REALLY hard to actually find the difference which means if someone was to take the same test without telling them which one was which, they wouldn’t have a clue which one would be the FLAC one. I’m kinda bummed out too that FLAC wasn’t as good as I thought but hey, I learned something at least.

  62. Unfiltered Truth says:

    I'm going to slightly disagree with you. Yes, if you're buying music what you say is 100% true especially if it's straight from a CD, but if you're recording music as a musician and uploading it to another medium like YouTube or a music sales site they compress the Hell out of the sound so I'd go with at least a 24 bit/96hz sample rate to compensate for that compression so my audience can still hear the full dynamic range after compression.

  63. ReaktorLeak says:

    An interesting read:
    http://www.tonestack.net/articles/digital-audio/why-192khz-does-not-make-sense-for-music-playback.html

  64. Martin Kilpert says:

    Thank you. To the point and always on topic. Love understanding the technical deets., Ultimately, I will let my ears decide my path for me.

  65. Ednor Nascimento says:

    O universo não existiria caso faltasse diversas das frequências que jamais os humanos seriam capazes de perceber. O importante não é a parte, mas o conjunto da obra. Numa escala infinita, mesmo que percebamos apenas o que nos é permitido pela natureza de nossas orelhas e cérebros, cada peça apoia-se em outra infinitamente. Por isto que no contexto não devemos analisar partes. A matemática é uma ferramenta perfeita, porém usada de forma pura e limitada nos retorna apenas números, algarismos e determinada lógica. Mas não esqueça que a emoção, suavidade, talento musical, e infinitas outras variáveis, se baseiam em artefatos que apesar de concretos, não podem ser analisados separadamente, de forma fria e simplista. Lembra que temos um cérebro e não um analisador de espectro ou frequencímetro.

  66. BrokenSonsOfAiur says:

    Awesome video! Just a point of consumer wisdom: while the playback between something like 24/96 and 16/44.1 may be relatively un-observable from the same master, it matters largely how it was originally recorded. Seeking out higher sample rates will USUALLY net you a better experience simply by virtue of the source.

  67. john says:

    Very rudimentary and over simplified explanation. Watch Hans Beekhuyzen's, (a real engineer), explanation on the benifits of high res recording. Probably the best aurgument ever. There's much more to high resolution than what one can simply hear.

  68. TheGreatMatchukes says:

    Dude I can hear the difference between 96khz & 192khz 192 sounds way more detailed! Don't let this Tool fool you! 'Lol"

  69. Big Dubyuh says:

    I bet people cant even hear the difference ask a so called "audiophile" aka bullshit artist to pick which ones are highres audio out of 20 and if they can identify which songs are hirez ill eat my shorts

  70. Bellyflops2 says:

    Hi Rez is so Sony can continue to get royalties

  71. Bend Em says:

    Get on with it Andy

  72. Bend Em says:

    Andy it’s close but I hear a better warmth and more headroom.

  73. Saif Ansari says:

    What about pioneers 48 bit dsp?

  74. Жгу В интернетах says:

    I dream about wireless earphones that provide hi res sound to and back

  75. Adis Šabović says:

    Jooo, kako me nervira lik, jebemgamutava…😂😂😂😂😂😂

  76. Stephen dela Cruz says:

    Good explanation! 👍

  77. John Viera says:

    Thank you. Now everybody STFU

  78. Boris Drumev says:

    TIL Handy Andy only has Red Hot Chilli Peppers albums in his little collection. There is a reason some real big names are backing Hi-Res at the moment, and it is not just a gimick. I will bet money you don't even have any self respecting gear at home to actually test the tracks that are actually recorded well, boy.

  79. ACID CUBE says:

    Hi,

    What “Pro” applications are 192 khz 96 bit currently used in? I ask as its rather unusual for Hardware manufactures of any kind to continually make a produce that has a range in this case bit rate/freq capabilities that virtually no one buying their products use?

    Whilst I hate economy verses fidelity this is a basic rule of thumb to ensure the manufacturers stringent budgets allow their products price range to be suitable and enough of their products are bought & used.

    So not to labour my point, but who does buy & use sound-cards to then use their 192 khz/96bit capabilities??

    〽️🕶

  80. Danhoven says:

    Thanks for the great explanation.
    I think I still prefer to record in high frequency, just in case there are any bats that want to listen to my music! 😀

  81. Hex Omega says:

    T R I G G E R E D

  82. D. Paul Gladstone says:

    I love nerds. They think they know everything, but he fails to tell you equipment that can play 32 bit or 24 bit and up to 384 Khz is higher quality equipment overall. Sometimes these guys get hung up on statistics and not what's really happening. Good luck with you common CDs.

  83. Lost Relics says:

    i did not enjoy this video.

  84. Professor Sherman Klump says:

    Andy…Thanks for the truth but most people when told will still believe the hype….this is why there is a market for $5000 audio cables….psk

  85. Kevin Brown says:

    432hz audio is best!

  86. RagingBubuli says:

    Why are you holding your mic?

  87. Yar Mazd says:

    Audiofools will never give up. They believe they are better engineers than those, who design the standards and technology, because of some mythical qualities and amorph criteria they operate with – they never rely on data, math, knowledge and at lest common sense and logic. Good video.

  88. Psych0sERuM says:

    Well i guess everyone's different, i personally do hear the difference a higher frequency recorded audio makes. I guess you just have to love the music you listen to enough to hear it. If you don't like something enough you won't be sensitive to it.

  89. David Baker says:

    Artifacts?

  90. Dj GreWu says:

    So many wrong things here! You should do a music school and then talk about audio freq's!

  91. Hazard Mouth says:

    Thanks for giving me a handy, Andy!

  92. Vitaliy Landa says:

    And how do you explain that they sound better!?

  93. alogeno montero says:

    WHY TO SPEAK SO SPEED WHY WHY WHY????????

  94. David Enders says:

    i can contest that a 24 bit / 96KHZ flac recording sounds much better then the same file converted to a 16 bit / 44.1KHZ mp3 file on the same player. There so many variables that go into the technical facts this guy speaks of. While both these formats including CD'S are compressed music from the original analog recordings they are clearly not vinyl or master tape quality. All digital music uses compression which removes music information from the analog track (except streaming PCM & BLU-RAY DTS-HD Master & Dolby True HD audio).

  95. Nicholas Too says:

    There are DACs being sold with 32 bit

  96. Jessie James says:

    Andy's sexy 🙂

  97. The Voice Guys Channel Official says:

    I Master in garage band at 24 bit Wav and the quality is incredible and the sounds are more dynamic as i have great hearing and sensitive ears i can ABSOLUTELY hear the difference in 16 and 24 bits

  98. J D DIEDHIOU says:

    This guy dont know nothing about audio misleading people

  99. Itchy Scratchy says:

    try talking about MQA

  100. Michael Kintsakis says:

    I did not like it because you did not address the opposite opinions that are expressed in many other clips like the ones in the following links https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geaoEt-9V-w and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5S_DI99wd8 these opinions are adresed and cited in detail in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLEhfieoMq8

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *