Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BlueSkyy

How many bits, how fast, just how much resolution is enough?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Well in my case because I took my own advice, and stopped paying attention when I saw the stair case looking graph. Also because you mentioned the more points you have taken the more accurate. That describes a higher vs lower sample rate.

 

Just a kind of picky point, but that depends (more points describing a higher vs. lower sample rate).

 

Sample rate and word depth are related (obviously). Interpolation in time (sample rate) does no good unless you can also interpolate in amplitude (bit depth), *unless* you aren't in the PCM world, but the SDM/PDM world, where each sample value stands not for an absolute amplitude but a relative one (i.e., each value doesn't independently determine amplitude, rather amplitude depends upon the sequence of values).


One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> router -> 2 Cisco switches connected by optical Ethernet -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> Ghent JSSG360 USB cable -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can agree with that... in a lot of systems it's probably more about DACs and how they filter than data depth / rate (after Redbook).

 

Redbook sounds great to me, I don't personally see the need to go with anything higher in my system.

But your system does. From a review of the Vega:

 

Yet the Vega is their most ambitious launch yet. As does Wadia for their Intuition 01, today's DAC/preamp—AURALiC prefers digital processor—upsamples all PCM to 1.5MHz and 32-bit depth.

 

The Auralic uses an ESS SABRE DAC chip to do this, foregoing ESS's internal upsampling to ~44.1MHz.

 

That's why these discussions always strike me as such a waste of time. Just about no one in these forums is actually listening to analog that's been reconstructed straight from RedBook. The vast majority are listening to analog reconstructed from a bitstream running at somewhere between 2.8MHz and 11.2MHz. A substantial minority of folks whose DACs use the ESS chip's internal upsampling are listening to analog reconstructed from a bitstream running at about 44.1MHz.

 

The engineers who built your DACs decided long ago (about 25 years - that's when delta-sigma DACs began to take over the market) that MHz sample rates were the least expensive most practical solution. If you want to talk about theory rather than reality, that was also resolved very long ago (implied by Nyquist's work in 1928, with Shannon's mathematical proof published in 1948). A sample rate just over twice the highest "frequency of interest" is all you need to satisfy the conditions of the mathematical proof.


One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> router -> 2 Cisco switches connected by optical Ethernet -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> Ghent JSSG360 USB cable -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But your system does. From a review of the Vega:

 

 

 

The Auralic uses an ESS SABRE DAC chip to do this, foregoing ESS's internal upsampling to ~44.1MHz.

 

That's why these discussions always strike me as such a waste of time. Just about no one in these forums is actually listening to analog that's been reconstructed straight from RedBook. The vast majority are listening to analog reconstructed from a bitstream running at somewhere between 2.8MHz and 11.2MHz. A substantial minority of folks whose DACs use the ESS chip's internal upsampling are listening to analog reconstructed from a bitstream running at about 44.1MHz.

 

The engineers who built your DACs decided long ago (about 25 years - that's when delta-sigma DACs began to take over the market) that MHz sample rates were the least expensive most practical solution. If you want to talk about theory rather than reality, that was also resolved very long ago (implied by Nyquist's work in 1928, with Shannon's mathematical proof published in 1948). A sample rate just over twice the highest "frequency of interest" is all you need to satisfy the conditions of the mathematical proof.

 

And those sigma-delta DACs give us the closest approximation to theoretical performance of pure ladder DACs for PCM.


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that Jud... but the point of this thread IMO is rebook as source data being either good enough or not, what happens in the DAC afterwards is borderline off topic.

 

... and yes it's probably why the VEGA does such a good job with redbook, but I couldn't comment on that, only how it sounds.

 

;-)

 

But your system does. From a review of the Vega:The Auralic uses an ESS SABRE DAC chip to do this, foregoing ESS's internal upsampling to ~44.1MHz.

 

That's why these discussions always strike me as such a waste of time. Just about no one in these forums is actually listening to analog that's been reconstructed straight from RedBook. QUOTE]


Source:

*Aurender N100 (no internal disk : LAN optically isolated via FMC with *LPS) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed / ground lift switch - split for *LPS) > Intona Industrial (injected *LPS / internally shielded with copper tape) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed / ground lift switch) > W4S Recovery (*LPS) > DIY 2cm USB adaptor (5v rail removed / ground lift switch) > *Auralic VEGA (EXACT : balanced)

 

Control:

*Jeff Rowland CAPRI S2 (balanced)

 

Playback:

2 x Revel B15a subs (balanced) > ATC SCM 50 ASL (balanced - 80Hz HPF from subs)

 

Misc:

*Via Power Inspired AG1500 AC Regenerator

LPS: 3 x Swagman Lab Audiophile Signature Edition (W4S, Intona & FMC)

Storage: QNAP TS-253Pro 2x 3Tb, 8Gb RAM

Cables: DIY heavy gauge solid silver (balanced)

Mains: dedicated distribution board with 5 x 2 socket ring mains, all mains cables: Mark Grant Black Series DSP 2.5 Dual Screen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just about no one in these forums is actually listening to analog that's been reconstructed straight from RedBook.

