24/96 and 24/192 is no good. MP3 sounds better! - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Source

Digital Source Digital Players and Recorders: CD , SACD , Tape, Memory Card, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 31st May 2002, 10:53 AM   #1
Electrons are yellow and more is better!
diyAudio Member
 
peranders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Blog Entries: 4
Default 24/96 and 24/192 is no good. MP3 sounds better!

Hi!

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.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...4048#post34048

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.
__________________
/Per-Anders (my first name) or P-A as my friends call me
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st May 2002, 12:00 PM   #2
e96mlo is offline e96mlo  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Helsingborg, Sweden
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

Regards

Marcus
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th June 2002, 11:32 AM   #3
Electrons are yellow and more is better!
diyAudio Member
 
peranders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Blog Entries: 4
My topic here was not a burning subject. Noone cares? Is 24/192 the people need or is MP3?
__________________
/Per-Anders (my first name) or P-A as my friends call me
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th June 2002, 08:53 AM   #4
hifiZen is offline hifiZen  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
hifiZen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Mountain View, CA
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?
__________________
- Chad.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th June 2002, 07:12 PM   #5
Won is offline Won
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cambridge, Mass
Default 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.

-Won

PS Ogg Vorbis is pretty cool, not just because it isn't proprietary (like .MP3) but because it is technically and subjectively superior.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2002, 01:47 AM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2002, 02:14 AM   #7
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
Analog computers is far superier than digital computers.
Hey, man, what is this supposed to mean?

Ren
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2002, 02:31 AM   #8
Warp Engineer
On Holiday
 
AudioFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Bring on Quantum Computing ... should solve the speed issues
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th June 2002, 12:18 AM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th June 2002, 01:04 PM   #10
Electrons are yellow and more is better!
diyAudio Member
 
peranders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
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.
__________________
/Per-Anders (my first name) or P-A as my friends call me
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What types of sub woofer sounds good ataul Subwoofers 11 10th March 2009 07:56 PM
7868 amp sounds good but low volume PRNDL Tubes / Valves 9 9th December 2007 09:53 PM
JLH vs Mcintosh class B amp which sounds good wleediy Solid State 0 10th July 2007 09:17 PM
Sounds good, i like it, you may appreciate too. destroyer X Class D 95 22nd February 2005 10:09 PM
Who determines what sounds good? Theli Multi-Way 68 9th February 2004 06:01 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:42 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2