Support Head-Fi.org by
starting all of your
Amazon.com shopping by
clicking here.
____________________________________________________________________
Today's Featured Head-Fi Blog: Jude's Blog
____________________________________________________________________
Please help
support Head-Fi by becoming a Contributing Member
CLICK
HERE -- Contributing Members, thank you
for your generous support! --
Different sample rates may sound different due to different resampling or conversation performance at this given sample rate. However the common association of higher sample rates giving a more analog result after the reconstruction stage is actually wrong. A higher sample rate per se doesn't provide anything "more analog" but a higher niquist frequency thus a higher analog bandwidth. If one above 20 kHz is hearable or not is questionable. The error introduced by the sampling process lies in the limited bandwidth (which has to be limited to comply with the theorem) and the needed filtering but NOT it the actual missing information between the samples which are going to be reconstructed anyway.
I just wanted to note that higher sample rates probably have practical benefits when it comes to the actual conversation, but that the actual information is already contained in 44,1 kHz for example (or even 40 kHz). At least from the ear's point of 'view'.
Here has been my experience: When I play 44.1 through my Spoiler DAC, which does oversampling to a very high frequency, it still sounds more raspy than the same track upsampled using SRC to 24/96 through the same oversampler and analog filter. The 4-pole filter starts rolling off around 20kHz. I've measured it.
You basically arguing that there may be genuine 24/192 PCM material out there and down sampling to 110kHz will reduce quality. That's fine. Let me note that the real advantage of multi-channel hi-res audio lies in the fact that it's "multi-channel", not so much that it's "hi-res" . IMHO.
On the side note, I did not know it's possible to rip SACDs. This of course is off topic here but would you please point me places where i can learn more about how that's done?
__________________
win xp -> foobar -> scott nixon chibi usb dac->bada ph-1 -> Ultrasone PROline 750/AKG k701
You basically arguing that there may be genuine 24/192 PCM material out there and down sampling to 110kHz will reduce quality. That's fine. Let me note that the real advantage of multi-channel hi-res audio lies in the fact that it's "multi-channel", not so much that it's "hi-res" . IMHO.
Many audiophiles would disagree
That said, perfect reproduction would probably involve recreating the soundwaves that were present (i.e. 3D!) when the band was there, and this might be easier with more speakers. Right now though, multichannel is for fake effects. 'Boom!' from side speakers does not accurate sound make.
On the side note, I did not know it's possible to rip SACDs. This of course is off topic here but would you please point me places where i can learn more about how that's done?
No, there are no SACD players for the PC. You could resample the analog output. Efforts are underway to crack the HDMI output of say a PS3.
You are correct for protected DVD-As but again the AIX is open at 96kHz.
i like what AIX is doing, thank you for the link. I will probably get their sampler DVD. It looks like it can also be played on conventional dvd players as well as on computer DVD-ROMs
i wish i had a good 5.1 set up to for the playback.. well, maybe one day
You basically arguing that there may be genuine 24/192 PCM material out there and down sampling to 110kHz will reduce quality. That's fine. Let me note that the real advantage of multi-channel hi-res audio lies in the fact that it's "multi-channel", not so much that it's "hi-res" . IMHO.
zheka
I may be all wrong here but I think that Hi-Rez 5.1 is all sampled at the highest rate of 48 kHz (it may have 24 bits though), simply due to the amount of information that would be on the disk at 5.1 at 96 kHz/24. Stereo (two channels) can be supplied at 96/24 though. I have several DVD-As and they all show themselves being sampled at 48 kHz at 5.1. The best is the true stereo in Hi-Rez at 96/24.
I may be all wrong here but I think that Hi-Rez 5.1 is all sampled at the highest rate of 48 kHz (it may have 24 bits though), simply due to the amount of information that would be on the disk at 5.1 at 96 kHz/24. Stereo (two channels) can be supplied at 96/24 though. I have several DVD-As and they all show themselves being sampled at 48 kHz at 5.1. The best is the true stereo in Hi-Rez at 96/24.
AIX claim 5.1 at 24/96
as far as size limitations i think if MLP is used dual layer DVD (9G) can hold more that 2 hours of 6 channel 24/96 data
__________________
win xp -> foobar -> scott nixon chibi usb dac->bada ph-1 -> Ultrasone PROline 750/AKG k701
Linear Mode
