[itman]

There's a difference between the sample rate of DSD (which can go up to MHz) and the frequency range of your hearing or a pair of headphones. You are correct in saying that the human ear can only hear up to about 20kHz; realistically, 18-19kHz for a normal, healthy adult.

Now, the sample rate of DSD, or FLAC, or any other file type has nothing to do with that. The Hz in sample rate refers to how many times per second the computer checks the waveform for a data point. You can think of it like frames-per-second on a GPU or the refresh rate of a monitor (which is also measured in Hz). So, for example, a DSD256 file with an 11.2MHz sample rate will create a waveform with 11.2 million data points per second. Whereas, a CD rip with a sample rate of 44.1kHz will only obtain 44,100 data points per second, and any data point in between will be estimated by the DAC that's processing it; similar to, again, modern GPU technology, where GPUs can now fill in gaps between frames by "guessing" what they'd look like in order to make the gameplay look smoother or more seamless.

It's really difficult to explain without using graphics and stuff, but the key thing to understand is that sample rate and frequency range are two completely different things. It's, sadly, often misunderstood, but it's not something you should worry about at all in this scenario.

Got it. What is the frequency range of a DSD vs Vinyl? Are they both limited to 20 kHz?

 

[Deezel177]

Got it. What is the frequency range of a DSD vs Vinyl? Are they both limited to 20 kHz?

Realistically-speaking, most relevant information in music only goes up to about 12-15kHz. I'm aware of EDM tracks out there ('can't remember what it's called) that sneak in little 16-17kHz whines just to add an effect. But, in terms of orthodox instruments and sounds, with any file type, you'd probably barely scratch the 20kHz surface of your devices and headphones. I must stress, though, that that's speaking from my experiences only. I've tried massive EQ changes above 15kHz and heard absolutely no differences. It's possible that there are outliers, like the EDM example I mentioned. And, there's been research put into psychoacoustic effects that super-high frequencies may be able to produce as well (to inconclusive results, however). But, for the vast majority of music, you probably won't find a file type that'll bottleneck your music in any way, as long as it's at least CD quality (16-bit/44.1kHz).

 

[itman]

Realistically-speaking, most relevant information in music only goes up to about 12-15kHz. I'm aware of EDM tracks out there ('can't remember what it's called) that sneak in little 16-17kHz whines just to add an effect. But, in terms of orthodox instruments and sounds, with any file type, you'd probably barely scratch the 20kHz surface of your devices and headphones. I must stress, though, that that's speaking from my experiences only. I've tried massive EQ changes above 15kHz and heard absolutely no differences. It's possible that there are outliers, like the EDM example I mentioned. And, there's been research put into psychoacoustic effects that super-high frequencies may be able to produce as well (to inconclusive results, however). But, for the vast majority of music, you probably won't find a file type that'll bottleneck your music in any way, as long as it's at least CD quality (16-bit/44.1kHz).

What do you think about this?

 

[Deezel177]

What do you think about this?

This would fall under the umbrella of psychoacoustic research that I mentioned in my earlier post. I'd have to give the actual papers a read to give my full thoughts, but there are key points that must be considered, which are both in the video and not. The first issue would be that this is an argument posited towards the future of music production, rather than the past or present. As the person says in the video, most music available nowadays has already been recorded and processed with that 20kHz limit in mind, so even if you had the tech to produce those frequencies, they won't affect the music we already have today. In a similar vein, most consumer DACs and amplifiers nowadays are made to handle frequencies up to 20kHz as well. This is why the LPGT states a 20kHz frequency response limit, and it's why the vast majority of consumer audio sources have that very same spec too.

The third, and - to me - the most important point to consider, is how that research translates to portable audio. Again, I haven't read the papers myself, but, based on the audience the video is aimed towards, I'm assuming this research was done with loudspeakers, rather than headphones or IEMs. As the person in the video mentions, our ears may not perceive these ultra-high frequencies, but other parts of our body might. You can use bone conduction as an example for the low frequencies. Now, sound waves from a loudspeaker can hit our entire body and create these effects. On the other hand, sound waves from a headphone only affect our ears and a small area surrounding them, and in-ears are even more limited, as the waves they produce only affect the inner ear canal. So, because the sound waves produced by headphones and IEMs don't hit our entire body, it's not guaranteed that the effects observed in those research papers can translate fully to portable transducers. Again, though, returning to the first point, even if they could hit your whole body, we currently don't have any music to produce these effects anyway.

