An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

doctor fuse

doctor fuse

Super Member
I had the PS Audio Link III previously. I constantly switched between 96K and 192K. I never heard any difference. Sorry.
 
No real engineering to me. Avoids issues like aliasing, and ignores solutions like input filtering. The only thing I would agree with, is that done right, 88khZ should work fine. However, it being optimal is just his opinion. My 2 cents.
 
I figured as long as the mastering/processing was done correctly that would be overkill in any case as that is way beyond the range of human hearing isn't it?
 
First of all, understand that your title is not worded correctly. Sampling at 96 kHz does not mean the goal is to reproduce frequencies there. It allows for using a more gradual filter in order to minimize phase distortion and ringing within and just above the audible band.

The value of oversampling is debatable with potential benefits and tradeoffs. One of my DACs allows for choosing to play native or to always upsample to 192 kHz. I choose the native option.
 
sregor said:
No real engineering to me. Avoids issues like aliasing, and ignores solutions like input filtering. The only thing I would agree with, is that done right, 88khZ should work fine. However, it being optimal is just his opinion. My 2 cents.
Click to expand...

He just happens to be one of the primer engineers of ADCs and DACs in the world.

Going above 96k is pointless and even causes audio harm because it introduces more and more distortion.
 
bachdude said:
He just happens to be one of the primer engineers of ADCs and DACs in the world.

Going above 96k is pointless and even causes audio harm because it introduces more and more distortion.
Click to expand...
Where is the proof of these two assertions. No where have I seen proof that going above 96K introduces more distortion. I agree it is unnecessary.
Making statements doesn't make them true. I welcome opinions, but require more rigorous verifications if statements of facts are made .
 
sregor said:
Where is the proof of these two assertions. No where have I seen proof that going above 96K introduces more distortion. I agree it is unnecessary.
Making statements doesn't make them true. I welcome opinions, but require more rigorous verifications if statements of facts are made .
Click to expand...
Seriously? You just proved you didn’t read Lavry’s paper.

Maybe you ought to actually read the papers in question before you comment on them.

Edit: Since you don’t seem to know who Dan Lavry is, you may want to Google “Lavry Engineering AD11 Sound on Sound” (Guess I can’t post the link...It won’t let me). In the opinion of Sound on Sound, “Dan Lavry has gained a reputation for creating some of the best A-D converters on the planet.”
 
Last edited:
bachdude said:
Seriously? You just proved you didn’t read Lavry’s paper.

Maybe you ought to actually read the papers in question before you comment on them.

Edit: Since you don’t seem to know who Dan Lavry is, you may want to Google “Lavry Engineering AD11 Sound on Sound” (Guess I can’t post the link...It won’t let me). In the opinion of Sound on Sound, “Dan Lavry has gained a reputation for creating some of the best A-D converters on the planet.”
Click to expand...
I did read the paper. I did google Dan Lavry.. I even read through several threads on other sites. I still haven't found anything which validates his assertion that higher sample rates have higher distortion rates. (If that is so, why aren't we using 44k sample rates). I have no doubt that he is an excellent engineer and makes an excellent product. However, the paper is still does not prove anything. If you read it carefully - it seems to assert that with current available technology, higher sample rates create issues, which is reasonable.
 
Last edited:
sregor said:
I did read the paper. I did google Dan Lavry.. I even read through several threads on other sites. I still haven't found anything which validates his assertion that higher sample rates have higher distortion rates. (If that is so, why aren't we using 44k sample rates). I have no doubt that he is an excellent engineer and makes an excellent product. However, the paper is still does not prove anything. If you read it carefully - it seems to assert that with current available technology, higher sample rates create issues, which is reasonable.
Click to expand...

Fair enough...he only makes the claim apart from any data. However, wouldn’t it be odd to go public with that assertion without anything to back it up if challenged? And don’t you think that if there was an argument to be made that higher sample rates improve quality that a well known company like Lavery would trumpet it, in order to sell more of their product? Lavery is basically making a bad company decision based on principal. I respect that.

Anyway, here is another high end converter company, Benchmark, making the same claim, this time with real data to back it up...

WHAT CONVERTER MANUFACTURERS DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW!
An examination of converter IC data sheets will reveal that virtually all audio converter ICs deliver their peak performance near 96 kHz. The 4x (176.4 kHz and 192 kHz) mode delivers poorer performance in many respects. In most cases, noise, distortion, pass-band ripple, stop-band attenuation and other key performance measurements are significantly better in the 2X (88.2 kHz and 96 kHz) mode of operation. Every A/D and D/A conversion IC that we have tested performs better at 96 kHz than at 192 kHz. In most cases THD+N, SNR, passband ripple, and stopband attenuation are all poorer at 192 kHz than at 96 kHz. Based upon these tests, I am not surprised that there is not yet any conclusive evidence that 192 kHz is better than 96 kHz. Given the current state of the art, 192 kHz should sound poorer than 96 kHz. 192 kHz provides additional bandwidth between 48 kHz and 96 kHz but there is no real evidence that this is useful given the limitations of our microphones, speakers, and hearing. 192 kHz adds useless bandwidth while decreasing performance.
 
bachdude said:
An examination of converter IC data sheets will reveal that virtually all audio converter ICs deliver their peak performance near 96 kHz.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a hardware problem....As far as I know, the only advantage of higher sample rates is the improvement of input filters.

