Upgrade to 192k

[Chris_87]

I'm thinking about upgrading my setup from 96k to 192k.

My Setup uses a Tascam ML-16D and a PC running Reaper and serveral convolution plugins as crossover / room correction. There is also an old Apogee Rosetta 200 A/D D/A Converter which feeds the headphone amp and takes the signals of the analog sources.

 

Thought about replacing the Tascam with a Focusrite Rednet 2 Converter and the Apogee Rosetta 2oo with a Lynx Hilo

 

[AudioDoctor]

Are you recording music?

[Chris_87]

I don't record music. Sometimes I do a needledrop thats it

[AudioDoctor]

Ok, let me ask you this then. Is your goal just higher res or better sound? What do the other boxes do that the Hilo doesn't?

[Chris_87]

My primary goal is better sound especially the Tascam is IMHO only an entry level device. The Apogee probably only needs a new AES/EBU to Dante converter in a new setup. I'm still satisfied with its performance after 15 years.

 

10 channels of the Tascam are connected to the VCA Controller Power amplifiers. 3x3 Channels for the active stereo fronts, the dedicated active mono front and the subwoofer channel. Channel 11-15 are empty and channel 15-16 are connected to my headphone amplifier.

[AudioDoctor]

Thats far above my simple as possible musical chain understanding so I will bow out and hope someone else has the answers you're looking for. Good Luck.

[rando]

11 hours ago, Chris_87 said:

I'm thinking about upgrading my setup from 96k to 192k.

 

Have you looked at any consumer side convolution/room correction or playback software, DAC, etc.  Digital chains we discuss here can handle 44/48/88/96/176/192/352/384/704/768 or even higher if you want it for PCM files.  DSD up to x512 CD resolution is well covered too.  

 

Just taking a stab based on your few posts in here.  IF change is something you'd consider I'd track down some vinyl ripped into say 192k and DSD128 to compare with your 96k files.  Newer and bigger is still dependent on system matching and getting all the variables right to work as it should.  The sound you enjoy is what should be focused on as you look to replace parts of your playback chain.

 

 

My guess is you want to build off the pro equipment you have.  This is realistically not the place to explore that.  

 

[bluesman]

12 hours ago, Chris_87 said:

the Tascam is IMHO only an entry level device

Your TASCAM is hardly an entry level device to audiophiles.  It's a professional Dante interface - don't confuse sampling rate with sophistication and quality.  While it's true that the converter is not the world's best AD-DA, it's excellent equipment and absolutely as good as the vast majority of consumer converters used by audiophiles (and much better than many).  I can't imagine that the cost of going from 96 to 192 is justified by SQ, and there's no other reason I can see for buying a Rednet 2 if the TASCAM meets the needs for which you bought it.  The Rednet 2 has no more capability or functionality than your TASCAM except for 192k capability, and you should be able to get excellent SQ from good 96k files.

 

The Rednet 2 is  also excellent, but its main (and perhaps only) "advantage" for you seems to be that it goes to 192.  Unless you're adding or changing your system otherwise, I don't think you'll get noticeably better SQ from it.  It's $3k as I recall, and it's "just" an AD-DA converter and Dante interface.  It doesn't do anything more than your TASCAM does - it just may do it a tiny bit better under ideal circumstances.  I doubt that you'll notice any significant difference at all, let alone one worth the cost of new equipment.

[Chris_87]

Hi Rando

 

I've looked at consumer grade DACs and correction systems a few times in the past but didn't found something that could handle the crossover. Going with consumer gear instead of the pro gear is not planned.

 

@bluesman

I played a little bit around with the Apogee Roseta 200, a turntable and the headphone amp. SQ doesn't change that much between 96k24 or 192k24 while switching resolutions. Sticking with the current setup seems to be the best option now and getting a new cartridge instead.

[cjf]

I'm a fan of Pro gear and wish I would have went that route to begin with back in the day when I started my audio journey. It would have certainly saved me a fortune along the way. My current system is a mix of both Pro gear and "Audiophile" gear. Without the Pro gear in the mix I couldn't do half of the stuff I need to do with the system in terms of channel count and flexibility..etc.

 

I use 24/192 exclusively for everything even though my DAC can do up to DSD256. If I were limited to only 24/96 I think it wouldn't bother me either but I find 24/192 to sound just a hair better to these ears. Nothing major though.