To me, that's a video more so aimed towards sound engineers to preserve that ultra-high info in their recordings, as well as DAC chip makers to make the technology I mentioned above more readily available to the public. Otherwise, with the music and tech we have today, it's not something I'd worry about too much.

 

[itman]

This would fall under the umbrella of psychoacoustic research that I mentioned in my earlier post. I'd have to give the actual papers a read to give my full thoughts, but there are key points that must be considered, which are both in the video and not. The first issue would be that this is an argument posited towards the future of music production, rather than the past or present. As the person says in the video, most music available nowadays has already been recorded and processed with that 20kHz limit in mind, so even if you had the tech to produce those frequencies, they won't affect the music we already have today. In a similar vein, most consumer DACs and amplifiers nowadays are made to handle frequencies up to 20kHz as well. This is why the LPGT states a 20kHz frequency response limit, and it's why the vast majority of consumer audio sources have that very same spec too.

The third, and - to me - the most important point to consider, is how that research translates to portable audio. Again, I haven't read the papers myself, but, based on the audience the video is aimed towards, I'm assuming this research was done with loudspeakers, rather than headphones or IEMs. As the person in the video mentions, our ears may not perceive these ultra-high frequencies, but other parts of our body might. You can use bone conduction as an example for the low frequencies. Now, sound waves from a loudspeaker can hit our entire body and create these effects. On the other hand, sound waves from a headphone only affect our ears and a small area surrounding them, and in-ears are even more limited, as the waves they produce only affect the inner ear canal. So, because the sound waves produced by headphones and IEMs don't hit our entire body, it's not guaranteed that the effects observed in those research papers can translate fully to portable transducers. Again, though, returning to the first point, even if they could hit your whole body, we currently don't have any music to produce these effects anyway.

To me, that's a video more so aimed towards sound engineers to preserve that ultra-high info in their recordings, as well as DAC chip makers to make the technology I mentioned above more readily available to the public. Otherwise, with the music and tech we have today, it's not something I'd worry about too much.

Thank you for your write-up, you helped me to understand some important issue, really appreciate it. Just one taught and one question on the possibilities we have today.
We have microphones that can record up 140 kHz. We have headphones and speakers up to 50 kHz (I understand you objection regarding headphones but let's just keep it simple). Do I understand it right, that all preconditions are met in today's time? It's just that there are no recordings out there because the consumer market is no available?
Thanks again for your valuable insights.

 

[Deezel177]

Thank you for your write-up, you helped me to understand some important issue, really appreciate it. Just one taught and one question on the possibilities we have today.
We have microphones that can record up 140 kHz. We have headphones and speakers up to 50 kHz (I understand you objection regarding headphones but let's just keep it simple). Do I understand it right, that all preconditions are met in today's time? It's just that there are no recordings out there because the consumer market is no available?
Thanks again for your valuable insights.

Well, the issue with that is there are tons of other links to the chain between the microphone and the speaker. If you're talking about a digital recording, which, I reckon, is how over 90% of music is recorded today, you have the pre-amp that's amplifying the microphone signal, the ADC that's converting it into a digital signal, the DAW that's processing the signal, etc. In order to have a recording with super-high frequencies, all of those components have to be able to preserve them.

Then, there's the question of whether or not you're compromising the other frequencies in the process. For example, you invent a new interface that can capture those ultra-high frequencies. What if it doesn't sound as good as the vintage Focusrite or API interfaces we have today? Or, the mics you mentioned that can record up to those frequencies. Are they even recording mics? Will they sound as good as the classic SM57's or U87's we have today? So, there are two main hurdles we have to get over in order to make those kinds of recordings: (1) Every component in the chain has to be able to handle those ultra-high frequencies, and (2) they have to sound good across the board compared to the gear we're accustomed to today. Otherwise, there'd be no point.

As the video you linked earlier stated, the only feasible way to do those recordings today would be through vinyl or tape, which means making the recording, then printing it directly onto those mediums. If you're gonna go that route, then there's no point discussing digital sources like the LPGT, because all your recordings are going to be analog anyway.

This is the last I'll speak on this on this thread. It's miles off-topic, and, to be completely frank, it's mostly hypothetical anyway. Apologies for derailing the thread, but I hope it's helped, nonetheless.