 

"Straight" is mean "without oversampling"?

 

There is no problem. Simply need invent analog filter with stop band 0 ... -120...200 dB in 20 ... 22 kHz band ;-)


AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I understand it, theoretically 16-bit / 44.1 kHz may be good enough for domestic playback but in practice:

 

• 16-bit — the resolution is down by 6-bit at -36dBFS and with wide DR musical programme that has not been mastered to top somewhere close to 0dBFS this may be audible

 

• 44.1 kHz — there are audible top end problems due to filtering at 22.05kHz being to close to the audible band and if I am not mistaken this is true whether or not you over- or upsample

 

The first and so far only time I was able to determine differences between 16 and 24 bit and 44.1 and 96kHz was with Mario's files.

I am happy with the sound I get from Redbook and have yet to buy HR files or discs.

 

R

 

 

 

 

 

P.S.: an example (Berlioz: Lélio, ou Le retour à la vie Op. 14b / Radio-Sinfonie-Orchester Frankfurt, Eliahu Inbal / Denon)

 

berlioz-lelio.png

Edited by semente

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira Pascoaes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was Jud's quote not mine... but of course he's right about the amount of upsampling going on.

 

"Straight" is mean "without oversampling"?

 

There is no problem. Simply need invent analog filter with stop band 0 ... -120...200 dB in 20 ... 22 kHz band ;-)


Source:

*Aurender N100 (no internal disk : LAN optically isolated via FMC with *LPS) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed / ground lift switch - split for *LPS) > Intona Industrial (injected *LPS / internally shielded with copper tape) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed / ground lift switch) > W4S Recovery (*LPS) > DIY 2cm USB adaptor (5v rail removed / ground lift switch) > *Auralic VEGA (EXACT : balanced)

 

Control:

*Jeff Rowland CAPRI S2 (balanced)

 

Playback:

2 x Revel B15a subs (balanced) > ATC SCM 50 ASL (balanced - 80Hz HPF from subs)

 

Misc:

*Via Power Inspired AG1500 AC Regenerator

LPS: 3 x Swagman Lab Audiophile Signature Edition (W4S, Intona & FMC)

Storage: QNAP TS-253Pro 2x 3Tb, 8Gb RAM

Cables: DIY heavy gauge solid silver (balanced)

Mains: dedicated distribution board with 5 x 2 socket ring mains, all mains cables: Mark Grant Black Series DSP 2.5 Dual Screen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a stunning listening session last night (purely redbook)... ended at 2am after a great meal earlier and plenty of alcohol. throughout.

 

... another one of those nights where everything 'just sounded great', quality of recording/mastering was not ruining the experience (it almost never does anymore), we were engulfed in the music of the subject material.

 

Played loads of tracks from cheap compilations, still was able to thoroughly enjoy every song. I would gladly sacrifice additional resolution if it risked a less forgiving presentation - I never used to be able to just play anything and really enjoy it.

 

... most of the tweaks that made this possible were learned here on CA.

 

Hats off to this place. ;-)

 

I am happy with the sound I get from Redbook and have yet to buy HR files or discs.

 

R


Source:

*Aurender N100 (no internal disk : LAN optically isolated via FMC with *LPS) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed / ground lift switch - split for *LPS) > Intona Industrial (injected *LPS / internally shielded with copper tape) > DIY 5cm USB link (5v rail removed / ground lift switch) > W4S Recovery (*LPS) > DIY 2cm USB adaptor (5v rail removed / ground lift switch) > *Auralic VEGA (EXACT : balanced)

 

Control:

*Jeff Rowland CAPRI S2 (balanced)

 

Playback:

2 x Revel B15a subs (balanced) > ATC SCM 50 ASL (balanced - 80Hz HPF from subs)

 

Misc:

*Via Power Inspired AG1500 AC Regenerator

LPS: 3 x Swagman Lab Audiophile Signature Edition (W4S, Intona & FMC)

Storage: QNAP TS-253Pro 2x 3Tb, 8Gb RAM

Cables: DIY heavy gauge solid silver (balanced)

Mains: dedicated distribution board with 5 x 2 socket ring mains, all mains cables: Mark Grant Black Series DSP 2.5 Dual Screen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meyer, E. B. and D. R. Moran. 2007. Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback. JAES 55(9): September 2007

 

Abstract:

Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz "bottleneck." The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.


