Room treatment and how a room is designed is why you'll hear a major difference Paul. Most audiophiles I know have a high end system in their living room but their room measures terrible accoustically.

Don't forget the quality of the recording. It's garbage in garbage out no matter how resolving your system is :)

Although I'll probably never buy any of his products, I still watch all the videos. Paul seems like a nice guy, and that counts for a lot with me.

Old ears & damaged hearing saves me a lot of money. I listen mostly to background music played through ceiling speakers so sampling rate is not something that I worry about. However, when comparing free Spotify (always lossy) to Amazon Prime HD (192 kHz) on my mid-priced home theater setup I did perceive (imagined ?) a bit of difference but not so much that I'd run out and spend many thousand dollars to reproduce, CD level (and lower) is fine for most listening situations in my case.

I absolutely love your uploads 👍🏾 Thanks again from London

Yes sir you are an amazing person thanks for giving away your knowledge for free to the young and older people. You've earned my goal stamp of approval.

Bless you Paul. You are doing an awesome job with these videos. Oh, and with your business and DSD studio! :)

As long as it is in the Nyquist-Shannon theorem: "You need at least twice the bandwidth to perfectly capture the signal you are trying to sample", Be careful now, it is for capturing the signal. quality of reproducing the signal is, just like Paul said, dependent on your system. No, there will be no square-ish sounding, it is a myth. Real-world speaker physics simply cannot produce a perfect discontinuity

I just want my DAC to see the exact bytes that came out of the mastering process without any lossy transcoding. It also means I would rather prefer to play DXD PCM than the derived lossy version in DSD.

My system is always ,the better the source the Better the sound !

@3:10 "Do higher sample rates sound better?" With few exceptions, CD quality (44.1 kHz) will sound the same as higher sampling rates. Why? The songs that you are playing have to have been recorded properly, in order for higher sampling rates to make a difference. Consider two photos of the same scenery: -- Photo #1 was taken expertly, where on a quality, hi-res monitor, you can see into the breathtaking image as though you were there. -- Photo #2 was taken by an incompetent enthusiast, and although you can see everything in the image, the depth perception and the contrasting colors and shadows, etc, are nothing special. Look at both photos on the same quality, hi-res monitor. Photo #1 will look amazing. Photo #2 will make you yawn. And no matter how many advances in display monitors become available, photo #2 will remain a yawn. The same goes for playing music at higher sampling rates. You must have an outstandingly, well done song to hear the benefit of the higher sampling rate. Alas, 90%+ of songs (perhaps even 98%) are not mixed and mastered well enough to hear the benefits of higher than CD quality sampling rates. If Paul is able to get his hands on the initial capture tapes (multi-track masters) of our favorite songs from yesteryear, then one day we might be treated to properly mixed and mastered releases where the sampling rate will matter. But for "rock", "pop", "disco", etc, and other genres, the stuff released over the decades is not up to the job, because the people in the studios were incompetent. They never heard FR30s, or anything close. So they are clueless about their shoddy work. There are exceptions. The shoddy work should be the exception, but sadly it is the rule.

🙋‍♂️THANKS PAUL,FOR SHARING THIS MESSAGE and someday I hope to come and hear 👂 your systems or (as they say, in the UK, kits 😊 💚💚💚

Sampling rate = how often digital electronics 'reads' the data ? Theoretically, the more the better but like anything, there are limits or diminishing returns. In my rather limited experience, the mastering of the recording makes the biggest sound quality difference, far and beyond high sampling rates.

I think everyone knows that 44 khz doesn't go through the speaker with CD quality. Pretty sure he was talking about Nyquist theorem and the fact that 22 khz well outside the audible range of a middle age or older human.

capture accuracy is the false concept, as the nyquist tgeorem holds up. for dsd, where no nyquist restoration takes place, it defines the accuracy though. what is influenced by higher capture frequency is the rolloff filter so there is no higher order distortion in the audible range and a presence of higher harmonics that can interact with the audible musicaly in the recording. playback wise basicly all modern dacs, even cheap ones, use supersampeling to prevent d-a conversion filter distortion. for digital mudic processing and mastering sample rate makes all the difference, as it allows for more frequency shifts without loosing high.

Paul, you know as well as I do. The key factor isn't so much the equipment but the listeners ears and trained ability to hear the differences. This plays the largest role. And everyone has difference in hearing. How we precise sound is more important then the play back device. I've yet to hear a recorded item sound like the live version but and this is big unless your in the sound studio when its recorded you wont have anything to base it on. The sound engineers going to change it that artist is going to ask for changes and the media reproduction will all have effects on the orignal tracks. What you basically hear is what the recording artist and sound engineer wants you to hear. Then you've got you play back equipment and then your ears. The only slight difference is somthing recorded live. But even thats been played with. And you almost can ever find a band recreat the same thing that was done in recording.

