Re: [slim] 24/192 vs. 24/96

2009-09-10 Thread peber
A friend of mine who works in the recording business once said that the important part is to get 24 bits, sampling freq is not that critical... /Per -- peber peber's Profile:

Re: [slim] 24/192 vs. 24/96

2009-09-10 Thread dBerriff
On the basis of various Sound on Sound articles and from using my modest home studio this is my current understanding: 24 bit is worthwhile for the improved dynamic range, especially when recording. Digital overload needs to be avoided at all costs as it sounds nasty and unnatural. 24 bit makes

[slim] 24/192 vs. 24/96

2009-09-05 Thread Squeezemeister
I have an SB3. AFAIK, the DAC processes at 24/96? However, I feed the data via TOSLINK cable into my AVI ADM 9.1's, whose DAC can go to 24/192. As I am bypassing the SB DAC by connecting this way, does this mean that I can play 24/192 tracks through my AVI via my SB and get the benefit? Or

Re: [slim] 24/192 vs. 24/96

2009-09-05 Thread amcluesent
You won't get more than 24/48 from an SB3, even with an external DAC. Anything more gets re-sampled server-side before sending to the SB3. You need a Transporter (or Touch...) to get 24/96 on the digital-out. -- amcluesent

Re: [slim] 24/192 vs. 24/96

2009-09-05 Thread Phil Leigh
Squeezemeister;455295 Wrote: I have an SB3. AFAIK, the DAC processes at 24/96? However, I feed the data via TOSLINK cable into my AVI ADM 9.1's, whose DAC can go to 24/192. As I am bypassing the SB DAC by connecting this way, does this mean that I can play 24/192 tracks through my AVI via