24/96 vs 24/192

Discussion in 'Digital Sources' started by moejr, Nov 30, 2016.

  1. SaSi

    SaSi Seriously Illogical Subscriber

    Athens, Greece
    I'll try to comment on the subject, hoping I don't bounce away a lot.
    Before commenting on a player's resolution, I'l comment on the material first. We have so many examples of badly recorded and mastered music that shows absolutely no stereo image and has a very small dynamic range, that sampling frequency AND bit depth become irrelevant. The same material might sound similar even at 8/22kHz. The poor sound quality of recordings is - IMHO - a much more serious issue to address and one that - funny, right - does have an answer. It's a shame music producers don't start by creating material that "might" benefit from an increased resolution first. Material that might be able to swamp a CD's "meager" 95dB of dynamic range.

    Second experience comes from reading books on how to design pre-amplifiers and amplifiers. Douglas Self suggests a 50kHz or so tuned RF (radio frequency) filter should be added to preamplifiers because all circuits exhibit increased distortion at frequencies higher than 20-30kHz and that, combined with inter-modulation and interference from the abundance of IR remotes, cordless phones, cellular phones, bluetooth devices, wireless routers, etc, can affect the performance at the audio range as well as stability. To quote a phrase I read somewhere else, "it is pointless and counter productive to exercise the semiconductors and getting them warmed up osculating at radio frequencies only to affect their linearity in the audio spectrum".

    There is one exception in my perspective of high frequency sampling rates. When I record from LP or tape onto the computer, I always record at a high sampling rate (32/192). For a specific reason though. The click removal s/w I am using as well as Audition's hiss removal algorithms seem to work much much better with more samples to work with. If an analogy is excused, it looks like comparing using a machete (16/44) against using a scalpel and magnifying glasses (32/192). Takes more time to cut pieces away but the precision of the cut is much better. Of course, audio is down sampled back to 16/44 once the processing is done, and sounds terrific.
    JoeESP9, Alobar and moejr like this.


    Please register to disable this ad.

  2. JoeESP9

    JoeESP9 ESL's & tubes since 83

    Philadelphia PA
    Thanks for this tip. What are you using for pop/click removal?
  3. RhythmGJ

    RhythmGJ AK Subscriber Subscriber

    And ^^^^ are you removing manually (hi-lite and edit), or relying on a plug-in to do it automatically? It is true that pops and clicks can be removed with no audible evidence remaining if they are edited at the pixel/granular level on a time-line (although a pain-staking process), but that's true at 44.1/16 as well as higher. If the program automatically removes artifacts, maybe it needs more information to discern than a human operator?

  4. restorer-john

    restorer-john Addicted Member

    duplicate post
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2017
  5. tmtomh

    tmtomh Active Member

    PA, USA
    I believe 6Moons or someone did a review of one, and they indeed found a slight but clearly measurable (and no doubt audible) high-end roll-off.

    EDIT: Here's the Stereophile review. Measurements show frequency response shockingly un-flat for a CD player, and listening impressions talk about rolled-of treble.


    Tom Bombadil and SoNic67 like this.
  6. Tom Bombadil

    Tom Bombadil AK Member

    Madison, Wisconsin
    Thanks for the link. I find it astounding that Art Dudley liked how the PS1 sounded. To me, that totally discredits him as a trustworthy reviewer of audio equipment. Well, perhaps not because he liked it, but that he didn't point out how it changes the music so much. In my system, and when listening to my favorite demo songs, which I have used to evaluate probably 50 or more pieces of audio gear, I was shocked at how different these songs sounded vis a vis every other piece of gear I have ever listened to. How some instruments faded into the background, voices came forward, the bass was warmer, the soundstage was dramatically altered.

    This was true for both PS1s and when inserted into my primary system with the same preamp, amp, and speakers which I have used to compare 12 to 15 other CD players and DACs.

    I can understand someone liking this effect. Many people complain about how CDs sound harsh, bright, and/or lean. The PS1 certainly takes care of those issues.

    I appreciate how the Stereophile measurements capture the high noise floor and how the player really has only 14 bits of resolution. Perhaps this is a factor in how I perceived it's imaging to be inferior.
    tmtomh likes this.
  7. rolltide

    rolltide Super Member

    Vallejo, CA
    Art Dudley isn't a big fan of digital (or at least prefers analog in all cases), so it might not be surprising that he enjoys a CD player that has a sort of non-traditional, non-HiFi sound to it.

    As to this discrediting him, he tends to review low power tube gear, vintage-style analog products (heavy tonearms, idler wheels, pickup heads, etc), and high efficiency speakers. If this isn't your wheelhouse, I can't see one having much use for what he writes about one way or the other. If I found myself in the market for a ultra-detailed DAC, I don't think I'd solicit his opinion. When I was shopping for a 12" tonearm, on the other hand, I read every word he had to say on the subject.
    tmtomh likes this.

Share This Page