daveisthemusic
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2012
- Posts
- 16
- Likes
- 10
Hi guys, this is my first post here.
I noticed the part about sampling rate mentioned in the review and I'm just gutted that my laptop doesn't have SPDIF to use with the E17 for 192khz support. I know there will always be a debate about 96 vs (the unnecessary for many) 192 sampling rates but as a lifelong musician I have this wonderful sensation when listening in 192khz of almost being able to see the performers fingers moving on the instruments. Even for 16/44.1 recordings, listening in 192khz feels much more measured in pace, with more oomph to each note, and I just feel incredibly connected and 'locked in' to the music. 96 for me feels a lot faster, almost as if the pace of the music is squashed and flowing through me instead of that sensation of feeling as if I can analyze or 'see' the performance as I listen.
Right now I'm listening to just my laptop's headphone output with the hd25's. I was reading a lot of this thread yesterday and understanding the importance of getting a DAC for the increase in SQ when listening with a laptop - and that it would also prepare me nicely for when I can afford the hd650's. However, although the SQ may be significantly better... I'm worried I'm goiing to prefer the almost visual feedback I get from listening to music at 192khz. So I'm just stumped as to whether it's better or not in my case to jump on board for this obviously great product as my blasted laptop doesn't have an optical-out port.
Before I anger anyone I will reiterate that it's not a difference in sound quality that I'm noticing, simply as a musician I do believe my ears to be sensitive to the "feel" and pace of music, and very simply, rather than noticing massive differences in SQ I am noticing improvements in my response and enjoyment of the music at 192khz. (Very new to hifi SQ here, with my HD25's being my first ever purchase so far).
Quote:
Right now I'm listening to just my laptop's headphone output with the hd25's. I was reading a lot of this thread yesterday and understanding the importance of getting a DAC for the increase in SQ when listening with a laptop - and that it would also prepare me nicely for when I can afford the hd650's. However, although the SQ may be significantly better... I'm worried I'm goiing to prefer the almost visual feedback I get from listening to music at 192khz. So I'm just stumped as to whether it's better or not in my case to jump on board for this obviously great product as my blasted laptop doesn't have an optical-out port.
Before I anger anyone I will reiterate that it's not a difference in sound quality that I'm noticing, simply as a musician I do believe my ears to be sensitive to the "feel" and pace of music, and very simply, rather than noticing massive differences in SQ I am noticing improvements in my response and enjoyment of the music at 192khz. (Very new to hifi SQ here, with my HD25's being my first ever purchase so far).
Quote:
Bit Depth and Sampling Rate
Limited by its USB receiver, Alpen only works up to 24bits / 96kHz in USB mode. For the optical and coax input, you will get the full 24bits / 192kHz via SPDIF. For commercial CD and iTune music, resolution shouldn’t be much of any concern since they are all in the good old 16bits / 44.1kHz format. While it always seems to be better to get higher bit depth and sampling rate, any properly mastered album should show very little difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192 (note: ‘properly mastered’ is the key words here). The issue that most 24/192 music tend to sound better has more to do with either better mastering or hardware based difference (filtering and such). The knowledge of bit depth and sampling rate go way beyond the scope of this review and I am of no master on the subject to really discuss them. The key is not to be too obsessed about them. There are benefit for higher bit depth and sampling rate, but they are not miracle cure and don’t make music better by themselves. For most practical purpose, 24/96 is already well beyond what you need.