 

[itman]

Well, the issue with that is there are tons of other links to the chain between the microphone and the speaker. If you're talking about a digital recording, which, I reckon, is how over 90% of music is recorded today, you have the pre-amp that's amplifying the microphone signal, the ADC that's converting it into a digital signal, the DAW that's processing the signal, etc. In order to have a recording with super-high frequencies, all of those components have to be able to preserve them.

Then, there's the question of whether or not you're compromising the other frequencies in the process. For example, you invent a new interface that can capture those ultra-high frequencies. What if it doesn't sound as good as the vintage Focusrite or API interfaces we have today? Or, the mics you mentioned that can record up to those frequencies. Are they even recording mics? Will they sound as good as the classic SM57's or U87's we have today? So, there are two main hurdles we have to get over in order to make those kinds of recordings: (1) Every component in the chain has to be able to handle those ultra-high frequencies, and (2) they have to sound good across the board compared to the gear we're accustomed to today. Otherwise, there'd be no point.

As the video you linked earlier stated, the only feasible way to do those recordings today would be through vinyl or tape, which means making the recording, then printing it directly onto those mediums. If you're gonna go that route, then there's no point discussing digital sources like the LPGT, because all your recordings are going to be analog anyway.

This is the last I'll speak on this on this thread. It's miles off-topic, and, to be completely frank, it's mostly hypothetical anyway. Apologies for derailing the thread, but I hope it's helped, nonetheless.

Thank you very much!

 

[MrButchi]

@Deezel177 I have a question - even if your bone do somehow conduct these ultra high frequencies, ultimately, the transductor are your ossicles. And those guys can't process past 20kHz can they? So even if the signal makes it to them, you'll still end up with a net zero nerve signal above 20k won't you?

 

[Deezel177]

@Deezel177 I have a question - even if your bone do somehow conduct these ultra high frequencies, ultimately, the transductor are your ossicles. And those guys can't process past 20kHz can they? So even if the signal makes it to them, you'll still end up with a net zero nerve signal above 20k won't you?

Well, the implication made in the video was that the ultra-high signals would affect other parts of the body as a certain form of pressure. Alternatively, it’d combine with other frequencies to form certain harmonics that are deemed more life-like. That’s what I gleaned from the video, at least. Again, to know the exact mechanisms of how it works, we’d have to go through those research papers. Anything outside of that is purely theoretical, and not really applicable to portable audio as we know it today.

 

[mungster]

Anybody compared the lpgt to lpgt ti? Is there much of difference and is it worth the upgrade? Thanks

 

[LotooFanboy]

Anybody compared the lpgt to lpgt ti? Is there much of difference and is it worth the upgrade? Thanks

Please refer to what I have already posted.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/lot...mm-bal-usb-dac-bluetooth.875802/post-15959946
In short, if you own an LPGT and already satisfied with the sound, no need to upgrade.

If you want to experience the latest improvements in sound performance and does not care about the price, go for it you won't regret.
If you use 4.4mm balanced output a lot then the difference may hard to be noticed, no need to upgrade.
If you use 3.5 mm output for driving full size power demanding headphones instead of iems, the upgrade would be essential.

 

[mungster]

Please refer to what I have already posted.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/lot...mm-bal-usb-dac-bluetooth.875802/post-15959946
In short, if you own an LPGT and already satisfied with the sound, no need to upgrade.
If you want to purchase one the best porable DAPs in the market and does not care about the price, go for it you won't regret.
If you use 4.4mm balanced output a lot then the difference may hard to be noticed, no need to upgrade.
If you use 3.5 mm output for driving full size power demanding headphones instead of iems, the upgrade would be essential.

Thanks. I wish it was the other way around with the 4.4 with more power! I use 4.4 only and probably not worth the upgrade. Thanks for the reply.

 

[LotooFanboy]

Thanks. I wish it was the other way around with the 4.4 with more power! I use 4.4 only and probably not worth the upgrade. Thanks for the reply.

Somehow Lotoo's understanding of 3..5mm technology is more advanced than 4.4mm, I don't know why but seems that 3.5mm output is where their engineers are interested and expertised.

 

[itman]

Anyone else getting one?

Ordered today. Should arrive next week.

 

[noplsestar]

Ordered today. Should arrive next week.

Finally, not alone anymore