Mnyb wrote: > Hi there , Dan Lavrys white paper on the issue . > > http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-white-paper-the_optimal_sample_rate_for_quality_audio.pdf > > And on sampling > http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-theory.pdf > > Even in an ideal world you just get 3dB more noise each time the > bandwith doubles and increase suspectability for other stuff to get > picked up while recording , so more noise for nothing in the best case , > in practice it is worse with real world equipment according to mr lavry > .
Thanks Mnyb, I remember coming across the PDF awhile ago but was unaware it was just released in May 2012! Pretty bold of Mr. Lavry to go on the record with this... Will have to add to my audiophile readings collection. Specs aside, I wonder if we've had a good / serious discussion here around the question of what as "audiophiles" we're trying to accomplish with our gear. As one more in the objectivist camp, I'm personally striving for "accuracy" with reasonable specs which exceed my hearing capacity so I'm pretty sure I'm "not missing anything" through the electronics. Once I think this is achieved, I'm not really interested in owning the next "upgrade" unless I'm pretty sure it brings something beneficial to the table. Sure I'm interested in what's new and would happily join friends in auditioning gear, but unless I really think it makes a difference, there's really no need to own it. On the software side, I like to obtain the best mastering so enjoy picking up some MoFi, Audio Fidelity, old DCC's, maybe the "first pressing" before remasters killed dynamics. As a point of reference, I don't necessarily consider the "live music" as something I strive to replicate (listen to live music almost every week), I expect the best I can do is replicate the "mic feed" as best I can in my home which one cannot reasonably expect would sound exactly like the live event (and that's assuming a direct-to-digital recording without fancy EQ and other studio effects). In fact, what I hear at home often is better than my seat at the live event already :-) On the other hand, I know many audiophiles want a euphonic sound. Tube gear and vinyl lovers I think must follow this philosophy. Curious what is that philosophy and "point of reference" being used in that situation? Note that I'm not saying anything about one viewpoint being "superior"; rather just wanting to hear the viewpoints. Regarding Lavry's claims though, I imagine if he is correct that 24/192 achieves nothing but potentially worsen audio quality, then neither objectivist or subjectivist should insist on 24/192! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98044 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