 

I'm doing 24/192 mainly because the Hilo I own is limited to 24/192 for its AD Input which I use to create convolution filters and take room acoustic measurements. If I find an extra $2500 lying around some day I will probably sell off the Hilo and buy the AD Card for my Merging Hapi converter mainly because the Hilo's channel count is on the low side for what I need but with some creativity it can still be utilized for higher channel count needs (via its AES output to feed yet another 2ch DAC).

 

Long story short, if your main reason to buy something else was for SQ improvement I don't think the Sample Rate alone can justify the cost but the DA Converter chips being used between the devices under consideration just might make it worth it.

 

Only a close comparison test between them all will tell the tale using your own ears, room and supporting equipment.

[bluesman]

1 hour ago, Chris_87 said:

Sticking with the current setup seems to be the best option now and getting a new cartridge instead.

That’s what I’d do.  What you have is very fine.  FWIW, I’m a professional musician and have used TASCAM in my home studio for years.  I stopped only because TASCAM has barely accommodated Linux and I switched from Windows for my DAWs several years ago.  To be honest, they simply didn’t care about Linux, and I’d just bought an 1800 interface that became useless when I went to Ubuntu.  

[rando]

1 hour ago, Chris_87 said:

Hi Rando

 

I've looked at consumer grade DACs and correction systems a few times in the past but didn't found something that could handle the crossover. Going with consumer gear instead of the pro gear is not planned.

 

Consider finding a very high quality DSD128 needledrop done using a well paired mix of higher end consumer and pro equipment and equal amount of skill moving raw captures inside the requisite programs.  DAC which can play that back are becoming increasingly commonplace.  

 

In any case a new cartridge never hurts.

[StephenJK]

On 4/20/2021 at 8:16 PM, rando said:

 

Consider finding a very high quality DSD128 needledrop done using a well paired mix of higher end consumer and pro equipment and equal amount of skill moving raw captures inside the requisite programs.  DAC which can play that back are becoming increasingly commonplace.  

 

In any case a new cartridge never hurts.

It's interesting that DACs are available with sample rates that seem to be based on marketing needs more than practicality.  I don't think anyone here will argue that 16/44.1 has some obvious limitations, but how high a sampling frequency do you really need to fully capture the analog sound?

 

I recorded a number of LPs using a Korg MR-2000S unit - essentially pro sound gear suitable for recording a two track (or multiple track if chained together) master sound file.  I recorded at the highest possible resolution of 1 bit/5.66 MHz DSD.  I then converted a number of those files into 24/96 and 24/192 FLAC versions. 

 

With my system, and with my ears, I could not tell any difference between the two - on a number of tracks and different types of music they sounded the same.  I ended up mastering all recordings at 24/96.  With those, and the system I had at the time, I could select either turntable or DAC input using a remote, and with even more tests using 24/96 (with matched volume) could not hear any difference.

 

I really wonder if there are benefits to higher and higher sampling frequencies, or DSD over PCM, and appreciate that when comparing two DACs they will both have a different sound because of their analog side, not necessarily because of the digital input.  

 

Of course, you can't sell people something they already have, so new features are always needed.  

[firedog]

41 minutes ago, StephenJK said:

I don't think anyone here will argue that 16/44.1 has some obvious limitations, but how high a sampling frequency do you really need to fully capture the analog sound?

I'm not positive it has limitations other than the quality of the recording and mastering.

sampling frequency-for some people and some systems - there's a preference for  sound of high sample rate frequency/high upsampling. It's possible that for some people on some systems this sounds better.

[rando]

3 hours ago, StephenJK said:

It's interesting that DACs are available with sample rates that seem to be based on marketing needs more than practicality. 

 

It is?  There might be some misunderstanding if you were operating off the premise that type of product was being unreservedly promoted.  What is potentially worthy of some developed interest is progress in the digital realm.  Ability to play back DSD at rates it was issued on disc or above a decade or more later seems realistic enough to pass the sniff test.  Practical even.

 

3 hours ago, StephenJK said:

I recorded a number of LPs using a Korg MR-2000S unit - essentially pro sound gear

 

Essentially lower grade pro-sumer and given placement I'm driven to wonder if not quite in line with your complaint quoted above per marketing overruling implementation.  Tacked on feature set enabled by downgraded version of program and a few lines in firmware.  Good enough for modern "re-represses" in your basement.  Which it's in the pro sides interest to squelch impeccable quality coming through on without some serious work.

