Julf wrote:
Not really. Software keeps getting increasingly big and bloated (and RAM
price keeps dropping), but human hearing hasn't changed much in the last
couple of thousands of years - and if it has changed, it has probably
changed for the worse because of all the noise exposure.
Not
michael123 wrote:
Not really - what?
Funny.
Did you read the original statement?
Yes.
Now, about every album coming from HDTracks or Linn is in 192/24.
Any numbers to support that statement? Most of what I see coming from
both places is 48/24 at best.
And some of it is unfortunately
Haven't noticed any sox performance problems on my microserver ?
HD tracks also offer 24/96 version of most thier hi-Rez or even a
pedestrian 16/44.1 version .
But given HD tracks proven bussiness ethics , there is no way to know
how any of them are mastered or if the differents version is from
... But are we on another topic , someone resurected this old tread to
discuss eventual sonically benefits of 24/192 and flaunted some common
misunderstanding of sampling ?
The bussiness case for 24/192 is another topic if someone sells and
there are buyers there is some kind of market for
Mnyb wrote:
Progress will come with a mass market lossles standard ,we begin there
,no need for hirez just lossles that would be excellent .
Not to mention CD/Redbook material that isn't compressed and
remastered to death...
Eric Seaberg wrote:
Very few studios are tracking at 96k let alone 192k! The amount of
required storage space is HUGE. Some of the best engineers in the
business have said 96k isn't worth it, but the jump to 192k is getting
close.
STILL, no one is going to buy it. Look at how the
michael123 wrote:
And after 3 years, this sounds just as funny as 640K ought to be enough
for anybody.
:)
Not really. Software keeps getting increasingly big and bloated (and RAM
price keeps dropping), but human hearing hasn't changed much in the last
couple of thousands of years - and if it
Julf wrote:
Not really. Software keeps getting increasingly big and bloated (and RAM
price keeps dropping), but human hearing hasn't changed much in the last
couple of thousands of years - and if it has changed, it has probably
changed for the worse because of all the noise exposure.
Yes
Mnyb wrote:
Yes the limit is biological/biomechanical , any improvement are likely
to come from improved studio equipment, no equipment i know of have come
close the limit implied by 24bit for example 144dB sn ratio .
So the format is also transparent to all audio equipment used ,it is
Mnyb wrote:
in fact all the reasoning you cited (cant find that post ) is clearly
the usual spiel from someone who actually don't understand the sample
theorem and is influnced by audiophile beliefs .
Yes - the next thing he will be claiming is that you get a clearer and
shinier sound by
Julf wrote:
Yes - the next thing he will be claiming is that you get a clearer and
shinier sound by using USB cables with silver instead of copper wires.
A lot of old-school audiophiles don't understand digital technology, but
still apply their analog-age beliefs to digital.
I still
Mnyb wrote:
And this used to be a nice hobby and past time, something really bad
happened a couple of decades ago.
You might be right. The National Science Foundation stated that
pseudoscientific beliefs in the U.S. became more widespread during the
1990s, peaked near 2001, and declined
Good times and we're all in agreement :)
But.
The one-liner scientific argument (Nyquist) doesn't carry through to the
end (the analog outputs of Your DAC). While Nyquist is a very nice
result, its theoretical and for practical purposes, non-constructive. So
an implementation is forced to take
bhaagensen wrote:
Good times and we're all in agreement :)
But.
The one-liner scientific argument (Nyquist) doesn't carry through to the
end (the analog outputs of Your DAC). While Nyquist is a very nice
result, its theoretical and for practical purposes, non-constructive. So
an
Mnyb wrote:
So given modern studios the CD's or downloads is a mathematical exercise
so imo it is close to the theory
Maybe, but you can't argue that by referring to (only) Nyquist - the
main point of my first post.
Mnyb wrote:
And have a listen , in practice I do this now and then I
bhaagensen wrote:
Maybe, but you can't argue that by referring to (only) Nyquist - the
main point of my first post.
Definitive is a strong word, but how about maybe...?
Usually, but not always, and by who's count - oh my head hurts :)
That begs the question - suppose there
Mnyb wrote:
Well, funny enough, I downloaded a bunch of 24-bit hi-res downloads
Bowers Wilkins Society of Sound site after a bunch of audiophiles
described them in superlative terms and wrote about how much better they
were than the normal 16-bit material. I guess you are not surprised
bhaagensen wrote:
Maybe, but you can't argue that by referring to (only) Nyquist - the
main point of my first post.
I think you can. Remember Nyquist (or, more formally, the
NyquistShannon sampling theorem) states that If a function x(t)
contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is
:) enjoy your coffee mnyb! I am listening to some recently released
stuff i havent bought yet on Spotify in shrug Mp3...
bhaagensen's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7418
View this thread:
Julf wrote:
I think you can. Remember Nyquist (or, more formally, the
NyquistShannon sampling theorem) states that If a function x(t)
contains no frequencies higher than B hertz, it is completely determined
by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced 1/(2B) seconds
apart.
Julf wrote:
Well, funny enough, I downloaded a bunch of 24-bit hi-res downloads
Bowers Wilkins Society of Sound site after a bunch of audiophiles
described them in superlative terms and wrote about how much better they
were than the normal 16-bit material. I guess you are not surprised to
Mnyb wrote:
in reality no clock does 1/(2B) perfectly so the actual nyqkvist
frequency may fluctuate slightly so in practical implementation you
leave a little slush margin.
Sure - engineering is applying the science in real world situations. But
that doesn't make the science invalid or
Julf wrote:
Sure - engineering is applying the science in real world situations. But
that doesn't make the science invalid or irrelevant in any way. The
NyquistShannon sampling theorem still applies 100%.
Yes i agree 100% and that extends to all laws of physics there is no
special laws of
Mnyb wrote:
quantum
But I guess this is the point. There is some wiggly room in the
interface where science meets the real world. And I know, in the
sciences its usually controlled and abstracted using some kind of
error-model, but such error models can't be denied of being extremely
bhaagensen wrote:
But I guess this is the point. There is some wiggly room in the
interface where science meets the real world. And I know, in the
sciences its usually controlled and abstracted using some kind of
error-model, but such error models can't be denied of being extremely
Neh :) Of course, a claim - wether positive or negative - presented
without argument is not worth a penny. But this just resolves into what
constitutes an argument. Here traditions vary depending on the science,
and I'm sure some audiophile story-tellers are in fact able to present
sequences
bhaagensen wrote:
But I guess this is the point. There is some wiggly room in the
interface where science meets the real world. And I know, in the
sciences its usually controlled and abstracted using some kind of
error-model, but such error models can't be denied of being extremely
Phil Leigh wrote:
In terms of AUDIO, 44.1khz sampling is all that is needed to capture the
information. (refer Shannon et al - Information Theory). The key
assumption being that the Nyquist frequency of 44.1 divided by 2 is
adequate. If we only want frequencies up to a max of 22.050Khz then
Lupin, you don't understand Nyquist!
There are other objections, but yours is just plain wrong.
bhaagensen's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7418
View this thread:
lupin..the..3rd wrote:
This looks like an old thread, however it turned up on a recent google
search, as I was looking for the possibility of 24/192 playback from my
Transporter. I thought I'd add some information here and clear up some
misconceptions.
Nyquist has really no place in any
ralphpnj wrote:
Why stop at only 8 points? How about 8K points? Of course with 8K
(8,000) points one would need a sampling rate of 192,000khz for a 24khz
frequency but man would it sound smooth!
All kidding aside, please post any links which show conclusive proof of
why an 8X sampling
cmarin;473353 Wrote:
And IMHO high res files are the wave of the future.
It seems the OP has left this thread, but I had to respond to this.
Very few studios are tracking at 96k let alone 192k! The amount of
required storage space is HUGE. Some of the best engineers in the
business have
I like Ethan's writeup. The comb filtering effect he describes is
interesting and I want to learn more about that. Skimming through the
article I didn't see any mention of sampling frequencies and bit depth.
I wonder if he feels he hears any difference between 24/96 and 24/192?