I always wonder about how many people still think we (audiophiles) are using higher sampling rates to capture higher frequencies instead of more samples per second.

The Tesla must really be impressive in high altitudes. I remember fairly quick ICE cars being gutless in the mountains when I was living in SLC.

44.1k vs 48k There's a story here. When digital audio recording was first implemented the only tape machines that could record that bandwidth was VTRs. The popular choice was 3/4inch industrial VTRs as a true broadcast grade machine was a bit overkill. So since NTSC video is 60fps, let;s make our sample rate divisible by that so we can pack the data neatly into video frames. As industrial VTRs worked fine at true 60hz no problem. But real NTSC video is not 60.0hz. It's 59.94hz since the 1954 induction of color TV. Due to some frequency interleave problems they shifted the H&V frequencies very slightly to compensate. So when digital audio was eventually married to video, 44.1k no longer worked at 59.94hz. Furthermore the European PAL standard at 50hz was a problem as well. So they moved to 48khz to make digital audio compatible with NTSC and PAL TV. This frrequency relationship remains today even with HDTVand UHDTV.

Hi Paul, what cartridge do you use on this magnificent turntable? Perfectly explained the sampling rates and bit depth, great video

Everyone keeps saying: “It’s all about the journey” Watching this channel and reading the comments. The “journey” seems to be like driving on an interstate highway with speed bumps every mile while driving a Bugatti Chiron Super Sport. 🙄🥺

That's a nice CD rack where did you get it? It's hard to find CD storage these days!

Great ❤ video, Paul.

So it's like a TV scan rate. 120 - 240 refresh rate results in a more accurate detailed picture quality.

Hey Paul…couldn’t help noticing that you are standing next to a $20,000 turntable with no cartridge mounted. How about throwing on a Hana Umami Red (or some other nice cart) and do some comparisons with the Direct Stream MK2. I’ve done it and it’s a lot of fun.

very simple explanation - sample frequency is the same as frame rate in video. How many time you make a snapshot in 1 second. Only numbers are quite higher.

imho after 16/44.1k the only audible difference that I have found is in the mastering. Now I cant say for DSD because I never heard it in it's native form but the fact that it goes from FLAC to DSD to me sounds more like a flavor then audible resolution.

3:53 "On this system you'll hear a lot of difference." Please make another video letting us hear the differences. That's much easier for us to understand it. Thank you,

Why don't you have phono cartridge installed in that fine turntable?

Hi 🙋🏼‍♂️ That beautiful competent turntable needs life ♥️ ✌️❤️🇩🇰

Did you just invite me over ?

Once you reach CD quality (44.1K) samples you will not hear any difference in any higher sample rate. It is not my opinion, it is physics and Nyquist-Shannon. But don't trust me, listen to the creator of Ogg Vorbis format and his lecture on it. I won't link here but do a search for D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery.

With a CD or SACD they are getting one shot to read the sample whereas with a streaming high end DAC the sample can be read over many times to fill in as many pieces as possible. CD's or SACDS simply can't compete with a good dac. I ordered PS Audio's SACD played through my Rossini transport sounded better than the CD's but my DAC with streaming 96/24 files blew it out of the water no comparison. Now if you have just an okay dac and then a good SACD player then the SACD might seem to be equal or better.

TESLA no thanks

Also a note to properly mention the human hearing range as 2hz to 20khz and sampling rate of the analog signal to 44khz, 92khz and more specifically.

Anniversary edition table check best amp check best speakers check something's not quite right here hmmm..

I couldn't believe it when Rick Beato said that there was not only no difference between hi res audio and cd resolution audio, but that lossless audio files were no better than 320k mp3 files.

I hear a difference. It sounds more natural. You feel the music better.

Your cat can hear it, lol

So higher sample rate is basically same as FPS (frames per second) in video?

Phase shift! The stonewall filters in a dac have it in spades. Higher sampling rates are more effective at reducing out of range spurious frequencies. Changing dac roll - off curves with varying music sampling frequencies can audibly lower sibilance and increase focus. It’s a pain in the buttocks but does sound better. My system seems to show improvements to 96 kh. Any higher is a waste of my file space and money.

Owning a very high end system, every time I hear from my dealer or a rep that something is better and then hear it, it's true. And I can't believe it Lol Now my fist is in my mouth. It's amazing what a good system and speaker can resolve .

