The Optimal Sample Rate for Quality Audio

[The Computer Audiophile]

Interested in the facts?

 

One of the world’s top converter designers Dan Lavry has written a new paper in simple language to demystify the subject.

 

http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-white-paper-the_optimal_sample_rate_for_quality_audio.pdf

 

See why many professional engineers still work at 96kHz years after 192kHz became available.

 

Find out why “more” is not always “better!”

 

 

Hi Lavry Tech - While this paper may be interesting and very valuable from an engineering standpoint, your surrounding statements really hurt your credibility. If you post here on CA in an effort to educate there is no need to tout Dan as "One of the world’s top converter designers..." or to begin your post with "Interested in the facts?"

 

I can find several engineers and AES Fellows who contradict much of what Dan says. My point is there's not one set of facts.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Chris,

 

 

 

What part of what Dan says do you disagree with? The thing about the timing resolution is pretty much basic sampling theory and is well supported by people working in the field (a good example is the Meridian white paper by J. Robert Stuart often quoted here on CA). For basic, undithered signals, the time resolution of a sampled signal is the sample interval divided by the number of digital levels. Dithering improves it further. Thus the time resolution of a 44.1kHz / 16 bit signal is 1/(44100*2^16) s, or 0.34 ns.

 

 

Hi Julf - My point is simply the original poster writes as if Dan's word is the only word on the subject. I think Keith Johnson has contradictory things to say about the value of 176.4 kHz etc... Much of this is beyond my level of expertise. I'm just suggesting Dan isn't the Minister of Information when it comes to digital. In fact nobody is.

[The Computer Audiophile]

This is a very interesting way to look at it Jud.

 

My pure speculation as to why this might not be the best way is just that speculation. Is it more difficult to use 8x sample rates with traditional interfaces like AES/EBU? More jitter? Is sending an AES stream from something like a Mykerinos card more difficult at 8x? I also wonder if async USB is a completely different story when it comes to 8x.

 

Again, I have no idea just some thoughts.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I don't have any relevant experience with the 11 but have heard good things about it from colleagues.

[The Computer Audiophile]

While it is possible to get "good" results with converters optimized to operate at sample rates higher than 96kHz; this does not "prove" that higher sample rates do not come without a cost. The unfortunate fact that, by design, a multi-bit sigma delta converter optimized to operate at 192kHz (or higher) cannot also be optimized to operate at 96kHz makes it nearly impossible to make a meaningful comparison of the effects of changing ONLY the sample rate via listening tests. Other factors such as differences in analog circuitry, jitter in conversion clocking, or even PC board layout can have a significant effect on the perceived "sound" of the entire converter unit; which makes comparing different models of converters useless in this regard.

Dan Lavry

 

I agree 100% with that paragraph.