Understanding Sample Rate

[Spacehound]

13 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

>>> DAC can be able provide lesser distortions for mode 192 kHz/24 bit/PCM than for 96 kHz/24 bit/PCM.
Therefore, conversion of audio file resolution to 192 kHz/24 bit/PCM is recommended for playback at the DAC.

 

I checked out your site briefly, and it is very interesting to me, but I see your English is not so well.  It may make sense to find a friend that can update your site with better English...just a thought...It may help you gain sales.

It's a  whole lot better than your Russian, gospodin.

 

Anyway, Trump's bought his entire stock.

[esldude]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

Just like many earlier amplifiers couldn't handle SACD artifacts,(even burning out!)  so they dumbed down the upper frequency capability of SACD ? 

After that, I guess they no longer needed those nice Sony 100kHZ tweeters that were released for SACD.

This sounds like revisionist history.  

[Spacehound]

19 minutes ago, esldude said:

 

This sounds like revisionist history.  

'Digital' TV antennas

The only reason why SACD ever existed was Sony's  attempt to control the market.

[sandyk]

17 minutes ago, esldude said:

This sounds like revisionist history.  

 

Unfortunately, it's fact, and apparently forgotten  by many .

There were quite a few reports of amplifiers not being able to handle the fairly high level residual HF artifacts.

I went very  close to ordering a Sony 100K tweeter back then.

 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

Unfortunately, it's fact, and apparently forgotten  by many .

There were quite a few reports of amplifiers not being able to handle the fairly high level residual HF artifacts.

I went very  close to ordering a Sony 100K tweeter back then.

 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

 

This thread may be of interest:

 

http://sa-cd.net/showthread/31197//y?page=first

 

 

[Don Hills]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

Martin Colloms isn't exactly trustworthy, but I'll check it again.

 

"... the usual phase response of a shared converter player was shown. This produced a negligible phase difference at low and middle frequencies, rising to a maximum of 71 degrees at 20 kHz. As yet this has not been confirmed as being of any audible importance, unless the channels are mono-ed. ..."

- HFN&RR, March 1985.

I don't have the rest of the issue, so I could be wrong about the tester being Martin.

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

Martin Colloms isn't exactly trustworthy, but I'll check it again.

 

He is at least as trustworthy as you are, and far more well known than an anonymous E.E. like yourself.

This means that he will have had his work far more peer reviewed than you have had..

[sandyk]

28 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

This thread may be of interest:

 

http://sa-cd.net/showthread/31197//y?page=first

 

 

I found the attached on p.2 of your link of interest as it agrees with my own experiences in this area.

 

Quote

Even with severe hearing damage in the audible range you may still have the ability to perceive ultrasonic frequencies which we DO NOT perceive as "sound". Even young children cannot here above 25kHz, yet according to Prof. Johnson's research at Pacific Microsonics and others even though we cannot hear ultra-sonic frequencies as sound we do respond to frequencies up to 80kHz and notice when they are removed. In other words ultra-sonic frequencies are processed by our brains and effect the frequencies that we do hear.

Ultra-sonic research is helping deaf people to "hear" by shifting speech into the ultrasonic region where they can perceive it. Here are some links to the research

http://www.google.com/search?q=ultrasonics+and+the+hearing+impaired&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

[kumakuma]

8 minutes ago, sandyk said:

I found the attached on p.2 of your link of interest as it agrees with my own experiences in this area.

 

 

 

I'd be interested in reading Prof. Johnson's research. The Google search you linked to appears to be more about hearing damage from exposure to high frequencies. 

[asdf1000]

On 21/02/2018 at 9:26 AM, mansr said:

Yes, DSD256 is better still.

 

Any issues with increasing clock phase noise, as you go to DSD256 and then higher to DSD512?

 

I guess it depends on the clock used of course but do we know about clock phase noise performance of the iFi micro DACs? @jabbr 

 

I do agree DSD512 to the iDSD sounds nice though.. but are we liking something technically 'bad'? Nothing wrong with this of course.

 

[audiventory]

4 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

I checked out your site briefly, and it is very interesting to me, but I see your English is not so well.  It may make sense to find a friend that can update your site with better English...just a thought...It may help you gain sales.

Thank you for feedback. You are right about English level. I hope, the level of latest articles is above level of first ones

 

[esldude]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

Unfortunately, it's fact, and apparently forgotten  by many .

There were quite a few reports of amplifiers not being able to handle the fairly high level residual HF artifacts.

I went very  close to ordering a Sony 100K tweeter back then.

 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

We've been down this road before.  The first Sony player like others was 3db down at 40 khz rolling off steeply above that. Many rolled at 35 khz.  A few had extension to 50 khz.  The 100 khz thing was never realized.  

[marce]

8 hours ago, esldude said:

Was it possibly impulse testing?  They do impulse testing of infants.  They can tell by the way the reflection is shaped if the hearing mechanism is functioning or not. 

