 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Apples and oranges... posted by renaissance on March 12, 2001 at 08:51:59:
If I put a 24/96 disk into my 18 bit player and send the data to a 24/96 capable off-board dac, why the hell am I not getting the resolution that is on the disk ?I say agin, your standard cd player can NOT physically read a 24/96 disk. Therefore you CAN'T send 24/96 output from your cd player to an external dac.
Follow Ups:
Great, now I know that it can't read the disk. But my question is why not ? It was stated earlier that only the disk determines the outputted data, but this can't be correct. What enables one player/transport to read higher bit/kHz discs ?ren
I have stated the facts plainly, twice, and frankly can't understand where you are coming from. Hopefully someone else will be able to help you.
I hope they can too, Nick, because, although you have provided some intersting and relative information, you have not answered the core question, namely, why can't the transport mechanism read data other than 16/44.1 ? I have asked this question more than once and it hasn't been answered.bw
Please try to understand the following:
A CD disc is formated as 16 bit and 44.1kHz and a CD player/transport can only read this type of disc. A DVD (24/96 or 24/192) for instance is a totally different format and requires a different laser to read them. SO ... a CD player CANNOT read ANYTHING other than a normal 16/44.1 CD. Period ... end ... out!!!Trust us!!!
And, don't be fooled into to thinking a Cd lables "24/96" is a different format. It is still just 16/44.1 but the "MASTER" was made at a data rate of 24/96 and "downsampled" to 16/44.1, the CD standard.
GOT IT NOW?
a CD player can't read the pits/lands in the trough on a DVD Video Disc, or why a CD player can't read SACD/DVD~A discs either. It has to do, in some cases, with the laser's wavelength. The bits on a SACD disc are more closely spaced/deeper vs. CD and this is more or less the same for DVD~V. That's why every DVD~Vp has either two lasers, or two lenses to focus the single beam differently. They may look the same on the surface, but they ain't!This can also be a software issue in the transport. The Sony 7000 DVDp could not PASS a DTS bitstream, let alone decode one. It didn't have the algorithm to make heads or tails of what it was looking at.
The Discs all use different formats, they are NOT the same internally and once you get over this hump, you'll have the answer to your question. There are no 24/96 CDs. Period. Your CDP can't read them, because none EXIST. Your CDP can't can't read DVD~V, DVD~A, or SACD discs (and in many cases CD-R & CD-RW) because they ARE NOT CDS.For most practical purposes, 24/96 DACs are overkill, especially if one only does CDs and no upsampling. I'm sure the digital gurus will tell us that they can help, but I'm not smart enough to tell you why. They are being made/marketed more frequently than the 14, 16, 18, or 20 bit dacs and are easier to buy in bulk and install these days. DVD~V music discs, in the right situation, can give one the higer resolution that the 24/96 DACs are meant to produce, but your player has to pass the 24/96 signal w/o downconverting, either at the analogue OUTs or at the Digital OUT (usually done).
To give you an idea, my Toshiba 2200 w/24~96 DACs will only pass a 20/96 signal from the 6 '5.1' analogue jacks on the rear and it will only pass a 24/96 signal through its two channel analogue jacks, when playing a DVD~V music disc. I will only have the higher resolution in STEREO, not surround. The COAX/Digital OUT will only do 16/48 due to copyright/piracy issues. So, just because I'm playing a 24/96 DVD~V disc through my Denon 3300 with 5 kick-ass 24/96 DACs, doesn't mean that's what I'm hearing. It's very complicated and one best read the manual first, before buying.
Chirs
,
I must have read this post three times before submitting. Oh well, that's why an editor proofs the writer. A different set of eyes.Chris
Chris, thanks for that explanation. Superb !All that said, doesn't it seem a bit dishonest the way 24/96 is being thrown around these days ? I mean, I read a lot and I am just now understanding how all of this stacks up. Sounds like a lot of marketing hype to me.
Up until DVD-A and SACD how many levels of encoding resolution were there ? And now that I have a used Link DAC II on the way, what is it that is creating the sonic benefits reviewed ad infinitum ? Lower jitter or what ?Again, thanks for the help.
bw
Well the Redbook standard is 16 bits sampled at 44.1 kHz. DVD~A can do 24 bits at 192 kHz, but I guess, only with dual AES/EBU runs. I'm foggy on this concept. DVD~V does 24/96. Sony is supposedly using a 1 bit 2.5 (?) mHz sampling rate, but really an 8 bit converter. At the recording console/master tape, people can do a combination thereof, and Chesky does some 24/96 discs and JVC XRCDs are 20 bit/K2 processes, but I'm going to put my foot into my mouth, so I'll stop here.I guess, the benefits of an outboard DAC might be in better parts used. Rodney Gold is pretty smart in the digital arena, as well as Steve, Peter, Garth, and RBP, so you might do a SEARCH on their names and read up on their thoughts. I'm a stupid layman susceptible to marketing mumbo jumbo.
You wanna here something really neat? I'm about to hook my Hi Fi S~VHS player up to my Sony SCD-1/preamp and do a recording of an SACD for Bill Roberts (engineer.) He thinks that he'll have a better idea of the format's sound and that this analogue tape will be pretty close to what's on the disc. Neat, huh?
Chis
Super-VHS recorders make about the most "super" analogue recordings I have heard. Great idea!
according to Garth, who posts here and seems to know a bit, the SP/DIF interface (either RCA or BNC digital out on 98% of digital gear) only supports up to 24/96 anyway, so for all practical purposes, there exists a bottleneck, similar to a bus speed on a motherboard in a computer.Yes, it is marketing. What most people don't understand is the limitation of each disc in question. Many love upsampling (where through math, things can be stretched) others don't. Peter Qvortrup and Audio Note don't even use Digital Filters, others do. I wouldn't get hung up on any of it. 24/96 DACs do work in the context of DVD~V, if everything else is in line. However, it's just easier to throw the higher rez. part in and tell everyone, you've got a better DAC.
Heck, most systems probably can't resolve the differences anyhow! My ears are clay, but I think my system is capable. Remember, people think that just because they can HEAR, that this fact makes them a GOOD listener. One needs a trained ear and I don't think I'm entirely there yet, myself.
Anyway, it's best to try and listen to as much gear in your own system as possible. If you can hear a beneficial difference, then consider that piece.
Chris
Glad I`m not the only one with ears of clay! Reminds me of the time I went to a demonstration of Kimber Cables and various tweaks by Russ Andrews (Kimber distributer and `Guru` over here). First he replaced IC`s, then speaker cables, then mains cables, then oak cones under equipment - and if the rest of the group were to be believed I was the only one who didn`t hear the improvements after each stage - although I wasn`t convinced. However, I then asked Russ to change back to the original set up all in one go, and the difference was incredible (I now use Kimber). Personally, I find it very difficult detecting changes in A/B comparisons, but if I have time to adapt to a certain sound, it`s easier then to detect a deterioration. As far as the 24/96 DACs, the first rule of marketing comes to mind - applies to all aspects of Audio - `If you can`t do it better, do it different`
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