 

3 hours ago, StephenJK said:

I recorded at the highest possible resolution of 1 bit/5.66 MHz DSD.  I then converted a number of those files into 24/96 and 24/192 FLAC versions. 

 

But how, how did you convert it to a compressed format?  Much less why did you compress it?  I could head right on down that list of normally perceived as insulting checklist items while regaling you with superior attitudes.  That is so far from what I was suggesting it needs to be stricken.  Aside from the two questions I did pose.  It is the quality preserved not the numbers expressed that matters.  OR if you really want to escape the bland consumer focused numbers, how good the math behind these transitions is.

 

The test was if the person I responded to first off heard a difference in the DSD128 files.  Second if this mattered enough to pursue.  Very simple and exploratory, enjoyable, pursuit anyone into the type of stuff comprising his playback system might care to consider.  Point being going from 16 bit to 24 or even FP is where the magic happens.  Not from 44/48 → [insert exponentially larger 3 or 4 digit number].  

 

[StephenJK]

On 5/2/2021 at 9:59 AM, rando said:

 

It is?  There might be some misunderstanding if you were operating off the premise that type of product was being unreservedly promoted.  What is potentially worthy of some developed interest is progress in the digital realm.  Ability to play back DSD at rates it was issued on disc or above a decade or more later seems realistic enough to pass the sniff test.  Practical even.

 

 

Essentially lower grade pro-sumer and given placement I'm driven to wonder if not quite in line with your complaint quoted above per marketing overruling implementation.  Tacked on feature set enabled by downgraded version of program and a few lines in firmware.  Good enough for modern "re-represses" in your basement.  Which it's in the pro sides interest to squelch impeccable quality coming through on without some serious work.

 

 

But how, how did you convert it to a compressed format?  Much less why did you compress it?  I could head right on down that list of normally perceived as insulting checklist items while regaling you with superior attitudes.  That is so far from what I was suggesting it needs to be stricken.  Aside from the two questions I did pose.  It is the quality preserved not the numbers expressed that matters.  OR if you really want to escape the bland consumer focused numbers, how good the math behind these transitions is.

 

The test was if the person I responded to first off heard a difference in the DSD128 files.  Second if this mattered enough to pursue.  Very simple and exploratory, enjoyable, pursuit anyone into the type of stuff comprising his playback system might care to consider.  Point being going from 16 bit to 24 or even FP is where the magic happens.  Not from 44/48 → [insert exponentially larger 3 or 4 digit number].  

 

My point was simply that chasing after ever higher numbers and buying new fancy gear to be able to play material with those numbers doesn't necessarily give you better sound. 

 

In my case that was the goal - to have digital playback identical to the LP playback and I did achieve that to my satisfaction.  

 

Read whatever you want into that because that's just like uh, your opinion, man.

[StephenJK]

On 5/2/2021 at 6:48 AM, firedog said:

I'm not positive it has limitations other than the quality of the recording and mastering.

sampling frequency-for some people and some systems - there's a preference for  sound of high sample rate frequency/high upsampling. It's possible that for some people on some systems this sounds better.

Exactly.  While I was never a big fan of CDs there was more than the odd one that sounded really good. 

 

Without opening that whole subjective/objective jackpot again, it does make you wonder if someone who bought an expensive DSD DAC and expensive albums will obviously hear a difference.  

 

The objective types will tell you that any difference in sound must be measurable, and I tend to agree with that.  However, when we get into the territory of "sonic artifacts" and "harmonic nuances" then I step back.  

 

Long story short.  To the OP - I, personally, only me over here would struggle mightily to justify spending a lot of money on hardware that would allow me to play 24/192 as opposed to 24/96 because I don't hear a freakin' difference.  

 

Edit:  Not that it matters, equipment list.

 

Clearaudio Innovation Compact turntable with Universal tonearm & VTA Lifter, Dynavector Te Kaitora Rua cartridge.

 

Devialet Expert Pro 440 monoblocks, with Core Infinity upgrade.

 

KEF Blade speakers.

 

Fancy, high cost power and signal cables all bought on sale.