# FLAC files? Can you really hear a difference between 24bit/96kbps and 24bit/192kbps?



## Qmotion (Sep 29, 2013)

I've been poddering purchasing a Bit-Play to listen to FLAC digitally in my auto. Not to talk about the Bit-Play which is covered on another thread. I was wondering if there was a clear audible difference between 24/96 and 24/192? 

Indirectly I'm actually wondering if now was the best time to purchase a Bit-Play or would be best to wait hoping that eventually it would support up to 24/192 instead of 24/96.


----------



## silber956 (May 29, 2015)

Flac to me does sound better, just download 2 songs, one flac and the other your preferred format and compare. Let us know what you think.


----------



## sirbOOm (Jan 24, 2013)

In a car, I would not worry about it. In your home, still... unless you have some stellar high-end equipment.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

Not a fair comparison, as the different types of files are often mastered differently. You need to take a high res file and create a 320k mp3 with a quality program for a fair comparison.


----------



## Weightless (May 5, 2005)

Yeah, I wouldn't just download two versions of the same song to compare. You need to make the flac and the mp3 yourself so you know how they were ripped. 

I have a hunch that with a properly encoded mp3 at 320 you will not likely hear a difference in the car. There is too much ambient noise to compete with.


----------



## tjframe (Jun 17, 2015)

I agree with the others on here.. for examples, the only way I or my wife can hear any difference between a FLAC or WAV and a 320k mp3 is with good headphones in a silent room with no fans or air conditioning. And even then it can be hard to tell depending on the source material.

The instant you play them over actual loudspeakers, even in a house, let alone in a noisy car environment, all bets are off. She and I have both done the a/b testing thing through Foobar2000 and we could only do better than 50% guessing when wearing headphones. 

Road, ac, and wind noise, in my opinion, can drown out up to 50% or more of the sound quality ( ie driving with the windows down around town), whereas the difference between FLAC and a good mp3 is like 1 percent to me.

I'm 47 and shes 37 so our ears are good, but not 20something.


----------



## Qmotion (Sep 29, 2013)

I finally got around to experimenting. There is a slight better Sq in the flac files. I used a pair of electrostatic headphones to judge. As far as the car goes ambient noise does negate the difference even though my auto is pretty quiet and well insulated.


----------



## Weightless (May 5, 2005)

What kind of experimenting? Was it blinded?


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

Did you convert the hi res file to lossy yourself? If not, you can't be sure the difference you heard wasn't from the two tracks being mastered differently.


----------



## Qmotion (Sep 29, 2013)

I made the files myself. I knew which ones I was listening to when I compared.


----------



## crackinhedz (May 5, 2013)

While I personally feel anything above 48kHz sampling is unnecessary, here is a good read on why 192kHz can be worse than 96kHz.

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed


http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-theory.pdf


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

I would extend the premise that intermodulation distortion for someone who can hear only a limited bandwidth of say, 20 hz to 14 Khz, is produced by the hardware when playing loudly and is inside of the 20--20Khz envelope.

like, when a 19KHz tone is played over the 14Khz hearing limit, it's inclusion modulates, or modifies the 14 Khz tones, or multiples/divisions of the notes.

in other words, not only is it possible to have these intermodulation products from high resolution playback on lower-tier equipment, but on great equipment for someone who can't hear above an upper limit, you are hearing the effects of those high frequencies, altering and distorting the bandwidth you can hear.

and I'd extend that to an amplifier's actual watts being used on infrasonic, or ultrasonic parts of the signal that high resolution is supposed to contain, IE if a peak at 22 Khz of 130 db is in the recording and the speaker has the ability to absorb wattage at that high frequency, the wattage available for the rest of the music spectrum is in turn, decreased to a lower resolution, to a lower volume cap.

That's possibly why people say they can hear the differences, the distortion produced from the amplifier trying to put 120 db into 22 Khz, and creating heavy distortion into the 14 Khz *same signal* will say "I can hear it!" but what they are actually hearing, is not 22 Khz.

It's the effects of the audio equipment trying to play 22 Khz, and running out of headroom in the audible band.


----------



## sirbOOm (Jan 24, 2013)

In a car, I'm willing to bet you can't hear the difference between CD vs. any high resolution file... even with a top end system. But... I've been known to lose bets (all the time, especially in poker games).


----------



## Qmotion (Sep 29, 2013)

I feel comfortable knowing that by adding the Bit-Play to my system I'll be able to store pretty much any format I throw at it. I'll be fine if only storing my cd's.


----------

