|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.27.127.96
In Reply to: RE: Ethernet HD Music Server posted by katylied on May 05, 2012 at 17:28:03
Thanks for the input so far - I am excited about the Squeezebox and found a related product called a Sonos. I have questions in to their respective Support lines as to whether they will handle 192 khz x 24 bit (the Squeezebox apparently goes up to 96k x 24 and the Sonos doesn't describe it's resolution. But this is very cool - and I am in pursuit! Thanks Again! btb
Follow Ups:
You might find this thread from the pc audio asylum interesting, especially John Swensons input. It talks about a 3rd party app so dont be surprised if Logitech says it isnt possible when it is.
Afterwards we discovered faith; it's all you need
The other alternative is to transcode the 24/192 at the server end. While the Squeezebox Touch itself does not directly support anything past 24/96 at factory settings, the server software is capable of converting so you can play the files with no modifications needed to the Touch.
Hmmm - you mean up-convert from 96 to 192? I have native 192 khz 24 bit sound files so don't really want to down-convert then up-convert those.
Or does it pass the 192 khz 24 bit data through unscathed?
No, it would down-convert from 24/192 to 24/96 at the server software side. If that is unacceptable to you, then you'll either need to hack the Touch or find a different device.
Of course, that brings up the whole issue of what is truly audible at the consumer level (studios often need to mix multitracks where the level of volume disparity between tracks is significant - end users don't do that) but I understand that many subscribe to the theory that if "X" is good, then twice "X" must be better.
Good luck with your search. Hope you find what you need.
mls-stl - thanks for your info. I am definitely going to avoid getting into that whole "can you hear the difference" debate - we would never get to the end of that one!
I find 24 x 96 khz significantly better than CD so I would class it as adequate for now if that's all I can do. I am also exploring the SONOS but have the same question for that gadget - I have a question into their support line to find out if it supports 192 x 24.
"Of course, that brings up the whole issue of what is truly audible at the consumer level"
192/24 downconversion to 96/24 is likely to be audible on recordings that derive from original 192/24 digitization of analog sources (e.g. 15 IPS tape, live microphone feeds, analog mixing console output, etc.) The reason is probably not high frequency response, it's probably filter smoothness. To hear the difference it may be necessary to have amplifiers and speakers suitable for the music being played and a decent DAC. However, moderately priced DACs may benefit more than high-end DACs from being run at the higher sampling rate as many aberrations of mediocre DSP are less annoying when moved up the F-scale.
Some sites, such as Linn, are selling 192/24 downloads at the same price as 96/24 downloads, so the only cost involved in purchasing the higher resolution format is a few cents worth of disk space, rather cheap insurance even if one doesn't hear a difference today.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Hi Tony - there are so many variables in the whole music chain that it boggles the mind. I recently had some super-brains (Phds in a to d and d to a) in for a listen and found that the issues we were listening to were attributable to the D to A converters used to make the CD/digital music files.
I have HD files from both Linn and HDTracks which are "native" 192 x 24, and I also have some of the same recordings in 96 x 24. There are clearly differences in the same recording between 192 and 96 but I am not sure that is due to the sample rate - I think someone has modified the eq between the two. But other than the eq, I found the 96 x 24 to be a huge step forward over CD but am still exploring whether its worth the disk space for 192 (over 96 k)
HDtracks sells 96/24 and 192/24 versions of "Waltz for Debbie". According to available information, the only difference between the two versions is that between the two transfers the ADC converter speed was switched and the tape was rewound. (No DSP other than what was inside the converter.) Some of the Acousense recordings on Linn are made similarly, i.e. by capturing the output of an analog mixing desk at various sample rates. In some cases the source tracks fed into the mixer were only 96/24 but capturing at 192/24 still sounded better than 96/24 according to the recording engineer.
Another way of evaluating formats is to do conversions yourself, e.g. start with a high sampling rate and produce different versions file to file using a sample rate converter. In this case, you can be certain that there is no extra "EQ" involved, other than the particular settings used for the SRC software. The operation of the SRC is transparent, i.e. it's not magic. One can actually inspect the numeric values of the input and output samples if one is so inclined, measure frequency response and transient response of the SRC's filters, etc. (One will need at least an audio editing program and some knowledge of DSP.)
In general, the step from 44/16 to 48/24 is the largest step up in sound quality from CD, the bigger step up from 48/24 to 96/24 is not proportionally greater. From then on, diminishing returns definitely set in.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: