Head-Fi.org › Forums › Help and Getting Started › Introductions, Help and Recommendations › Striving for a complete, best audio setup.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Striving for a complete, best audio setup. - Page 2

post #16 of 23
Thread Starter 

Alright, so, the stereo amplifier/receiver is just fine. I'm going to hit up Monoprice for a premium Toslink cable, as recommended.  After that, I suppose all that's left is to get my speakers, and their cables, sorted out. Is there anything else I should reconsider, or think about changing up with the previously discussed equipment before I proceed?  

 

Also, I'm really not trying to come off as an idiot here, just bear with me on this. I'm open to any ideas or recommendations you guys throw at me. 


Edited by Jeebus Christma - 5/11/14 at 10:03am
post #17 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraken2109 View Post


wat
Optical cables can send lossless stereo or compressed 5.1.
From this thread it seems like you have a lot of reading/learning to do before you go out and waste more money buying things you don't understand. I don't mean this in an offensive way, but that is the problem with this forum. People just recommend things to other people when neither of them actually know what said product does.

If you are using a speaker amp to drive your headphones there is no point buying a soundcard with a headphone amp since you want to be sending line level signal to the speaker amp.

I agree. Optical is great for 2 channel. It's not lossy.

And good suggestion about learning more about how sound cards, DACs, receivers, headphone amps,speakers, and headphones work and integrate together. That will make you better able to choose equipment that best serves your needs smily_headphones1.gif
post #18 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomb View Post
 


 Instead, the reverse is true: a higher sampling rate allows a more thorough reproduction of the original sine wave without as much error correction required in the conversion process.

 

Have you ever heard about Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem#Introduction

 

48kHz is sufficient enough for perfect reconstruction of all frequencies below 24kHz, and what you are saying is not true. And as the previous article states, higher sampling rate can only introduce intermodulation distortion, which is harmful to fidelity.

post #19 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by ieee754 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomb View Post
 


 Instead, the reverse is true: a higher sampling rate allows a more thorough reproduction of the original sine wave without as much error correction required in the conversion process.

 

Have you ever heard about Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem#Introduction

 

48kHz is sufficient enough for perfect reconstruction of all frequencies below 24kHz, and what you are saying is not true. And as the previous article states, higher sampling rate can only introduce intermodulation distortion, which is harmful to fidelity.


There is more going on than just sampling.  The higher bit-rate allows a closer approximation to the true sign wave when the music is decoded.  As segments rise to infinity, the more closely the shape is approximated.

 

I think simple conclusions to theorems about a single factor in a very complicated chain of live-music-to-recording-to-analog-reproduction at the final stage are a bit unwise.  It's like taking the latest study finding people who watch TV 6 hrs a day are more likely to have stroke or heart attacks.  But what is the real reason?  Sedentary lack of exercise, combined with a tendency toward weight gain and all the harmful effects that go with it.  Maybe no one tested watching the TV 6 hrs a day when in the gym.  Someone might conclude that if you stop watching TV 6 hrs a day, you're perfectly OK.

 

I'm just saying that the world is more complex than citing a single theorem. 

post #20 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomb View Post


There is more going on than just sampling.  The higher bit-rate allows a closer approximation to the true sign wave when the music is decoded.  As segments rise to infinity, the more closely the shape is approximated.

No. That's what this theorem states - that 48kHz is sufficient for perfect reproduction of every frequency up to 24kHz. With 96, 192, 384, etc. you don't get any closer approximation. You can store higher frequencies, which is bad since it can only add distortion.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomb View Post

 

I'm just saying that the world is more complex than citing a single theorem. 

Fortunately, signal processing science is based on pure math, which means that any conclusions based on assumptions are 100% right.

post #21 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by ieee754 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomb View Post


There is more going on than just sampling.  The higher bit-rate allows a closer approximation to the true sign wave when the music is decoded.  As segments rise to infinity, the more closely the shape is approximated.

No. That's what this theorem states - that 48kHz is sufficient for perfect reproduction of every frequency up to 24kHz. With 96, 192, 384, etc. you don't get any closer approximation. You can store higher frequencies, which is bad since it can only add distortion.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomb View Post

 

I'm just saying that the world is more complex than citing a single theorem. 

Fortunately, signal processing science is based on pure math, which means that any conclusions based on assumptions are 100% right.


Wow.  Maybe a few years of experience will help, but nothing else for now.  Just a simple question and I'll leave you alone:  Do you really think that a multi-billion dollar industry is all headed toward 24-bit 192KHz by mistake?  And that because you've read about a theorem you know better?

 

Just asking ... ;)

post #22 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomb View Post
 


Wow.  Maybe a few years of experience will help, but nothing else for now.  Just a simple question and I'll leave you alone:  Do you really think that a multi-billion dollar industry is all headed toward 24-bit 192KHz by mistake?  And that because you've read about a theorem you know better?

 

Just asking ... ;)

Yes, that's exactly why "multi-billion dollar industry" is headed towards higher rates - because big number sells. Why produce new music, what can be very costly, while you can release an old album with 192kHz sampling for almost no cost? And people who have no clue about science will buy it.

 

That strive towards improving sound extremes is completely irrational, and as I said can be even harmful. Because what matters is having a good balance of frequencies, where music resides, which is 20Hz-12kHz, and other sound quality properties, like low distortion, decay, etc. More is not necessarily better, there is always an optimum, which for sampling is about 40kHz. I think it would be even better to use about 30kHz sampling (for less distortion), but some people believe there is a musical value in frequencies above 15kHz, so it's a trade-off.

post #23 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomb View Post
 


Wow.  Maybe a few years of experience will help, but nothing else for now.  Just a simple question and I'll leave you alone:  Do you really think that a multi-billion dollar industry is all headed toward 24-bit 192KHz by mistake?  And that because you've read about a theorem you know better?

 

Just asking ... ;)

Why do you think 44.1/16 was chosen? It wasn't just random numbers. It was chosen because it's enough to reproduce everything we can hear. The sampling theorem wasn't developed for digital audio, digital audio was developed from the sampling theorem.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Help and Getting Started › Introductions, Help and Recommendations › Striving for a complete, best audio setup.