I looked back
Your digital photography analogy doesn't work. The Information that
can be captured in an image is much, much greater and inherently more
complex than ANY audio requirement. Light and sound are very different
beasts!
In terms of AUDIO, 44.1khz sampling is all that is needed to capture
the
tv69;476340 Wrote:
A file recorded at 24/192 holds more information that 24/96.
The only information that 24/192 holds which is not present in 24/96
are frequencies above 48kHz.
Perhaps that might be of significance to bats - I personally don't
care, since my hearing maxes out around the 16kHz
Phil Leigh;476362 Wrote:
By the way, I have lots of shm cd's and most of them sound better than
their non-shm equivalents. One thing I have noticed but haven't had time
to drill into yet is that the equivalent FLAC files tend to be somewhat
(5% ish) larger... This implies a difference in
Themis;476383 Wrote:
I've examined this, as I have some shm myself. Your assumption is right:
shm discs use the best sounding mastering existing. Sometimes, this
mastering is hard (if not impossible) to find on normal CDs.
On certain disks, however, where the mastering can be identical to
Phil Leigh;476394 Wrote:
One thing of note: In my experience, the differences we are talking
about here are bigger than differences between DAC's and amps - not
subtle ones.
Yes, you're right. Big differences, thus not media/dac differences,
rather mastering differences.
SHM use very good
Themis;476395 Wrote:
Yes, you're right. Big differences, thus not media/dac differences,
rather mastering differences.
SHM use very good masters, indeed.
It's a pity they are so hard to get hold of... (in the UK)
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a
Phil Leigh;476412 Wrote:
It's a pity they are so hard to get hold of... (in the UK)
I buy mine on ebay. ;)
for instance:
http://stores.shop.ebay.com.my/tokyodreamdisc-store__W0QQ_armrsZ1
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
Themis;476421 Wrote:
I buy mine on ebay. ;)
for instance:
http://stores.shop.ebay.com.my/tokyodreamdisc-store__W0QQ_armrsZ1
There are cheaper places, these days price seems going up, though...
Thanks - very helpful (and costly to me...)
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path
Phil Leigh;476444 Wrote:
Thanks - very helpful (and costly to me...)
You're welcome. Prices have almost doubled since last year. Perhaps it
has to do with $$ exchange rate... I don't know..
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
Yes, well, sometimes I wonder what am I listening to :
http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
Themis's Profile:
pfarrell;473359 Wrote:
There is nothing close to a 50kHz signal
on any vinyl record
You're forgetting about CD-4 quadraphonic and its
way-up-there-somewhere-or-other carrier.
I suppose mega-crazy sampling rates would be useful for archiving
those, though I don't know of any demodulators that
ralphpnj;473497 Wrote:
My previous post was more a swipe at Computer Audiophile than at you. I
apologize if I offended you since that was not my intent.
Since you are very new to this forum and this particular section of the
forum perhaps you should be informed that many of the loudest
cmarin;473482 Wrote:
For what it's worth, I find the Transporter to be an excellent server
and use it to send its digital output to an outboard dac. My own model
is a modwright transporter with a wonderful tube/analog output section.
If it could handle 24/192 files, IMHO it would be an
Mr. Farrel,
The better musical experience reported by some listeners (including
professional critics) of higher resolution files in resolving systems
IMHO is well documented.
My concern, and I believe the concern of most audiophiles, is simply to
have a more enjoyable musical listening
cmarin;473375 Wrote:
...I believe the concern of most audiophiles, is simply to have a more
enjoyable musical listening experience; not to brag that their
experience is better than yours or to engage in endless arguments about
why a listener's subjective listening experience is fraudalent
Differentiate between recording and playback when discussing this.
For playback imho 24/96 should be everything a human being ever needs
.
To record at 24/192 for further processing is good practice. It's often
forgotten in the audiophile debate that A to D recording is much harder
(brick wall
cmarin;473353 Wrote:
If you're interested in learning more about the quality of high
resolution files please go to www.computeraudiophile.com. You will also
find discussions/links on the relative quality of music files at
different resolutions from 16/44.1kHz to 24/96 and higher, as well as
ralphpnj;473473 Wrote:
Quick question:
Since it appears that you are familiar with and have actually
read/followed the musings of the Computer Audiophile, what the hack are
doing asking questions on this forum about the lowly mid-fi SqueezeBox
products? Doesn't iTunes and the Airport
cmarin;473482 Wrote:
Actually the only question I posed was whether anyone knew if Logitech
had plans to upgrade the Transporter to handle 24/192 files. I figured
this was the appropriate forum to ask the question. Perhaps I made a
mistake.
For what it's worth, I find the Transporter to
cmarin wrote:
For what it's worth, I find the Transporter to be an excellent server
and use it to send its digital output to an outboard dac. My own model
is a modwright transporter with a wonderful tube/analog output section.
If it could handle 24/192 files, IMHO it would be an excellent
The reason some of us look for a scientific explanation is simply
because - the last time I looked - we are talking about a fundamentally
scientific subject. I see no alchemy or witchcraft here...
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what
cmarin wrote:
The better musical experience reported by some listeners (including
professional critics) of higher resolution files in resolving systems
IMHO is well documented.
Better musical experience has been reported using $2000 speaker cables.
I do not believe that there is any actual
pfarrell;473507 Wrote:
...And there is no serious evidence that there is any signal that would
benefit from the 96 kHz bandwidth of the 24/192 size over the 48kHz
bandwidth that 24/96 provides...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the frequency bandwidth defined by
the number of bits (in
Mr_Sukebe wrote:
pfarrell;473507 Wrote:
...And there is no serious evidence that there is any signal that would
benefit from the 96 kHz bandwidth of the 24/192 size over the 48kHz
bandwidth that 24/96 provides...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the frequency bandwidth defined by
the
I might have missed previous posts, but does any one know if Logitech
intends to upgrade the ability of the Transporter to handle higher
resolution (e.g., 24 bit/192kHz) files? I'm currently feeding my
modwright transporter's digital signal to a playback designs DAC and
would like to have the
That's never going to happen. In others words, no. You may want to
consider the Touch if you are using an external dac anyway.
--
bhaagensen
bhaagensen's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7418
View
Who is the manufacturer of the Touch? And does it provide 24/192kHz
capability?
--
cmarin
cmarin's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=19133
View this thread:
cmarin;473244 Wrote:
Who is the manufacturer of the Touch? And does it provide 24/192kHz
capability?
The Touch is the upcoming new Squeezebox, and won't support 24/192
files.
The only streamer I'm aware of that will support such high res files
are the Linn DS kit.
--
Mr_Sukebe
SB3,
Just adding that the Touch will support up to 24/96
--
bhaagensen
bhaagensen's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7418
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=69882
I am familiar with the blue smoke music server that handles 24/192kHz
and provides on the fly upsampling conversion as well; and of course you
also have computer based severs. Too bad about the limitation on the
transporter. I guess the economics are not sufficient to compell
logitech to upgrade
cmarin wrote:
I am familiar with the blue smoke music server that handles 24/192kHz
and provides on the fly upsampling conversion as well; and of course you
also have computer based severs. Too bad about the limitation on the
transporter. I guess the economics are not sufficient to compell
If you're interested in learning more about the quality of high
resolution files please go to www.computeraudiophile.com. You will also
find discussions/links on the relative quality of music files at
different resolutions from 16/44.1kHz to 24/96 and higher, as well as
how to setup players to
pfarrell;473348 Wrote:
Where are you finding real 24/192kHz material?
One place: http://www.highdeftapetransfers.com
Some folks are doing 24/192 needle drops as well.
--
JJZolx
Jim
JJZolx's Profile:
JJZolx wrote:
pfarrell;473348 Wrote:
Where are you finding real 24/192kHz material?
One place: http://www.highdeftapetransfers.com
Some folks are doing 24/192 needle drops as well.
You mean transfers from vinyl? There is nothing close to a 50kHz signal
on any vinyl record
There are very
67 matches
Mail list logo
