[A Jedi]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I meant if it was choice of one or the other. Obviously I would prefer a good recording and mastering in hi-res.

 

[filthy mechanical]

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.

Seems a lot of the video recording as well, you can only resolve to a certain amount but higher res recording gives all sorts of advantages especially if you want to crop the video.

 

[ScottFree]

Since the currrent Schiit-Of-The-Day discussion has turned into a discussion on Hi-Res or "Hi-Res" depending on your POV I'd thought this video might be of interest. For a little background Dr. Mark Waldrep of AIX Records, one of the few actual true Hi-Res audio labels, set up the The High-Resolution Audio Challenge II several months ago where. if you subscribed to the challenge, you were able to download a 40 track selection of Hi-Res and CD quality tracks and to try and identify which was CD quality and which was Hi-Res. The results were interesting but may not be everyone's cup of tea. Enjoy

 

[hollandstein]

Does anyone know what's the waiting time for Jotunheim 2? Any chance it can be delivered before Christmas?

I ordered one with phono on 18th and no movement yet.

 

[433521]

Depends... A pair of 10.000€ genelec have 6 monoblock amplifiers, one for each driver. Never in history any passive speaker ever has been so well matched than that. Never such a perfect amplifier for each. Even my 1100€ ADAMs have double monoblock for each driver, with the one for the treeble been class A, and the woofer class D. similar quality on passive setup 2-3 times the price.

We could ask the man if he thinks he could design a cheaper amp that would sound better if he knew what speaker the amp would be used with.

 

[cgb3]

In general a good cable is not the issue bandwidth-limiting Toslink S/PDIF, it's the sender and receiver encoding modules. Toshiba originally designed Toslink to pass 48KHz signals, and it is generally limited to 24/96. Getting speeds higher than that via optical is a hit and miss proposition.

I'd love to see a double blind, peer reviewed study where sampling rates, above say 24/48, were proven beneficial.

 

[earnmyturns]

I'd love to see a double blind, peer reviewed study where sampling rates, above say 24/48, were proven beneficial.

Here's the deal. Unless you like NOS DACs, all DACs upsample to multiples of 44.1 or 48. Not all DACs have as good an upsampling filter as Schiit's multibit DACs. For those DACs, hi-res can sound better simply because it does not have to be upsampled as much. IOW, mediocre upsampling makes hi-res sound better than CD res. If you get your Yggdrasil you can forget all this and just enjoy your CD rips. Or you can learn to love NOS (I keep being drawn back to NOS as an interesting alternative to my Yggdrasil).

 

[filthy mechanical]

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

After watching the video, reminds me what is coming out of the experiment recently in the steel industry. Back in 2017 Big River Steel opened as the "most modern, most connected, most sensored, AI enabled" (more platitudes and buzzwords were used) mill in the world as a "tech company that happened to make steel" (both quotes paraphrased). If there was a sensor - flow temperature, vibration, ultrasonic, etc available and it was a branch in the piping or bearing or electronic motor or heat exchanger... it got a sensor. They became the industry darling for a while, any conference committee that could take a tour of the mill was (long products didn't, BRS is a flat product mill) and one thing I kept hearing at the conference I attended was how much data they were taking in and how much was a) useless, and b) how they were having a very hard time separating the bad data from good because of how much they were taking in. Talking across the industry, some of the newer mills (ones is going up just outside Corpus Christi, another in Kentucky, expansions all over the country) are not sensoring everything, just the big items that need it - you don't need the whole roll line, just 1 roll. You don't need a flow, pressure, and temperature sensor on every branch line everywhere, put it on every line for say mold water (very bad stuff happens if you loose mold water) but the lines in the runout don't need sensors aside from the header, and certainly don't need temperature sensors on most of them - if the temperature is X at the header, it is going to be very close to X only the branch lines before the equipment and that saves a lot of wiring.

AKA: Sample enough to get what you need (you need 44.1kHz based on human hearing and buffer for filtering bumps up to 48kHz), but anything higher runs the risk of introducing bad data.

 

[A Jedi]

Not being able to delete your own post is a bit silly no?

