I would have liked it to have a sample rate of 50-80Khz. That 20Khz The 44.1KHz sample rate with its 20KHz output strikes me as too close to the human hearing limit for my engineer's mind to be 100% happy with it.
Dare I mention Dr. H. Nyquist? He said that one only needs a sampling rate of twice the bandwidth of the signal's waveform... so 44.1kHz is 10% overkill.
I would have liked it to have a sample rate of 50-80Khz. That 20Khz strikes me as too close to the human hearing limit for my engineer's mind to be 100% happy with it.
Cymbals, e.g., would be able to take advantage of the extra hertz-age, even if only our dogs can hear it.
My mathematical brain says 50Khz/20bits would have been fantastic. I'm annoyed at the wastefulness of 96Khz/24b. I could have had another 5 songs on there!
Alternatively, have a word at the beginning of the CD to say what the sample rate and sample size are on the recording. Now that would have been perfect sound forever.
I don't understand the 20kHz statement. The story I was told was the original (Redbook) sample rate was 48/16. The physical size of the cd was already set in (manufacturing) stone. The chosen (1st) piece of music to be recreated on the new cd medium was Beethoven's 9th. It wouldn't fit on the cd at 48/16. Some reconstruction of the parameters occurred and a new, coexisting sample rate of 44.1/16 appeared, just enough to make Ludwig happy. Both rates are (in theory) beyond human hearing ability by a factor of 2, Batman notwithstanding.
I do not think anyone will care which facilities manufactured their Schiit, so long as they are Assy in the USA unless you know of a reason the parts or quality would be different.
what blew our minds in the HI FI trade was a machine that made better copies than the original digital stream it recorded from !! Utter heresy but a demonstrable fact
Given the very basic clock and buffering mechanisms of early CD drives, why is that surprising? A CD writer that placed the bits more accurately on the disc might be able to create a disc with less jitter when read back.
Dare I mention Dr. H. Nyquist? He said that one only needs a sampling rate of twice the bandwidth of the signal's waveform... so 44.1kHz is 10% overkill.
But, since it's rare for DACs these days to have a full-on brickwall low pass filter, I guess Mark might have a point that there tend to be certain artifacts of these stairsteps left behind (again, not to say he's not dangerously in BS territory with this stuff). And the more brickwall-ish the filter, the more you may introduce other kinds of artifacts.
Yep. I will say tho that I preferred NOS on the holo DACs when they were my daily drivers. But then I felt like they did the smoothing filter just right.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.