Recently, such transports as Chiaki's SDTrans192 and ExaDevices exaU2I provide opportunities to listen 352.8 kHz/24 bit sources using inexpensive DIY systems.
As for me, I have tried all the free sources available on 2L Hires web site as well as some 2L commercially released albums.
I found some of 2L sources were very superior and I convinced definite value of those. At the same time, FFT spectra of those sources showed me some realities. It's a kind of contradiction for me.
Do you have any opinion on the sound quality of 352.8 kHz/24 bit or more higher resolution sources?
As for me, I have tried all the free sources available on 2L Hires web site as well as some 2L commercially released albums.
I found some of 2L sources were very superior and I convinced definite value of those. At the same time, FFT spectra of those sources showed me some realities. It's a kind of contradiction for me.
Do you have any opinion on the sound quality of 352.8 kHz/24 bit or more higher resolution sources?
That would be both a waste of time and money since most likely any potential benefit compared to 16-24/96 or even 16/44.1 would be masked be the inability to get it to work better than those. Obviously it is also pointless as we cannot hear anything that would need a sampling frequency that high and are unable to make use of the extra resolution.
It's just plain silly. IMHO.
It's just plain silly. IMHO.
352.8 kHz/24 bit DXD is very valuable in the studio work/recordings because can be processed easier and used to directly derive DSD64 (SACD) or other PCM (including 44.1kHz/16bit).
Merging Technologies
http://www.merging.com/uploads/assets//Merging_pdfs/dxd_Resolution_v3.5.pdf
For home use, 96kHz/24bit is the limit of real benefits. All the consumer DAC's have a maximum 20-22 bit real resolution/distortion, and the headphones/speakers limit further the real resolution.
42-44kHz audio bandwidth provided by the 96kHz sampling is also sufficient for human hearing and for the actual recordings.
Merging Technologies
http://www.merging.com/uploads/assets//Merging_pdfs/dxd_Resolution_v3.5.pdf
For home use, 96kHz/24bit is the limit of real benefits. All the consumer DAC's have a maximum 20-22 bit real resolution/distortion, and the headphones/speakers limit further the real resolution.
42-44kHz audio bandwidth provided by the 96kHz sampling is also sufficient for human hearing and for the actual recordings.
Last edited:
No, the highest my equipment goes is 176.4/192 kHz 24 bit samples (with true analog resolution of 19-20bit). But even there, I found out that there is no difference between 88.2/96 kHz and higher samplerates.
PS: The true analog resolution you can find it by taking the TDH+N percent distortion figures and convert them in dB. Or use that percents directly to find out how many bits it takes to achive that number.
20bit achieves 120dB Dynamic Range. If we factor the distortion on the top of noise, that is equal to an 0.0001% THD+N.
22bit agieves 126dB Dynamic Range. That would be equal to 0.000025% THD+N.
One of the best DAC's out there (PCM1794) has Analog Performance:
− Dynamic Range: 132 dB (9 V RMS, Mono), 129 dB (4.5 V RMS, Stereo), 127 dB (2 V RMS, Stereo) [that involves only the noise floor]
− THD+N: 0.0004%
That THD+N is more like 18-19bit.
PS: The true analog resolution you can find it by taking the TDH+N percent distortion figures and convert them in dB. Or use that percents directly to find out how many bits it takes to achive that number.
20bit achieves 120dB Dynamic Range. If we factor the distortion on the top of noise, that is equal to an 0.0001% THD+N.
22bit agieves 126dB Dynamic Range. That would be equal to 0.000025% THD+N.
One of the best DAC's out there (PCM1794) has Analog Performance:
− Dynamic Range: 132 dB (9 V RMS, Mono), 129 dB (4.5 V RMS, Stereo), 127 dB (2 V RMS, Stereo) [that involves only the noise floor]
− THD+N: 0.0004%
That THD+N is more like 18-19bit.
Last edited:
I have absolutely no experience in listening to true 352.8 kHz/24 bit sources and if the world stays at least a little bit sane I most likely will not. There is in my opinion absolutely no point whatsoever but is just plain silly as it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Why not use the more than adequate and currently technically well working formats? IMHO.
It would however, as mentioned above, almost make sense for material being processed. Otherwise not. IMHO.
Hi, I'm currently listening 352.8khz/24bit 2L samples. (via SDTrans192 
- BuffaloII 80mhz,OSF disabled)
Honestly to say, I'm personally not a big fan of these classical music, so I expected I might feel boring with these these samples...
but surprisingly (for me) these high-res 2L samples are quite enjoyable.