192 KSPS, 44.1 KSPS, not KILOHERTZ!!

Higher sampling rates are not more accurate. Higher sample rates are simply capable of reproducing higher frequencies. That is not the same as being more accurate. They are two different things. A 192 kHz sample rate is not more accurate at reproducing a 1 kHz signal than a 44.1 kHz sample rate. It doesn’t work that way. They would both reproduce it as well as the other. There could be any number of other reasons you think you’re hearing a difference, but it most certainly is not because of the sample rate itself. I’ve heard you mention many times that a higher sample rate lets it maintain phase relationships because it has a better time resolution at a higher sample rate versus a lower sample rate. That, too, is incorrect. 192 kHz does not do a better job of maintaining phase relationships because it is “higher resolution” than 44.1 kHz. It isn’t higher resolution. There is no resolution. It either works or it doesn’t. It is either below Nyquist or it isn’t. And it doesn’t do a better job of maintaining phase relationships or the timing of signals or anything else you’ve mentioned in your videos. 44.1 kHz maintains all those things exactly the same as 192 kHz does. The only difference between 192 kHz and 44.1 kHz is 192 kHz can reproduce everything below 96 kHz and 44.1 kHz can reproduce everything below 22.05 kHz. That’s it. That’s the only difference. And so for all signal content that remains below 22.05 kHz they both do exactly the same job at reproducing the source signal, including phase relationships and timing. Yes, including phase and timing. I don’t know why you still do not understand this. You’ve been in the business far too long to not understand this. Not only is this easily verified with an oscilloscope, someone has done it for you already, and I’ve posted this video of the testing to show you what actually happens with phasing and timing, which you either have refused to watch or could not understand. If you’ve refused to watch it, watch it. If you can’t understand it, watch it over again until you do. It is explained and SHOWN very simply and clearly. 44.1 kHz maintains phase and timing “between the samples.” That’s just how digital/analog conversion works. You’re shown what happens when you slowly change the timing back and forth so the signal starts and stops between the samples. And the result is the signal is still reproduced properly when you alter the timing of it in that way. What you claim is lost is in fact not lost at all. If you think you are hearing a difference it is because of something else in the chain that is behaving differently. The digital/analog conversions are not responsible for whatever you think you are hearing because they are not losing what you think they are losing. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ma-BbKyJuLvepYE.html

No, it doesn’t make sense, get a basic understanding on nyquist theorem, it doesn’t matter how much faster you sample, for 44.1kHz sampling frequency, you capture perfectly everything from 0-22.05kHz.

All this hi-res nonsense needs to be exposed for the marketing fraud that it is. Higher sample rates and more bits are used in the recording and mastering to give the engineer headroom and the ability to deliver a superb 16/44.1 version to the listener. Many audiophiles have been misled into thinking that they are being denied access to the original masters and record labels are happy to “fix” the problem by selling them the same music again, only a so called hi-res version. The number of bits defines the available dynamic range/noise floor, this is all it does. 16 bits gives a huge dynamic range, and an inaudible noise floor, way more than needed. A recording with a larger dynamic range would be undesirable as quiet passages would be too quiet to hear or loud passages would be deafening. The sample rate defines the highest frequency able to be reproduced. 44.1KHz = 20KHz which is at the upper limit of hearing. This is all it does. Sample rates higher than 44.1KHz produces ultrasonic noise that was not part of the performance. If you buy a so called hi-res version you are buying a large file padded out with millions of useless bits. Several well designed ABX tests show audiophiles cannot pick hi-res recordings over CD quality.

I think this might be easier to understand then Paul's waffling lol it's like a meat cutter You cut thin slices and thick slices of ham, the thinner the slice the greater the frequency. A better scenario is I've have ridden in a koenigsegg I know how crap a Tesla is, one of the most awful cars going very dangerous many people have died in them. lose control accelerate on their own accord break without any warning and don't have a kill switch inside the cabin I wouldn't be seen dead in one.

nice one but completely utter total nonsense. When you talk about sample rate you should first explain what the Nyquist-Shannon theorem is and why Philipps chose to use exactly one particular sample rate for their digital stored replay system called CD. And only after that you can make impressions of impulse responses of systems that might play back close to a signal no matter if analog or digital. Embarrassing video here. It remembers me in one guy who owned one of those fancy high-fi shops selling super expensive stuff while telling his costumers the same nonsense of half knowledge to make them belief. Yes there are good systems that are expensive.. In example ever heard of Geithain speakers and why the BBC uses them? Thats not the only brand doing just fine if not to say perfect, and this perfection has really nothing to do with sample rate.

Wow ... this is really dumb. First say that nothing more than 20KHz is going to the speakers, then sort of try to justify higher sample rates which do NOTHING but pass higher frequencies. At the DAC, the sample rate is the delivery format. It is no indication of what the capture sample rate is. The ADC probably captures initially at high MHz Sigma-Delta, then decimates to 192 or 96KHz PCM. That is used throughout the editing process, before finally a 16/44.1 version is created.