|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: For the same reasons that...... posted by Chris Garrett on March 12, 2001 at 14:29:41:
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
Follow Ups:
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: