In my world , 192khz has one advantage , that is , more "stock" data for an ASRC ...
The rest is questionable at best, digital crossover becomes problematic , etc.
Please provide links towards yours , heres one I can offer:
http://www.audiofast.com/pdfs/effects.pdf
advantages arent clear there either ,and dont forget that to my knowledge, "all" is lost during mastering process anyway.
Either way, some people seem to have good sense for marketing , so they offer 192k downloads , I must admit, thats very clever
The rest is questionable at best, digital crossover becomes problematic , etc.
Please provide links towards yours , heres one I can offer:
http://www.audiofast.com/pdfs/effects.pdf
advantages arent clear there either ,and dont forget that to my knowledge, "all" is lost during mastering process anyway.
Either way, some people seem to have good sense for marketing , so they offer 192k downloads , I must admit, thats very clever
Last edited:
In my world , 192khz has one advantage , that is , more "stock" data for an ASRC ...
The rest is questionable at best, digital crossover becomes problematic , etc.
Please provide links towards yours , heres one I can offer:
http://www.audiofast.com/pdfs/effects.pdf
advantages arent clear there either ,and dont forget that to my knowledge, "all" is lost during mastering process anyway.
Either way, some people seem to have good sense for marketing , so they offer 192k downloads , I must admit, thats very clever
The dCS paper has nothing to do with what your are saying.
As I said, you need to use various dacs, listen, and then draw conclusions; not make blanket statements based on reading bits of technical info to support your preconceived notions.
In my world , 192khz has one advantage , that is , more "stock" data for an ASRC ...
The rest is questionable at best, digital crossover becomes problematic , etc.
Please provide links towards yours , heres one I can offer:
http://www.audiofast.com/pdfs/effects.pdf
advantages arent clear there either ,and dont forget that to my knowledge, "all" is lost during mastering process anyway.
Either way, some people seem to have good sense for marketing , so they offer 192k downloads , I must admit, thats very clever
Oh, now I understand the problem... You are are living in YOUR WORLD. In the real world, there are many recordings available above redbook quality and to real ears they sound more like a good analog recording than a hard limited CD.
In my world, most of the best engineers are working on mpeg encoders instead of digital audio, and hi-end is full of baloney like, 192k.
Dont forget what microsoft did to Pacific microsonics, made an mpeg team, he-he.
The real test would be that someone sends me some 192k file, I send it back as 44.1 ,96k (or 44.1-96k resampled back to 192k ...once size matters...) . And if you hear the difference you won candy. But you wont .
Dont forget what microsoft did to Pacific microsonics, made an mpeg team, he-he.
baloney
The real test would be that someone sends me some 192k file, I send it back as 44.1 ,96k (or 44.1-96k resampled back to 192k ...once size matters...) . And if you hear the difference you won candy. But you wont .
Last edited:
Yes , thats a good one. Today's sigma delta dac have 3/4 silicon area dedicated to digital signal processing and 1/4 to 'analog'
All that jazz, !!inside the subminiature ssop package.!!
-Not even that 3/4 is up to the task you say : ))
...And you re right.
Double blind tests done in controlled enviroments (hi -end) shown that noone was able to reliably distinguish between 44.1 and other formats.
If the sigma delta has bad DF , that shortcoming can be adressed by a lot other means instead of paying money for 96k tracks (software upsamplers exists with 64bit precision).
All that jazz, !!inside the subminiature ssop package.!!
-Not even that 3/4 is up to the task you say : ))
...And you re right.
Double blind tests done in controlled enviroments (hi -end) shown that noone was able to reliably distinguish between 44.1 and other formats.
If the sigma delta has bad DF , that shortcoming can be adressed by a lot other means instead of paying money for 96k tracks (software upsamplers exists with 64bit precision).
Last edited:
In September 2007, two members of the Boston Audio Society and the Audio Engineering Society published their study in which about half of the 554 double-blind ABX test listening trials made by 60 respondents showed the correct identification of high-resolution or CD-standard sampling rate.[2] The results were no better than flipping a coin.[2] Females, and those who were able to hear frequencies higher than 15 kHz, performed worse than average.[2]
http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
another remark:
-He writes, “I am convinced that comb filtering is at the root of people reporting a change in the sound of cables and electronics, even when no significant change is likely. If someone listens to their system using one pair of cables, then gets up and switches cables and sits down again, the frequency response heard is sure to be very different because it's impossible to sit down again in exactly the same place. So the sound really did change, but probably not because the cables sound different!”
The test subjects in the Meyer/Moran experiment didn't get up and move around, and so the fact that they couldn't discern any differences in the two signal paths fits nicely into Winer's theory. In fact, his response when I sent him the article was, “Nothing in here surprises me.”
http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
another remark:
-He writes, “I am convinced that comb filtering is at the root of people reporting a change in the sound of cables and electronics, even when no significant change is likely. If someone listens to their system using one pair of cables, then gets up and switches cables and sits down again, the frequency response heard is sure to be very different because it's impossible to sit down again in exactly the same place. So the sound really did change, but probably not because the cables sound different!”
The test subjects in the Meyer/Moran experiment didn't get up and move around, and so the fact that they couldn't discern any differences in the two signal paths fits nicely into Winer's theory. In fact, his response when I sent him the article was, “Nothing in here surprises me.”
Last edited:
authors comment about a "contrary" result:
John: I've read the non-refereed preprint you refer to. Though many of their methods are interesting and they went to a lot of trouble, I don't believe the data support the authors' conclusions. They asked their subjects to tell them which sounded more like a multichannel analog feed, a band-limited codec with 44.1kHz sampling, or another with 352.8k. By a small (and statistically insignificant) margin, the subjects thought the 44.1k codec was truer to the source. There were also separate tests with two transmission channels (two sets of microphones and speakers), one with response to 100 kHz and another band-limited to 20k. Again through an unsurprising random statistical variance, the subjects chose the 352k codec *less* often, and the 44.1k codec more often, when there was > 20k audio in the source.
The authors assume (and say so in the paper) that there has to be an audible difference between the codecs, which leads them into a tortured and illogical explanation of how this could have happened. They posit that the ultrasonic material somehow sounded bad, so subjects chose the 44.1k codec when it was present -- but subjects were asked only to say which was more like the (high-bandwidth) source, not which one they liked. So the whole argument kind of collapses in a heap at that point. -- Brad
John: I've read the non-refereed preprint you refer to. Though many of their methods are interesting and they went to a lot of trouble, I don't believe the data support the authors' conclusions. They asked their subjects to tell them which sounded more like a multichannel analog feed, a band-limited codec with 44.1kHz sampling, or another with 352.8k. By a small (and statistically insignificant) margin, the subjects thought the 44.1k codec was truer to the source. There were also separate tests with two transmission channels (two sets of microphones and speakers), one with response to 100 kHz and another band-limited to 20k. Again through an unsurprising random statistical variance, the subjects chose the 352k codec *less* often, and the 44.1k codec more often, when there was > 20k audio in the source.
The authors assume (and say so in the paper) that there has to be an audible difference between the codecs, which leads them into a tortured and illogical explanation of how this could have happened. They posit that the ultrasonic material somehow sounded bad, so subjects chose the 44.1k codec when it was present -- but subjects were asked only to say which was more like the (high-bandwidth) source, not which one they liked. So the whole argument kind of collapses in a heap at that point. -- Brad
Here you’ll have it. It is a E-MU 0404 USB hooked to a M-Audio Audiophile192. The E-MU plays a Dunn jitter test signal from a .wav file from my laptop. Of course the jitter plot is the combined response of the E-MU and the Audiophile cards.
Note: This does not mean the E-MU is the best sounding card, but at least it is async over USB 2.0 with low jitter and capable of 24/192. The second picture shows the separate clock oscillators on the E-MU board.
Attachments
If it wasn’t I didn’t get this result………. Please understand the working and meaning of this test.
B.t.w. A 24 bit source test signal is completely irrelevant for this test.
very intresting, if Hi-Res ADC/DACs use brickwall DF then yes 24/96 has no advantages from 16/44.1, but if in ADC & DAC uses monotonic DF then hi-res is better, attempt to cure CDDA did PacificMicrosonics in his complementary digital filtering processes (HDCD) and NPC in his adaptive DF SM5845AF, all for reduce ringing and shorting auto correlation function
Last edited:
no
and no
5845 adaptively changes DF from brickwall to monotonic (on fast-changing signal, that reduses ringing).
about HDCD look at this article "Compatible Resolution Enhancement in Digital Audio Systems" by Keith O. Johnson, Michael W. Pflaumer. 101 convention AES
and others
by the way PMD100 sonically (and technically) is the best DF for 20-24bit parralel DAC (PCM63, AD1862,PCM1702,PCM1704)
and no
5845 adaptively changes DF from brickwall to monotonic (on fast-changing signal, that reduses ringing).
about HDCD look at this article "Compatible Resolution Enhancement in Digital Audio Systems" by Keith O. Johnson, Michael W. Pflaumer. 101 convention AES
and others
by the way PMD100 sonically (and technically) is the best DF for 20-24bit parralel DAC (PCM63, AD1862,PCM1702,PCM1704)
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.