"The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment. They often base their purchasing decisions on hearsay, and the preaching of media sages. Unfortunately, because of commercial considerations, much information is rooted in increasing revenue, not in assisting the audiophile. It seems as if the only requirements for becoming an "authority" in the world of audio is a keyboard."

-- Bruce Rozenblit of Transcendent Sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz "bottleneck." The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables.

 

Compared different systems but not resolutions as resolutions.

 

I don't know how to create identical hardware for 44/16 and 192/24 that need for comparing of resolutions.


AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Compared different systems but not resolutions as resolutions.

 

I don't know how to create identical hardware for 44/16 and 192/24 that need for comparing of resolutions.

Easy. Using a high-res source, apply the same low-pass filter and dither you'd use for a conversion while leaving the result at 192/24. Feed the original and the filtered data to the same DAC with the same settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That paper is good source for laughs... :D So pathetic.

 

where can I read your published comments? I assume you are a Fellow of the AES, right?


"The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment. They often base their purchasing decisions on hearsay, and the preaching of media sages. Unfortunately, because of commercial considerations, much information is rooted in increasing revenue, not in assisting the audiophile. It seems as if the only requirements for becoming an "authority" in the world of audio is a keyboard."

-- Bruce Rozenblit of Transcendent Sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Easy. Using a high-res source, apply the same low-pass filter and dither you'd use for a conversion while leaving the result at 192/24. Feed the original and the filtered data to the same DAC with the same settings.

 

Dither it is variable that depend on implementation.

 

If compare sample rates only and don't use dither: for artificaly synthesed sources your scheme give almost identical result for both sources.

 

Except level of noise. Synthesed source lo-res will have higher level of noise than synthesed hi-res one due different bands.


AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meyer, E. B. and D. R. Moran. 2007. Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback. JAES 55(9): September 2007

 

Abstract:

Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz "bottleneck." The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

 

The Meyer/Moran paper is always trotted out to reinforce the myth that Red Book is "perfect sound forever" and high-resolution formats are unnecessary overkill. It has since been soundly debunked numerous times with criticism of the methodology the equipment, and listening environments as well as the type of listening subjects used.


George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
where can I read your published comments? I assume you are a Fellow of the AES, right?

Companies selling high resolution recordings commercially have used Miska's sigma delta modulators in preference to any others on the market for demonstration quality offerings. Roon, expensive and sophisticated GUI player software for audiophiles, chose Miska's oversampling software, including his filters and modulators, to ally themselves with, in preference to developing their own, and they are an audio software company. If Miska is not a member of AES (I don't know whether he is or not), or not published (again, I don't know whether he is or not), then perhaps these audiophile recording and software companies are just stupid for hiring a pretender without the proper credentials, eh?

 

Or perhaps they know something; perhaps Miska knows something; and if one asks instead of challenging, perhaps it is possible to learn something.


One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> router -> 2 Cisco switches connected by optical Ethernet -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> Ghent JSSG360 USB cable -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
where can I read your published comments? I assume you are a Fellow of the AES, right?

 

While these are not "my published comments" (just as the Abstract quote posted by you (Ralf11) aren't yours....) they are links to others:

[h=3]Meyer and Moran debunked by Meridian's Robert Stuart - Computer ...[/h]

 

[h=3]The Controversial Meyer and Moran Study: A Fresh Look[/h]

[h=3]Meyer and Moran: Let's Change the Focus | Real HD-Audio[/h]

[h=3]SA-CD.net - Debunking Meyer and Moran[/h]

[h=3]AES Journal Forum » Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop ... (this one might cost money to read. It is AES)[/h]

 

[h=3]Thoughts on Meyer/Moran SACD/DVD-A vs. CD audio study? - AVS Forum[/h]

[h=3]Meyer & Moran Updated: Proof that CD audio isn't transparent ...[/h]

[h=3]Art Dudley | Stereophile.com[/h]

This series of links should give you a enough info on both sides of the argument to make an informed decision on the value of the Meyer/Moran study.


George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any that supports and promotes his commercial objectives.

 

That's why I like reviewing the history of CD players, DACs, and RedBook audio. Within just a couple of years after CDs and CD players were first sold, 8x oversampling had become the standard for DAC chips. These were commodity chips, not specialist audiophile pieces. Within just a few more years, sigma delta modulation to MHz sample rates had become the standard, again in the commodity audio chip market. Before 8x oversampling became commonplace, CD players of the day (and NOS players and NOS DACs still today) fed at RedBook rates showed easily measurable harmonic and intermodulation distortion due to aliasing.

