Alfafa;378993 Wrote: > > How can you state as a hard fact that it would never be audible? The > higher samplerate would reproduce the original with a higher > resolution. I can't say that I can hear because I haven't heard 96kHz > and 192kHz side by side > > In theory I would think that a digital signal with a much higher > resolution would allowing not doing so much filtering afterwards? >
AFAIK the filtering is an unavoidable aspect of digital-to-analog conversion. And anyway that problem is handled by oversampling. The AKM supports 128x; I don't know how much the TP does, but for sure some x. But really, apart from the higher numbers, what information do you think that the higher resolution can capture that e.g. 24/96 can not? And which parts of that information do you think humans can actually hear? > > Have you heard 96/192 side by side? And then I just thinks it is a > little weird that the D/A can do 192, but then not use it. ex. you > could upsample all material to 192...like some of the Thule Audio stuff > does. > Yes, and apart from the filtering aspect I think that frequency upsampling is a highly debatable "tweak". Resolution upsampling may make more sense. Anyway upsampling/oversampling is a far different beast than actually supporting super high-res files through the entire chain. I.e. from the server over the network to the target. Btw. the SB3 and Duet also has DAC's that supports at least up to 24/96, but end-to-end support is at most 24/48. > > Yes you could downsample if 192kHz to lower rates, but that would be > stupid imho - then I would much prefer the source material in lower > bitrates and skip samplerate conversion which is a destructive > operation (converting from 48 to 44.1 is known not to be > optimal...actually read it was better upsampling to 88.2 and then to > 44.1) > > I don't say I can hear the difference, but a lot of studio equipment > today is running 192kHz. So if someone would make a "full quality > studio master" available then 192kHz would be useful > But end-users do not have the same advanced needs as studios do. Anyway I have some 24/96 files that I have downsampled to 24/48 and compared on my TP. I can't tell them apart, much less reliably do so. I'm afraid we can keep on discussing this forever. The point is that I really recommend that you use the oppertunity you have to find out yourself. Borrow the TP for a week or two and try it out. Get some 24/96 files from e.g. the Linn Store and play around with downsampling and compare. If you can't here any difference and if you like the sound of the TP, then reconsider what you stand to gain from dropping a device you like just for the one feature of supporting more than 24/96. I understand that in the uncertain world of high-fi, it is comforting to be able to justify ones investments by comparing hard numbers and that in that respect 24/192 sounds "much better" than 24/96. But in the end it should be more important what you actually hear. And you can rest assure that 24/96 is already very good. > > And if we look at the history of recording companies - they aren't even > using the potential of CD ;-) Ruining it with to much dynamic > compression etc. > And that is why we should worry much more about the recording quality than whether the gear supports ultra-high resolution formats. Fyi. Linn have a few 24/192 albums in their online store. Bjørn -- bhaagensen ------------------------------------------------------------------------ bhaagensen's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7418 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57631
_______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
