[darkarn]

I don't know if you could make such a general statement, but most Toslink outputs on computers are set at 16/44 as a default since that is the "normal" audio requirement.

I mean, I had to say that since there used to be coaxial outputs on computers that let me go up to 24/192, while most TOSLINK outputs on computers allow me to go up to 24/96 at best

I asked as I am trying to see how can I best optimise audio coming out from my computer without using USB

 

[Ableza]

I mean, I had to say that since there used to be coaxial outputs on computers that let me go up to 24/192, while most TOSLINK outputs on computers allow me to go up to 24/96 at best

I asked as I am trying to see how can I best optimise audio coming out from my computer without using USB

I suspect some computers limit Toslink to 24/96 since that is the normal max it can sustain. They want to minimize consumer complaints about things not working. I am not a fan of using high sample rates since in most cases it is artificially created after the recording process is complete (and in some cases it is meaningless, adding zeroes to make the word size larger) meaning it adds nothing to the original material other than data. 16/44.1 is fine for me.

 

[darkarn]

I suspect some computers limit Toslink to 24/96 since that is the normal max it can sustain. They want to minimize consumer complaints about things not working. I am not a fan of using high sample rates since in most cases it is artificially created after the recording process is complete (and in some cases it is meaningless, adding zeroes to make the word size larger) meaning it adds nothing to the original material other than data. 16/44.1 is fine for me.

Thanks, this makes more sense to me (though ain't sure why my computer keep claiming to do 24/192 despite my Modi Multibit not being able to decode that signal, this was another reason why I am asking about optical audio here)

I guess this is one case of "if you cannot resolve this with a reasonable amount of money, let this sleeping dog lie" kind of issue?

 

[Odin412]

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to my Head-fi brethren and friends. It has been a difficult year, but may the joy of the season find its way to you. May the New Year bring a return to 'normal' for us all, and allow us to segue from Schiit Happens to Schiit Happened.

Or as Mariah Carey would have said if she wrote the song this year: All I want for Christmas is - a Covid vaccine.

 

[Les Strat]

I suspect some computers limit Toslink to 24/96 since that is the normal max it can sustain. They want to minimize consumer complaints about things not working. I am not a fan of using high sample rates since in most cases it is artificially created after the recording process is complete (and in some cases it is meaningless, adding zeroes to make the word size larger) meaning it adds nothing to the original material other than data. 16/44.1 is fine for me.

I agree about 16/44.1 @Ableza. It's fine for me too.
My internet speed has reached the dizzy heights of 12 Mbps which means that I have been able to stream some 'High Res' Qobuz files at 24/96.
( I can't do 24/192 as my streamer can't handle sample rates above 96...)
In my experience, the best 16/44.1 recordings sound fantastic.
The best 24/96 recordings also sound as good, but there are plenty of 'High Res' files which, to my ears, sound 'like ass'- far worse than the normal 16/44.1 versions.
I am convinced that the actual recording- mix and mastering- is far more important than bit rates or sample rates..

 

[A Jedi]

the actual recording- mix and mastering- is far more important than bit rates or sample rates..

I totally agree with this. A hi-res piece of crap still sounds like crap. I'd much rather have a good recording than "hi-rez".

 

[JohnnyOps]

I totally agree with this. A hi-res piece of crap still sounds like crap. I'd much rather have a good recording than "hi-rez".

So I absolutely 100% agree with this.
But... I’d rather have a hi-res version of a good recording / master than a redbook. What steams me is when a hi-res version of a crud mastering replaces a 16/44 version of a great mastering. Which happens on Tidal regularly. I do not belong to the group of people who think hi-res sounds bad; just the opposite. But I do have the slightly paranoid stance that there is an adverse selection issue at play somewhere, and very often when a hi-res version is made available it is not of my favorite mastering of a recording. That’s fine when I own or can stream the 16/44 version that I like. But when they take that away (which does happen), oh jeeze. Why!?!!?

 

[skraggy1981]

I asked as I am trying to see how can I best optimise audio coming out from my computer without using USB

Why the antipathy towards USB?

 

[darkarn]

Why the antipathy towards USB?

I meant no antipathy; I am actually trying to free up that USB port of my Modi Multibit for stuff that needs it (e.g. a DAP or computers without TOSLINK).

Also, I am playing around with the idea of using a coaxial/TOSLINK switch from Inday to make things easier (since it means I can just keep it to coaxial input for my Modi Multibit, then get all of my audio sources to connect to that switch)

It isn't helping that it seems to me that TOSLINK sounded better than USB Gen 2 for my Modi Multibit but I can't seem to put my finger to how exactly it sounds better since I did the switch a few days ago

In short, it's just me trying to see if there is a better setup

Sidenote: I'll definitely use USB once I get something that has Unison USB, but this will be at least months or even years down the line

 

[bcowen]

You need a Vali(um)

ROFL!!!

 

[Pietro Cozzi Tinin]

I'd much rather have a good recording than "hi-rez".

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Derrick Swart]

So I absolutely 100% agree with this.
But... I’d rather have a hi-res version of a good recording / master than a redbook. What steams me is when a hi-res version of a crud mastering replaces a 16/44 version of a great mastering. Which happens on Tidal regularly. I do not belong to the group of people who think hi-res sounds bad; just the opposite. But I do have the slightly paranoid stance that there is an adverse selection issue at play somewhere, and very often when a hi-res version is made available it is not of my favorite mastering of a recording. That’s fine when I own or can stream the 16/44 version that I like. But when they take that away (which does happen), oh jeeze. Why!?!!?

i posted this earlier but explains well the rabbit hole the sample frequency is:

 

[Les Strat]

So I absolutely 100% agree with this.
But... I’d rather have a hi-res version of a good recording / master than a redbook. What steams me is when a hi-res version of a crud mastering replaces a 16/44 version of a great mastering. Which happens on Tidal regularly. I do not belong to the group of people who think hi-res sounds bad; just the opposite. But I do have the slightly paranoid stance that there is an adverse selection issue at play somewhere, and very often when a hi-res version is made available it is not of my favorite mastering of a recording. That’s fine when I own or can stream the 16/44 version that I like. But when they take that away (which does happen), oh jeeze. Why!?!!?

I agree.

I have heard some good recordings of favourite albums in ‘High Res’ which sound better than any other versions I have ever heard.
I can only assume that these must have been remixed, as most were originally recorded on analogue equipment back in the 70s and certainly wouldn’t have had even 16 bits worth of dynamic range!
However, I have also heard High Res versions of albums, which to my ears, are almost unlistenable.
Some Zeppelin albums which I have tried in High Res on Qobuz sound like someone has put a thick blanket over my speakers.
Absolute crap!
I know all of those albums intimately having bought every one on both vinyl and CD over the years.
I can’t listen to the High Res versions.
It’s great to have the choice.

 

[MtnMan307]

My Jot 2 is scheduled to arrive on Sunday. Two more days!

 

[Les Strat]

i posted this earlier but explains well the rabbit hole the sample frequency is:

Thanks for posting this excellent video @Derrick Swart.
It confirms what I have thought.
There is a benefit for recording engineers to go beyond 16/44.1 and 24/48 is considered optimal by many respected Engineers.
However, for playback, there is no advantage whatsoever in going beyond 16/44.1.
High Res is largely marketing BS.