No they do a proper frequency sweep using special headphones (I had a go, strange) it bypasses the ear so they can determine whether the fault is mechanical with the ear or just how the hearing is wired. All the ch, s, t, sounds in my Son's case, so many years of speech therapy from the age of 4... Happy to say it worked. When I was down a Racal Acoustics one of the acoustic engineers had a system that played back speech with chosen frequency's missing, very interesting. We also did bone conduction headsets there.

It was the impulse tests that showed there was a problem from birth, they explained all that but it was 19 years ago, so dim and distant memory...

[beerandmusic]

2 hours ago, audiventory said:

Thank you for feedback. You are right about English level. I hope, the level of latest articles is above level of first ones

 

I don't know how good the google translators are, but i wonder if you write in your own language and convert it using google if it will be easier to follow...probably not, but just a thought.

i am curious about your ripper though...will look into more.

[Spacehound]

5 hours ago, Don Hills said:

 

"... the usual phase response of a shared converter player was shown. This produced a negligible phase difference at low and middle frequencies, rising to a maximum of 71 degrees at 20 kHz. As yet this has not been confirmed as being of any audible importance, unless the channels are mono-ed. ..."

- HFN&RR, March 1985.

I don't have the rest of the issue, so I could be wrong about the tester being Martin.

The Colloms never says anything critical . The  'industry' is his source of income.

70 degrees is a whole lot,  and he carefully avoids telling us what it was at 15KHz or so where it will be more noticeable..

[Spacehound]

3 hours ago, audiventory said:

Thank you for feedback. You are right about English level. I hope, the level of latest articles is above level of first ones

 

Your English is fine.  'Understandable'  is all that's needed.

(As  an English  person living in England  I think the American's is  not so 'perfect' either.)

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, esldude said:

We've been down this road before.  The first Sony player like others was 3db down at 40 khz rolling off steeply above that. Many rolled at 35 khz.  A few had extension to 50 khz.  The 100 khz thing was never realized.  

 

That is not my recollection. Do you remember the reports of the initial players causing quite a few amplifiers to burn out , and the availability of the special Sony stand alone Super tweeters with up to 100kHZ bandwidth ?

I do ! 

 

Quote

The SACD format is capable of delivering a dynamic range of 120 dB from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and an extended frequency response up to 100 kHz, although most currently available players list an upper limit of 70–90 kHz,^[22] and practical limits reduce this to 50 kHz.^[17] Because of the nature of sigma-delta converters, one cannot make a direct technical comparison between DSD and PCM. DSD's frequency response can be as high as 100 kHz, but frequencies that high compete with high levels of ultrasonic quantization noise.^[23] With appropriate low-pass filtering, a frequency response of 20 kHz can be achieved along with a dynamic range of nearly 120 dB, which is about the same dynamic range as PCM audio with a resolution of 20 bits.^{[citation needed]}

.

[semente]

10 hours ago, Spacehound said:

 

Our  military are all pretty ladies. So pretty they scare the hell out of ISIS.

That's nothing compared to the soon to be US army of armed schoolteachers. 

[semente]

7 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

Unfortunately, it's fact, and apparently forgotten  by many .

There were quite a few reports of amplifiers not being able to handle the fairly high level residual HF artifacts.

I went very  close to ordering a Sony 100K tweeter back then.

 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

 

Come on, most systems struggle to reproduce the audible band with reasonably high accuracy and people are worried about ultrasounds?

 

Talk about misplaced objectives...

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Come on, most systems struggle to reproduce the audible band with reasonably high accuracy and people are worried about ultrasounds?

 

Talk about misplaced objectives...

 

This had nothing to do with accuracy. The initial SACD players had fairly high level ultrasonic artifacts due to inadequate filtering, which some amplifiers didn't like, and burnt out tweeters, as well as in some cases burning out too !

[semente]

45 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

This had nothing to do with accuracy. The initial SACD players had fairly high level ultrasonic artifacts due to inadequate filtering, which some amplifiers didn't like, and burnt out tweeters, as well as in some cases burning out too !

 

I think that some of HQPlayer's noise shapping settings also produce very high level noise which may cause problems with hard-dome tweeters and wide-band transistor amplifiers.

[Spacehound]

7 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

He is at least as trustworthy as you are, and far more well known than an anonymous E.E. like yourself.

This means that he will have had his work far more peer reviewed than you have had..

When all else fails........

 

Trustworthy? It's how The Colloms   makes his money. Well known?  His dog knows him but the Beatles he ain't.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

That is not my recollection. Do you remember the reports of the initial players causing quite a few amplifiers to burn out , and the availability of the special Sony stand alone Super tweeters with up to 100kHZ bandwidth ?

I do ! 

 

.

No I don't.  I remember and you can still look up stereophile and other's measures of the players.  50 khz is it.

[Spacehound]

1 hour ago, semente said:

That's nothing compared to the soon to be US army of armed schoolteachers. 

We've got some  special forces too. Here's two of them at Paul Hines cottage getting the Iranian guy's power supply money back  to enhance 'friendly trade'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[semente]

4 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

We've got some  special forces too. Here's two of them at Paul Hines cottage getting the Iranian guy's power supply money back  to enhance 'friendly trade'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought you were going to mention the New Forest task force...