 

Then the first pro/audiophile asynchronous sample rate conversion (ASRC) DACs hit the market, most notably from Benchmark and Lavry. These DACs resampled to non-even multiples of the input rate (in Benchmark's case, 110 KHz; I don't know what Lavry used, though I recall the input rate was limited to 96KHz) as a means of jitter reduction, prior to putting the resulting bitstream through sigma-delta modulation to MHz sample rates. I recall Lavry in particular publishing white papers saying one certainly didn't need higher sample rates than 96KHz and suggesting higher rates were actually deleterious, while not mentioning their own DACs internally used the same MHz sample rates as everyone else.

 

But I'm sure these papers, which did as much as anything to spur discussion of how 44.1 or surely 96KHz rates were perfectly adequate (when even inexpensive non-audiophile commodity players used chips designed by non-audiophile engineers that upsampled internally to MHz rates) had nothing to do with Lavry's commercial objectives. :)


One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> router -> 2 Cisco switches connected by optical Ethernet -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> Ghent JSSG360 USB cable -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Easy. Using a high-res source, apply the same low-pass filter and dither you'd use for a conversion while leaving the result at 192/24. Feed the original and the filtered data to the same DAC with the same settings.

 

Except that the same DAC very likely behaves in different way if you send there 44.1k content instead... ;) The difference will be huge for example if you use any NOS R2R ladder DAC! And your result still doesn't tell anything about audibility of the format differences alone, only tells about that particular DAC.

 

For example, the output result is vastly different if I send same RedBook data for example to TEAC UD-503 or Metrum Musette. First one is oversampling delta-sigma DAC while the second one is NOS R2R ladder DAC. Plus then there are various DACs that technically sit somewhere between the two, having shitty oversampling filters with just 40 dB stop-band rejection or less, etc.

 

If the digital and/or analog filters are leaky, audibility of those depends on what kind of amplifiers follow, how much intermodulation products those leaks end up producing in the audio band, etc, etc...

 

In addition, even in digital domain, there is no single way to do the conversion to/from RedBook, each of those also produce different results.

 

So overall this is complex topic and the results are not straightforward.


Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While these are not "my published comments" (just as the Abstract quote posted by you (Ralf11) aren't yours....) they are links to others:

[h=3]Meyer and Moran debunked by Meridian's Robert Stuart - Computer ...[/h]

 

[h=3]The Controversial Meyer and Moran Study: A Fresh Look[/h]

[h=3]Meyer and Moran: Let's Change the Focus | Real HD-Audio[/h]

[h=3]SA-CD.net - Debunking Meyer and Moran[/h]

[h=3]AES Journal Forum » Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop ... (this one might cost money to read. It is AES)[/h]

 

[h=3]Thoughts on Meyer/Moran SACD/DVD-A vs. CD audio study? - AVS Forum[/h]

[h=3]Meyer & Moran Updated: Proof that CD audio isn't transparent ...[/h]

[h=3]Art Dudley | Stereophile.com[/h]

This series of links should give you a enough info on both sides of the argument to make an informed decision on the value of the Meyer/Moran study.

 

Thx, unfortunately only one of those is a peer-reviewed publication. They could still be correct, but your claims are not supported, esp. by the Stereopile 'thing'. I'll take a look at the one AES later on...

 

Is that the same Bob Stuart that everybody dumps on for trying to foist MQA on us? ;]

 

There are dozens, likely hundreds. of published studies showing lack of statistical differences for the higher bit rates. Maybe they are all wrong? Personally, it doesn't cost me a lot to get that source material, but I figure I am likely getting more care in recording/mastering...

 

Similarly, there some studies showing that mp3 files cannot be distinguished from redbook. It costs me nothing to use Apple Lossless instead tho (well, ok - I guess it cost me a little more for a higher capacity iPhone).

 

I'm fine with using higher bit rates or depth as long as I don't have to pay a lot for it.


"The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment. They often base their purchasing decisions on hearsay, and the preaching of media sages. Unfortunately, because of commercial considerations, much information is rooted in increasing revenue, not in assisting the audiophile. It seems as if the only requirements for becoming an "authority" in the world of audio is a keyboard."

-- Bruce Rozenblit of Transcendent Sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meyer, E. B. and D. R. Moran. 2007. Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback. JAES 55(9): September 2007

 

Abstract:

Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz "bottleneck." The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

The CD recorder used for the Meyer and Moran tests was the HHB CDR-850, which used typical delta-sigma chips. So the test design identified (at best) whether people could blindly identify a signal run through an extra KHz-to-MHz step before conversion to analog, rather than any "pure" comparison of different sample rates.


One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> router -> 2 Cisco switches connected by optical Ethernet -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> Ghent JSSG360 USB cable -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any that supports and promotes his commercial objectives.

 

As far as I can tell both Miska and Yuri's commercial objectives are best served as long as Redbook CD exists -- I mean if the world was recorded as DSD512 there would be no reason for software that upsamples.

 

In any case I am quite comfortable deciding whom I consider an expert regardless of their commercial objectives.


Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...