[HeadLover]

Right now I have the Benchmard DAC1, and while I really love it, I have more and more 24/192 files.

Using the USB (the preferred way for me, with my PC for getting bit perfect soung) , I can only get 24/96.

Now
When will we have a DAC that can handle 24/192 ?
Isn't it the time for it?

I know that even on a really OLD USB1 you can handle up to it, so sure USB2 can handle it with out any problem (bandwidth I mean)

So, when can we expect it? will Benchmark be the first to pick up to glove? and why don't we already have it ???

 

[Currawong]

I don't think that many people are interested in 24/192 music files. Even Dan Lavry decided not to make a DAC better than 24/96. Even then, USB is far from an ideal digital audio transport. If you want 24/192, you should invest in something like an RME Fireface 400 as a front-end to a Berkeley Alpha DAC or similar.

 

[Tidus]

maybe USb 3.0 solve the problem

)

 

[AdamWysokinski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadLover /img/forum/go_quote.gif When will we have a DAC that can handle 24/192 ? Isn't it the time for it?

E.g. Weiss DACs already do that.
Besides, I'd prefer to see better mastering and recording quality than hi-rez music (without the former, it's like polishing the turd).

 

[Ham Sandwich]

There are USB 2.0 DACs (or audio interfaces) that support 24/192, but they're professional audio studio equipment. They also require custom drivers, and that is the real obstacle. You can't get above 24/96 with the standard USB audio drivers. So going to 24/192 would require the hi-fi audio companies to contract out driver development and get into the software biz. No sane hi-fi audio company is going to do that. They'd need to write drivers for Linux, OSX, and Windows. They'd need to keep the drivers up to date when new versions of the operating systems come out. They'd need to deal with bugs and software development.

So until the USB audio chip manufactures and OS vendors get drivers supporting 24/192 for USB 2.0 it would be crazy for a hi-fi audio company to even think about 24/192 for USB.

Professional audio companies making professional and semi-professional audio interfaces already support 24/192 over USB for some of their audio interfaces. It requires custom drivers. Every time there is a new OS they have to update their drivers. Many of them don't bother with Linux drives. Some only do Mac. Some only do Windows.

I have an M-Audio FW-410. It's a FireWire based interface. It requires custom drivers. When Vista came out I had to wait over 6 months before being able to switch from XP to Vista because M-Audio didn't have drivers available. I can't run the FW-410 in Linux because there are no Linux drivers. That isn't the kind of flexibility that most people expect from a DAC.

Then there is the issue that 24/192 is just gratuitous for the sake of having higher numbers. What's the benefit over 24/96 unless you are doing studio work?

 

[vkvedam]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich /img/forum/go_quote.gif There are USB 2.0 DACs (or audio interfaces) that support 24/192, but they're professional audio studio equipment. They also require custom drivers, and that is the real obstacle. You can't get above 24/96 with the standard USB audio drivers. So going to 24/192 would require the hi-fi audio companies to contract out driver development and get into the software biz. No sane hi-fi audio company is going to do that. They'd need to write drivers for Linux, OSX, and Windows. They'd need to keep the drivers up to date when new versions of the operating systems come out. They'd need to deal with bugs and software development. So until the USB audio chip manufactures and OS vendors get drivers supporting 24/192 for USB 2.0 it would be crazy for a hi-fi audio company to even think about 24/192 for USB. Professional audio companies making professional and semi-professional audio interfaces already support 24/192 over USB for some of their audio interfaces. It requires custom drivers. Every time there is a new OS they have to update their drivers. Many of them don't bother with Linux drives. Some only do Mac. Some only do Windows. I have an M-Audio FW-410. It's a FireWire based interface. It requires custom drivers. When Vista came out I had to wait over 6 months before being able to switch from XP to Vista because M-Audio didn't have drivers available. I can't run the FW-410 in Linux because there are no Linux drivers. That isn't the kind of flexibility that most people expect from a DAC. Then there is the issue that 24/192 is just gratuitous for the sake of having higher numbers. What's the benefit over 24/96 unless you are doing studio work?

Cheers, your post is quite informative.

 

[TheShaman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich /img/forum/go_quote.gif So going to 24/192 would require the hi-fi audio companies to contract out driver development and get into the software biz. No sane hi-fi audio company is going to do that. They'd need to write drivers for Linux, OSX, and Windows. They'd need to keep the drivers up to date when new versions of the operating systems come out. They'd need to deal with bugs and software development. So until the USB audio chip manufactures and OS vendors get drivers supporting 24/192 for USB 2.0 it would be crazy for a hi-fi audio company to even think about 24/192 for USB.

And yet Musiland do it for their $60 devices. Gotta love the Hi-Fi "industry"...

