diyAudio (
-   Digital Source (
-   -   24/96 and 24/192 is no good. MP3 sounds better! (

peranders 31st May 2002 09:53 AM

24/96 and 24/192 is no good. MP3 sounds better!

The subject is to get you going, sort of speaking.

Of course, it's just the opposite. I wonder though about the need for better and better techology.

The posting above had some reflections about advanced techology.

Why do we need 24/192 quality when almost none(!) CD recording is better than the 16/44 format. I wonder also is 192kS better than 96? Techincally it must be harder to sample at 192 than at 96 kS. Do you get sampling artifacts instead? Nothing gained really?

Some people don't want "spitzenklasse" for their amps but demands it for their other gear. We talk here very little about the speakers and I think in that area you have the largest possibilities to increase your sound quality. Not many people have well sounding speakers but the have good amps. Am I mistaken here?

I wonder also if anyone has heard a 24/96 and 24/192 recording which uses the full potential of the formats? I haven't but can't wait...very curious.

e96mlo 31st May 2002 11:00 AM

To say that MP3 is better is to strech it a bit I think. :)

I think it's true that the biggest faults still sits in the speakers and without good ones you won't benefit from super-DACs or amps.

There are quite a few recepies out there for making a great sounding amp, but not so many for making the typical great sounding speaker. It's of course due to the fact that everyone have different listening environments and different tastes in looks and sound.

I have cement walls in my listening room so nothing sounds too good there :mad:



peranders 4th June 2002 10:32 AM

My topic here was not a burning subject. Noone cares? Is 24/192 the people need or is MP3?

hifiZen 12th June 2002 07:53 AM

Personally, I can't wait for 24/192 to become more popular... at the moment there are only some 200-odd titles available, which is a bit dismal compared to SACD's 2000 or whatever it's at now. I for one am really looking forward to the improvement, since I do a considerable portion of my listening through headphones now... apartment living just doesn't seem to be so conducive to listening at the levels I enjoy (of course not really that loud, but enough to bother the neighbours). I also find it hard to sit down for long listening sessions as I used to do, thus it's a bit hard for me to justify warming up the ol' tubes...

Getting back to the issue, I've heard both SACD and 24/96 enough to realize that there's an appreciable difference compared to CD audio - especially for us audiophiles. Much to my dismay, however, it looks like SACD is going to dominate as the new high definition format. This is mainly because: 1. the Sony/Philips marketing machine is putting out good propoganda, 2. Sony/Philips own companies which produce the recordings, and therefore are releasing a good deal of material on SACD, and won't ever release anything on the competing DVD-A format, and 3. the SACD format is backward compatible with CDDA, thus making it easy for people to transition.

In contrast, there is little incentive for recording companies to release on the DVD-A format, since the current market penetration of DVD-A players is very small. On top of that, there doesn't seem to be much interest from the DVD-A companies to band together and push their technology against SACD. Perhaps the saving grace for DVD-A will be the addition of video / stills, a significant value-added feature for the typical consumer who might not be so concerned with the sound quality. I guess we'll just have to wait and see where the disc price point stabilizes, and how well the players catch on...

I'll be very disappointed if DVD-A loses out to SACD, as the SACD format is going to be pretty awful for us DIY-ers to deal with, especially if you want to process it. In order to manipulate the data in the digital domain, you pretty much have to convert it to PCM - negating the whole point of the format. But, at least 24/96 and 24/192 should be well capable of accurately representing the content of SACD.

In the meantime, I'm quite happy with my CDDA. The recordings and playback technology have come a long way, and it is still sometimes quite amazing what kind of fidelity can be captured on plain old 16/44.1. And, since you mention it, mp3s can sound OK too... clearly not up to audiophile standards, but I find higher bitrate mp3s to be quite listenable for background noise at home or work, in the car etc...

As an interesting sidebar, I recently discovered the following IC: NPC's new SM5816AF DSD-to-PCM converter. At least there's one relatively easy way to get the PCM bitstream out of DSD data... now, can we get our hands on these little devils?

Won 12th June 2002 06:12 PM

SACD fan
The NPC SM5816AF seems like a really interesting part, although the datasheet seems to be a little sparse on details. But it appears to have some interesting features:

1) Writable coefficients
2) DSD pass-through
3) Multiple outputs 2fs and 8fs (fs = 44.1kHz, of course)
4) Flexible clocking

Does this mean that you can use this guy for a digital crossover? For example, you could use the DSD passthrough and pipe that directly to your tweeter amp (with an an analog bandpass filter) and take the PCM outputs and run that through digital room correction and additional crossover filters (there was a TI part that did this, I remember) for the <3kHz signals. You can refine this idea even more (for example, use the writeable coefficients creatively, or the extra set of PCM outputs), but I think this is pretty cool in itself.

I don't see any legal reason why we shouldn't be able to get this part because it doesn't seem like there's any sticky algorithm licensing issues here. Whether NPC would want to deal with sample quantities is a different story.


PS Ogg Vorbis is pretty cool, not just because it isn't proprietary (like .MP3) but because it is technically and subjectively superior.

Electro 27th June 2002 12:47 AM

The number one reason that 96 KHz or 192 KHz recording rates doesn't sound very good is because of data bandwidth limitations. For 16 bit at a sampling rate of 44100 Hz the designer needs a wide data bandwidth similer to RAMBUS. The ADC or DACs needs to be very, very, very fast to handle even CD quality sound. Analog computers is far superier than digital computers.

MP3 on the other hand is great for todays computers because it doesn't need a huge bandwidth. Most of the information in a CD quality sound file gets thrown away when recording in MP3 format.

Ren Hoek 27th June 2002 01:14 AM


Analog computers is far superier than digital computers.

Hey, man, what is this supposed to mean?


AudioFreak 27th June 2002 01:31 AM

Bring on Quantum Computing ... should solve the speed issues :)

Electro 27th June 2002 11:18 PM

To bad quantum computers are being used for security purposes for the government. Yes, quantum computers are faster than any super computer.

In the next decade quantum computers might be in the desktop world.

peranders 28th June 2002 12:04 PM


Originally posted by Electro
The number one reason that 96 KHz or 192 KHz recording rates doesn't sound very good is because of data bandwidth limitations. For 16 bit at a sampling rate of 44100 Hz the designer needs a wide data bandwidth similer to RAMBUS. The ADC or DACs needs to be very, very, very fast to handle even CD quality sound. Analog computers is far superier than digital computers.
¿Que? What do you really mean?

My old slow Mac can in realtime process 16/48 and a couple of filters! A new Mac or PC can handle several channels of 24/192 in realtime and more if you have hardware acceleration. Man, Mac's can handle DV without problem! The bandwidth problem is really not a problem for playing gear. The biggiest problem is analog-digital conversion.

Maybe you aren't in the digital business but ADC and DAC chips are available to buy and they costs virtually nothing, we talk 24/192 and 24/96.

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:38 PM.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2017 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2