Why DAC beyond 44.1khz

There is a lot of marketing that goes into those numbers. I do not think you benefit significantly from upsampling - but others disagree. 

Good point, however if I look at most of my music collection.

It is sampled at 24 bit / 96 Khz ~ courtesy of some very nice chaps who rip their fine

vinyl LP collections using some very nice gear.

So the 24/96 ability over USB of the Arcam was a must for me.

You don't need a DAC that can handle anything higher than 44.1kHz.

A limit of 48kHz won't matter.

You usually don't want to upsample. If you do, upsample by an integer multiple. So 44.1kHz to 88.2kHz. I think some plugins like EQs can benefit from less artifacts by upsampling, but they should be doing it themselves.

Primarily 48kHz is for DVD's which was originally done to correct audible artifacts at 44.1kHz... think of it as a filter. 44.1 is limited to 22kHz while 48 is 24kHz, 96 is 48kHz and 192 is 96kHz; confused?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graphicism 

Primarily 48kHz is for DVD's which was originally done to correct audible artifacts at 44.1kHz... think of it as a filter. 44.1 is limited to 22kHz while 48 is 24kHz, 96 is 48kHz and 192 is 96kHz; confused?

 

The higher the sample rate the smoother the audio because the cut-off point has been pushed back. This is why 192kHz on my DAC is smoother than 96kHz, similarly this is why headphones like the Sony SA5000 (6-110kHz) has such great detail and extension.

Thanks for shedding some light on this,

I've always been curious as to why my vinyl rips were always smoother and certainly less 'LOUD'

than any of their CD counterpart recordings in my collection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graphicism 

Primarily 48kHz is for DVD's which was originally done to correct audible artifacts at 44.1kHz... think of it as a filter. 44.1 is limited to 22kHz while 48 is 24kHz, 96 is 48kHz and 192 is 96kHz; confused?

 

The higher the sample rate the smoother the audio because the cut-off point has been pushed back. This is why 192kHz on my DAC is smoother than 96kHz, similarly this is why headphones like the Sony SA5000 (6-110kHz) has such great detail and extension.

Why would 192kHz be smoother than 96kHz, when 96kHz has a cutoff at 48kHz which is well above audibility?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graphicism 

Primarily 48kHz is for DVD's which was originally done to correct audible artifacts at 44.1kHz... think of it as a filter. 44.1 is limited to 22kHz while 48 is 24kHz, 96 is 48kHz and 192 is 96kHz; confused?

 

The higher the sample rate the smoother the audio because the cut-off point has been pushed back. This is why 192kHz on my DAC is smoother than 96kHz, similarly this is why headphones like the Sony SA5000 (6-110kHz) has such great detail and extension.

So, should I be upsampling tracks that are 16 bit 44.1kHz up to 192kHz?
 

You shouldn't be upsampling at all. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinjaSquirt 

So, should I be upsampling tracks that are 16 bit 44.1kHz up to 192kHz? 

No, you shouldn't be upsampling at all. 192kHz in particular can cause problems, because even the DACs that support it have trouble processing it.

You should read through some of this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gwarmi 

Thanks for shedding some light on this,

 

I've always been curious as to why my vinyl rips were always smoother and certainly less 'LOUD'

than any of their CD counterpart recordings in my collection.

Now this kind of discussion should be taken elsewhere - nor am I claiming to be a complete expert.

But that is NOT the reason vinyl sounds 'smoother' and has a lower volume than CD's - if they do, that is. In my opinion, the problem with comparing Vinyl and compact disc is that Vinyl is often marketed for audiophiles - people who also rather like the tube sound. It's not unheard of that vinyl versions of albums are recorded specifically to cater to these people. The medium itself can also influence the sound a lot - it's an imperfect medium that cannot get all the detail that a good digital recording can in some ways - and can actually get more detail in others. It's easier, to make things clear, to assume vinyl doesn't have the detail of digital products, not in an era where the original is the digital product.

Lower volume is a more technical reason and one I an more easily explain - the volume limit on LP is lower. This is because of technical problems with vinyl itself. So CD's are made louder - this also appeals to mass market more. We consider higher volume a nicer sound by default (though it's actually wrong - tons of example of the issues with increasing volume all the time to be found on the Internet) and therefore producers like to find the volume cap more often than not.

I apologize, my post is a little all-over-the-place. It's 1:30 AM. Hope it makes some sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by atcapollo 

I'm confused particularly in reference to kit such as the Matrix Mini-I which is limited to 48khz on its USB digital input, but why would this matter if your have only CD quality to start with?

The audio standard for video, such as DVD, is 48kHz. 

Many DACs upsample internally which provides various technical benefits.

There is no benefit for you to upsample on your own or to force playback at a higher rate.  In fact this can degrade the sound.

Many DACs have a lower noise floor when fed with higher-res audio, for various technical reasons. I use the up-sampling in my audio software for this reason -- it's a cheap (or free) way to get an improvement in performance, though IMO the results are quite subtle.

I really don't get why it is said that people can't hear above 20Khz, I certainly can.  Now I'm not certain that it's not reflected sound bouncing from the soft tissue of my outer ear and being distorted to a lower frequency, but I can certainly hear frequencies played above 20khz, and even above what I can say with certainty that I can hear I can perceive as vibration.  It's like saying that you can't hear below 20hz, so what if I don't hear it, I feel it, it's there and it is certainly part of the experience.

As for up sampling,  I've never had that turn out better for video or audio, CD quality may not be the best that it can be, but if it's what you have it is the best that it will be.

My experience with modern vinyl is limited but from what I've heard, well it's not really better in anyway except that there is a certain romance in the process of it, which I still enjoy.