[chrispy_g]

Hello experts,

I've been fiddling with the HDMI output from my laptop over the past few weeks and have been pleasantly surprised by the capabilities of my humble Gateway notebook.

The sound settings (Windows 7) allow me to output at 192KHz/24 bit. I can confirm that the output is indeed coming out @ 192/24, as my receiver (Onkyo TX-SR876) tells me so.

So, this brings me to a couple questions....

1) Why does my receiver switch to pure stereo mode for a 192/24 audio stream? I can't change to any of the surround settings (I know I shouldn't for music anyways, but I do like the "all channel stereo" mode, which I can't use for 192/24 audio). It seems that I can go up to 96/24 and still play with the surround modes. Is this because the D/A decoding @ 192/24 is taking too many resources?....or that Onkyo believes that anyone bothering with 192/24 is an audiophile type wanting a "pure" stereo experience?

2) Does 192/24 output really make a difference on files that ultimately came from a 44.1/16 source (redbook CD)? This is where my "wikipedia" understanding of digital audio leaves me confused. Basically, all consumer-level digital audio starts as 44.1/16, so no matter what encoding you use (WAV, MP3, FLAC, etc.), the source is no better. So, does applying higher-resolution "upsampling" on 44.1/16 source material really do anything? To avoid colouring the feedback, I won't give my subjective thoughts yet on what I hear in flipping between the output resolutions. For the record, I have Paradigm speakers (Monitor 9s up front) and Grado cans (SR80i), so decent enough stuff for critical listening. Logic suggests that it may make a difference. After all, 480p DVD video certainly looks better upsampled and played back at 1080p. However, this is because my receiver works it's REON magic. I'm not sure what my laptop is exactly doing to end up at 192/24.

Expert feedback appreciated!

 

[57]

Many AVRs limit what can be done with certain input signals. I suggest you go with 96/24 as there will likely be no audible difference.

 

[chrispy_g]

Thanks....I agree....

But that still leaves me with the question....does the upsampling from the 44.1/16 original source to 96/24 really do anything?

 

[neilK]

yes, it does. but it's debatable in my opinion whether it does something 'good'.

if the signal doesn't have the extra bit depth and sample rate, you have to rely on post-processing tricks to put something besides zeroes in those extra bits and those extra samples. so by definition to create an audible effect means it will colour the sound.

 

[scampbell]

88.2 kHz might be a better choice than 96 kHz (if you have that option), being an even multiple of 44.1.

 

[chrispy_g]

Both valid comments....thanks.

I can output in 88.2 as well, so I will try that to see if I can hear any difference. One way or another, I do find that the sound from my laptop is better than what I was hearing from my PS3 (which defaults to 48, but can also do 44.1/88.2/176.4).

I have to say though that I've been finding some stuff actually mastered in 96/24 (mostly classical) and that sounds incredible. I know that this stuff is already recorded better than most mainstream stuff to being with, but the clarity is unreal.