 

[macdonjh]

After watching the video, reminds me what is coming out of the experiment recently in the steel industry. Back in 2017 Big River Steel opened as the "most modern, most connected, most sensored, AI enabled" (more platitudes and buzzwords were used) mill in the world as a "tech company that happened to make steel" (both quotes paraphrased). If there was a sensor - flow temperature, vibration, ultrasonic, etc available and it was a branch in the piping or bearing or electronic motor or heat exchanger... it got a sensor. They became the industry darling for a while, any conference committee that could take a tour of the mill was (long products didn't, BRS is a flat product mill) and one thing I kept hearing at the conference I attended was how much data they were taking in and how much was a) useless, and b) how they were having a very hard time separating the bad data from good because of how much they were taking in. Talking across the industry, some of the newer mills (ones is going up just outside Corpus Christi, another in Kentucky, expansions all over the country) are not sensoring everything, just the big items that need it - you don't need the whole roll line, just 1 roll. You don't need a flow, pressure, and temperature sensor on every branch line everywhere, put it on every line for say mold water (very bad stuff happens if you loose mold water) but the lines in the runout don't need sensors aside from the header, and certainly don't need temperature sensors on most of them - if the temperature is X at the header, it is going to be very close to X only the branch lines before the equipment and that saves a lot of wiring.

AKA: Sample enough to get what you need (you need 44.1kHz based on human hearing and buffer for filtering bumps up to 48kHz), but anything higher runs the risk of introducing bad data.

Sounds like Big River Steel had a poor design review. Also, they ignored Einstein: everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.

 

[Les Strat]

Here's the deal. Unless you like NOS DACs, all DACs upsample to multiples of 44.1 or 48. Not all DACs have as good an upsampling filter as Schiit's multibit DACs. For those DACs, hi-res can sound better simply because it does not have to be upsampled as much. IOW, mediocre upsampling makes hi-res sound better than CD res. If you get your Yggdrasil you can forget all this and just enjoy your CD rips. Or you can learn to love NOS (I keep being drawn back to NOS as an interesting alternative to my Yggdrasil).

Thanks for the explanation about upsampling @earnmyturns.
I don’t pretend to understand the technology in Mike’s multibit DACs.
All I do know is my Yggy sounds fantastic when fed good recordings on 16/44.1.....and 24/96
Edit: I found this post about NOS DACs, (from Archimago's Musings) interesting:
Archimago's Musings: NOS vs. Digital Filtering DACs: Exploring filtering turned off, implications, fidelity and subjective audibility. (Recent BorderPatrol DAC chatter...)

 

[FLTWS]

Thanks for the explanation about upsampling @earnmyturns.
I don’t pretend to understand the technology in Mike’s multibit DACs.
All I do know is my Yggy sounds fantastic when fed good recordings on 16/44.1.....and 24/96

I completely agree, the characteristic qualities of the sound of individual instruments (captured accurately in the recording) is just spot on. Other hardware in my rigs changes from time to time, but they all revolve around my Yggdrasil's as the anchor point.

 

[Pietro Cozzi Tinin]

I'd love to see a double blind, peer reviewed study where sampling rates, above say 24/48, were proven beneficial.

Which is, as you think a little longer about it, effectively scientifically impossible.

 

[SnowRang3r]

Here's the deal. Unless you like NOS DACs, all DACs upsample to multiples of 44.1 or 48. Not all DACs have as good an upsampling filter as Schiit's multibit DACs. For those DACs, hi-res can sound better simply because it does not have to be upsampled as much. IOW, mediocre upsampling makes hi-res sound better than CD res. If you get your Yggdrasil you can forget all this and just enjoy your CD rips. Or you can learn to love NOS (I keep being drawn back to NOS as an interesting alternative to my Yggdrasil).

Sounds like a Yggdrasil and Urd will be my digital end game, and I’ll stop wondering about how the grass looks on the other side.

 

[433521]

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".

Is the a correlation between aging ears and the antipathy towards 'hi-res' branding? Due to life experience that it's all a big scam more so I'd guess than inability to hear the 'difference'.

I think I'm like most people who buy hi res assume that the components that go into are higher quality, even if the branding concept is flawed. Higher quality than what? Cheap junk. Basically it's safe to say that if it says hi res, it's not junk.

Probably not junk.