Now I feel these higher resolution files provide richer tones, and atmosphere.
These files give vinyl-like comfortable sound in my listening.
>I found some of 2L sources were very superior and I convinced definite value of those.
So I agree with Bunpei said as above.
On the other hand, there's reasons why I don't pay much concentration on 352.8kHz/24bit playback.
- There's very limited numbers of titles released in such hi-rez format. I'd like to buy discs/files from the titles I'm interested in, not from
the Hi-rez format.
- The ADConverters for such Hi-resolution recording are far beyond I could afford. I feel 192khz/24bit is reasonable for ripping my vinyls.
Cheers,
- BuffaloII 80mhz,OSF disabled)Honestly to say, I'm personally not a big fan of these classical music, so I expected I might feel boring with these these samples...
but surprisingly (for me) these high-res 2L samples are quite enjoyable.
Now I feel these higher resolution files provide richer tones, and atmosphere.
These files give vinyl-like comfortable sound in my listening.
>I found some of 2L sources were very superior and I convinced definite value of those.
So I agree with Bunpei said as above.
On the other hand, there's reasons why I don't pay much concentration on 352.8kHz/24bit playback.
- There's very limited numbers of titles released in such hi-rez format. I'd like to buy discs/files from the titles I'm interested in, not from
the Hi-rez format.
- The ADConverters for such Hi-resolution recording are far beyond I could afford. I feel 192khz/24bit is reasonable for ripping my vinyls.
Cheers,
I have a layman's question:
If we double the bit resolution, it does need to double the sample rate. Is this correct? I mean:
16 bit 44.1 kHz
17 bit 88.2 kHz
18 bit 176.4 kHz
19 bit 352.8 kHz
I understand this is related to oversampling, where the oversampling filter calculates the bit values between the original 44.1 kHz samples. So we have 8 intermediate levels @ 8x oversampling, and we can achieve at most 19-bit resolution. Then what is the reason behind 24-bit @ 352.8 kHz?
If we double the bit resolution, it does need to double the sample rate. Is this correct? I mean:
16 bit 44.1 kHz
17 bit 88.2 kHz
18 bit 176.4 kHz
19 bit 352.8 kHz
I understand this is related to oversampling, where the oversampling filter calculates the bit values between the original 44.1 kHz samples. So we have 8 intermediate levels @ 8x oversampling, and we can achieve at most 19-bit resolution. Then what is the reason behind 24-bit @ 352.8 kHz?
My view is: - the difference between native recordings of higher sample rates and lower is the lack of need for a rather icky reconstruction filter. Imo, it's the filter that gives "digital" its sound or lack thereof. The higher sample rates permit filters that put the problems way outside the audible range, even when aliased back down (if), and minimize the ringing that is found on the leading edge in the reconstruction process.
Can this be heard? You bet.
Can you hear it? Depends on you, your hearing and the system you are listening to AND your point of reference.
Point of reference, wazzat? It's what you have to compare to and what your listening experience has been and what your sonic memory consists of.
I can give everyone a more or less simple experiment to try. You would need two mics, mic cable and some sort of mic preamp. String two mics outside of your windows, preferably as far apart as possible. Listen. Report back. Of course the better the mics and preamp and system, the better the experience, but based upon experience I am confident that everyone will find that this listening experience is vastly superior and more "open" than anything they have that is recorded, no matter what the sample rate. Now, why is that, and how could it be? Hmmm...
Try it and report back, ok?
Oh and as far as there being "titles" for sale in high res - better to go out and record your own stuff wherever and however you can... more fun and usually sounds better too. Something to be said for 1st gen recordings. Oooops, wait a second, how could that be?
_-_-bear
Can this be heard? You bet.
Can you hear it? Depends on you, your hearing and the system you are listening to AND your point of reference.
Point of reference, wazzat? It's what you have to compare to and what your listening experience has been and what your sonic memory consists of.
I can give everyone a more or less simple experiment to try. You would need two mics, mic cable and some sort of mic preamp. String two mics outside of your windows, preferably as far apart as possible. Listen. Report back. Of course the better the mics and preamp and system, the better the experience, but based upon experience I am confident that everyone will find that this listening experience is vastly superior and more "open" than anything they have that is recorded, no matter what the sample rate. Now, why is that, and how could it be? Hmmm...
Try it and report back, ok?
Oh and as far as there being "titles" for sale in high res - better to go out and record your own stuff wherever and however you can... more fun and usually sounds better too. Something to be said for 1st gen recordings. Oooops, wait a second, how could that be?
_-_-bear
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.