[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful

2012-03-06 Thread andyg
Monty at Xiph (Vorbis author) wrote a good article on ultra-high sampling rates with a great explanation on why no one needs or should want them. http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html -- andyg andyg's

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense

2012-03-06 Thread Wombat
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Someone linked to this interesting read coming from some man that has some knowledge about audio and what is audible or not. He is the main developer of the ogg codec and alone for that he should know 1 or 2 things :) A very interesting point

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful

2012-03-06 Thread Mnyb
Wombat beat you to the punch :) http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=694304#post694304 we have a tread already -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 24/192 Music Downloads ...and why they make no sense

2012-03-06 Thread Mnyb
Thanks will keep it in my sig for a while , my blatherinmg fills the forum anyway so it could spread this a while -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful

2012-03-06 Thread andyg
Mine was first, I win. :) -- andyg andyg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3292 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful

2012-03-06 Thread pippin
I only trust my ears!! ;) -- pippin --- see iPeng, the Squeezebox iPhone remote and *New: iPeng for iPad*, at penguinlovesmusic.com pippin's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13777 View this

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful

2012-03-06 Thread maggior
Thanks Andy for the link to a very interesting article. Parts of it were over my head (he kind of lost me in his discussion of oversampling), but overall he makes a lot of sense. Hopefully knowledgable people like him can bring some sanity to the situation. 24 bit/128kHz formats seemed like

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful

2012-03-06 Thread Mnyb
pippin;694316 Wrote: I only trust my ears!! ;) http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/penguin/senses.htm -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful

2012-03-06 Thread JJZolx
pippin;694316 Wrote: I only trust my ears!! Not me. I wake up every day with a burning desire to have someone else tell me what I can and cannot hear. -- JJZolx JJZolx's Profile:

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful

2012-03-06 Thread Phil Leigh
andyg;694290 Wrote: Monty at Xiph (Vorbis author) wrote a good article on ultra-high sampling rates with a great explanation on why no one needs or should want them. http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Wow - great article, pretty much sums up most of what I believe and

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful

2012-03-06 Thread darrenyeats
Touche. Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch darrenyeats's

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful

2012-03-06 Thread Mnyb
..except it's not about what you and I can hear, it is about what any human being can not hear . Thus why a support structure for 192kHz as a consumer format is a total waste and why it will be a unlikely feature on a price limited product as a squeezebox why have a feature that in best case is

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful

2012-03-06 Thread Mnyb
I do remember that Quad always bandwidth limited their amps in stark contrast to the slewerate fad that was the buzz word in amp design in the 80's ? -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful

2012-03-06 Thread Phil Leigh
pippin;694316 Wrote: I only trust my ears!! ;) Thre are only 3 senses you can trust and sight and sound aren't 2 of those... :-) -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/W7)+Teddy Pardo PSU - Audiolense

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful

2012-03-06 Thread Mnyb
Phil Leigh;694352 Wrote: Thre are only 3 senses you can trust and sight and sound aren't 2 of those... :-) Really I can't have any of those :D then , smell no touch no temperature no taste no -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch +

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful

2012-03-06 Thread DaveWr
Here's another doc from the (in)famous Dan Lavry. Same idea and explanation. http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf -- DaveWr DaveWr's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9331

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] RC (Inguz etc.)

2012-03-06 Thread bobertuk
Hi Phil (Leigh), I don't know if you are still reading this thread but if you are I'd like to ask you a question. I had a go at getting Inguz up and running on a QNAP NAS but after a long time trying gave up. I got partway there but InguzDSP.exe doesn't seem to like the QNAP environment. So I

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful

2012-03-06 Thread Bytec
andyg;694290 Wrote: Monty at Xiph (Vorbis author) wrote a good article on ultra-high sampling rates with a great explanation on why no one needs or should want them. http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Super good article! :) It nicely sums up all the audio related

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful

2012-03-06 Thread pippin
mnyb;694320 Wrote: http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/penguin/senses.htm :d -- pippin --- see iPeng, the Squeezebox iPhone remote and *New: iPeng for iPad*, at penguinlovesmusic.com pippin's Profile:

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192 downsampling when decoding at server side

2012-03-06 Thread JohnSwenson
I've looked carefully into the 192 issue with the Touch and I see no hardware reason why it cannot be done. The crystals are the correct frequencies, the reclocking flops will easily work with those frequencies etc. The only hardware issue might be TOSLINK. Very few TOLINK receivers have a high

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful

2012-03-06 Thread mlsstl
Great article! I especially like his vision analogy. I'm still waiting for some extra infrared and UV bandwidth for my TV. When are those broadcasters going to get their act together? Right now I'm listening to The Glory of Gabrieli by the Empire Brass Quintet, from an ordinary Red Book CD

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192 downsampling when decoding at server side

2012-03-06 Thread eduardoo
JohnSwenson;694423 Wrote: I've looked carefully into the 192 issue with the Touch and I see no hardware reason why it cannot be done. The crystals are the correct frequencies, the reclocking flops will easily work with those frequencies etc. The only hardware issue might be TOSLINK. Very few

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0

2012-03-06 Thread eduardoo
I just joined the SBT bandwagon last week, hopping on from a Duet which has given me a lot of good times in the last few years. My SBT is connected via wifi to LMS and coax into an Esoteric K-03 as DAC. I also have the custom PS built for my Duet back then adjusted to 5V for the SBT. Hearing

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192 downsampling when decoding at server side

2012-03-06 Thread Mnyb
You are trading a solution to a no problem for a real problem with the FLAC PCM setting . (This wisdom is taken from a guy who actually claims that the server OS makes an audible difference in a squeezebox system . What x factor makes people trust this guy ? ). There is a tradition in

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful

2012-03-06 Thread bhaagensen
Its a nice read and he's probably right in his conclusions - however one of his main poinsts, as I see it, can not be inferred (only) from what he's writing. In particular, the reconstruction of a discrete signal into a continuous one c.f. Nyquist. In fact to the contrary - the reconstruction