Lavry tech

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 s

I would appreciate something to support your assertion that my “surrounding statements really hurt” my credibility. 1.) “Interested in the facts?” is not a statement; it is a query with the specific goal of generating interest in a rather “dry subject” that has important implications for anyone serious about digital audio. It is relevant to the subject of the paper because the vast majority of “rebuttals” to Dan Lavry’s assertion that there is an optimal sample rate for high quality audio are based on opinion or subjective “test” results. We are not afraid of facts; and would be interested

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!”

Regarding: “One of [Lavry's] basic points, near the beginning, is that you don't get anywhere near a 24-bit word length due to inherent inaccuracies until you have a sample rate as low as 50-60 Hz. But several people here are totally ignoring this and talking about 24/192. So do you think he is just plain wrong on this?” There is accurate information and inaccurate information. One can produce 24 bits of information using any number of means; the paper was addressing the issue of accuracy. Yes, it is possible to get good results recording audio at 192kHz; but if it were possible t

In response to some of the statements in Jud’s most recent post, Dan Lavry has asked me to publish his response: Dan Lavry’s Response- The Sampling Theory paper does NOT suggest that there is any “permanent” bit depth limitation or any sample rate limitations. When I wrote the paper, I used the present day technology (8 bits at 100MHz or 16 bits at 1MHz) as a tool to point out that as the speed increases, the accuracy (thus the bit depth) decreases. Years ago, getting 8 bits at 1MHz was beyond the state of the art technology. It would be ridiculous for me to assume that we will (or will n