 

[paaj]

is 48khz max not enough?

 

[Jodet]

The industry should get it's act together and standardize on 24/96 for consumer download/playback.

Otherwise this 'Tower of Babel numbers game' is going to negatively block the acceptance of hi-rez downloads as a viable music source.

 

[Dan Lavry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jodet /img/forum/go_quote.gif The industry should get it's act together and standardize on 24/96 for consumer download/playback. Otherwise this 'Tower of Babel numbers game' is going to negatively block the acceptance of hi-rez downloads as a viable music source.

192KHz is the wrong thing for audio! It is not a usb issue, it is a conversion issue.

While too slow a rate is a bad thing, so is too fast. If the rate is too slow, one losses the high audible frequencies. If the rate is too fast, one looses conversion accuracy, not to mention very large files for no good reason.

The marketing of 192KHz has been about "more is better", and to support it, they pointed out that 48KHz can sound better then 44.1KHz. That DOES NOT automatically imply that 1GHZ (1000000000 Hz) would sound fantastic. In fact, at 1GHz, you will be lucky to have 4 bits of audio - that is worse then the early Edison phone experiments.

So if too slow is not good, and too fast is not good, it leaves somewhere in between - an optimal rate. The pushers of 192KHz try to tell you that more is better, like pixels for audio, money in your pocket and so on. But the analogy is WRONG. Audio signal is NOT like video pixels.

I did write a long paper about it - "Sampling Theory", and it is on my web site.
I also decided NOT TO SUPPORT 192KHz, and that is not a usb issue.

At this point in time, the marketing driven 192KHz has lost most of the steam, but some are still caught in the false notion that it offers something better. In fact, 88.2-96KHz is much closer to the optimum rate.

Regards
Dan Lavry

 

[somestranger26]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Lavry /img/forum/go_quote.gif 192KHz is the wrong thing for audio! It is not a usb issue, it is a conversion issue. While too slow a rate is a bad thing, so is too fast. If the rate is too slow, one losses the high audible frequencies. If the rate is too fast, one looses conversion accuracy, not to mention very large files for no good reason. The marketing of 192KHz has been about "more is better", and to support it, they pointed out that 48KHz can sound better then 44.1KHz. That DOES NOT automatically imply that 1GHZ (1000000000 Hz) would sound fantastic. In fact, at 1GHz, you will be lucky to have 4 bits of audio - that is worse then the early Edison phone experiments. So if too slow is not good, and too fast is not good, it leaves somewhere in between - an optimal rate. The pushers of 192KHz try to tell you that more is better, like pixels for audio, money in your pocket and so on. But the analogy is WRONG. Audio signal is NOT like video pixels. I did write a long paper about it - "Sampling Theory", and it is on my web site. I also decided NOT TO SUPPORT 192KHz, and that is not a usb issue. At this point in time, the marketing driven 192KHz has lost most of the steam, but some are still caught in the false notion that it offers something better. In fact, 88.2-96KHz is much closer to the optimum rate. Regards Dan Lavry

THANK YOU, Mr. Lavry, for clearing up this huge misconception.

 

[HeadLover]

but, in the studio and mixing, they use even 32bit and 768KHZ

So?
Won't having a music file that close to the original is better?

Sure we will need a very good DAC, but still, isn't 192KHz better than 96KHZ ???

 

[Sebhelyesfarku]

I'm boycotting anything under 1GHz sampling rate.

 

[gevorg]

Below are free audiophile recordings up to DXD 24BIT/352.8kHz and DSD 64 2.8224Mbit/s (whatever that is

). They have 16/44, 24/96 and 24/192 versions as well. Just try them and see at which point you don't hear any difference. If you don't have high resolution computer transport, you can also burn them on DVD-Audio. (Note that these are "reference" recordings, so other "standard" and non-audiophile high resolution recordings might not sound/differentiate as good.)

The Nordic Sound: High Resolution Music DOWNLOAD services

I can hear a small but nice improvement from 16/44 to 24/96 on EMU 0404 and Compass DAC. But I hear no difference from 24/96 to 24/192 (on EMU only, Compass and Audio-GD DACs do not support higher than 24/96 resolution).

 

[somestranger26]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadLover /img/forum/go_quote.gif but, in the studio and mixing, they use even 32bit and 768KHZ So? Won't having a music file that close to the original is better? Sure we will need a very good DAC, but still, isn't 192KHz better than 96KHZ ???

Your ears can only hear so much, but editing software can actually use that ridiculous 32/768KhZ recording since it gives sound engineers more headroom to work with. Dan also explained that conversion accuracy is lost with such a high frequency clock, which is definitely true with current technology. If you think you can hear more than the 91dB dynamic range that 16-bit provides, oh lawd...