From Benchmark re ADC1: "The ADC1 USB is a 2-channel 192-kHz 24-bit analog-to-digital audio converter with an unprecedented feature set. This converter was designed to consistently deliver reference quality conversion in 'real-world' conditions. It features Benchmark's jitter-immune UltraLock™ clock system and an extraordinary analog front-end."

re ADC-16 "Music is a Beautiful thing...especially with the Benchmark ADC16, 16-Channel 24-bit 192kHz A/D Audio Converter."
 
Last edited:
sregor said:
Sounds like a hardware problem....As far as I know, the only advantage of higher sample rates is the improvement of input filters.

From Benchmark re ADC1: "The ADC1 USB is a 2-channel 192-kHz 24-bit analog-to-digital audio converter with an unprecedented feature set. This converter was designed to consistently deliver reference quality conversion in 'real-world' conditions. It features Benchmark's jitter-immune UltraLock™ clock system and an extraordinary analog front-end."

re ADC-16 "Music is a Beautiful thing...especially with the Benchmark ADC16, 16-Channel 24-bit 192kHz A/D Audio Converter."
Click to expand...

I think you should just be honest and admit that this whole subject is over your head, as it is mine. Look, I'm sure you've read a few articles but that doesn't justify claiming to know more than Dan Lavery and the engineers at Benchmark! Yes, of course, they sell converters that use high sample rates. Even Lavery does now after resisting for years. It is because there is such a market demand for them. Mastering studios also have to be prepared to accept such high sample rates from studios who have believed the market hype and record at such high rates. Not to mention that those converters also can operate on lower sample rates as well and often have additional updates.

Why not just face the fact that experts are saying the same thing from from two leading manufacturers of digital converters. It's a highly technical area that requires an enormous amount of study. It is totally rational to defer to experts in cases such as this, especially when they agree in the face of potentially discouraging customers from upgrading to higher sample rates.

Unless you can give me some solid reason to believe you over Dan Lavery and Benchmark I'm afraid you have no authority!
 
Last edited:
I don't pretend to have authority. I just find the assertion that higher rates are bad has no scientific backing, other than that most hardware doesn't work as well with it. I just don't like the "Its so because I say so" attitude that it projects. I also can't understand why people on the industrial side will succumb to market pressure. I would think any recording studio would go with what sounds best. If it is a Lavry product, then fine. If Benchmark really feels that way, then why do they use higher rates? I find that thought more appalling.
 
The problem with the audiophile industry is that there is quality music playback versus convenience playback. And now it is leas about sound quality and more a computer based hobby where people are chasing the next big thing. Some kind of chip. Hey do you have the latest ESS Sabre Dac or are you stoneage and have the 6 month old one. Your DAC doesn't do DSD? Well your system sucks.

What i ask of an audition is that they demonstrate to me that it sounds better. Don't get me wrong...not dumping on CA i have a couple of CA DACs and just last night was listening for hours.

But rather than get wrapped up with the lingo i would suggest listening to music first companies who actually listen to their products and determine what sounds the best.

Having just covered the California Audio show in July i found it interesting that the three best sounding rooms all used non oversampling DA converters with tubes and no digital filters. 2 use no analog or digital filters and all are relative stone age in the numbers game. Even on Hi Res recordings NOT played natively at their 24/192 res, they STILL sounded better. I suspect due to much better analog output stages.

Granted you will have to buy a USB to Spidf converter for them to play from a computer but that's pretty cheap.

Sound quality first. Then make correlations to design approaches.
 
sregor said:
I don't pretend to have authority. I just find the assertion that higher rates are bad has no scientific backing, other than that most hardware doesn't work as well with it. I just don't like the "Its so because I say so" attitude that it projects. I also can't understand why people on the industrial side will succumb to market pressure. I would think any recording studio would go with what sounds best. If it is a Lavry product, then fine. If Benchmark really feels that way, then why do they use higher rates? I find that thought more appalling.
Click to expand...

Well, OK, we may have some agreement here. First, I think it does have scientific backing, if I understand Lavery correctly, in that the electronics are not up to snuff which cause accuracy problems and distortion. So I guess you are correct in that there is nothing wrong with high sample rates per se, but combined with the hard realities of current electronics, it does cause problems.
 
Last edited:
RGA said:
The problem with the audiophile industry is that there is quality music playback versus convenience playback. And now it is leas about sound quality and more a computer based hobby where people are chasing the next big thing. Some kind of chip. Hey do you have the latest ESS Sabre Dac or are you stoneage and have the 6 month old one. Your DAC doesn't do DSD? Well your system sucks.

What i ask of an audition is that they demonstrate to me that it sounds better. Don't get me wrong...not dumping on CA i have a couple of CA DACs and just last night was listening for hours.

But rather than get wrapped up with the lingo i would suggest listening to music first companies who actually listen to their products and determine what sounds the best.

Having just covered the California Audio show in July i found it interesting that the three best sounding rooms all used non oversampling DA converters with tubes and no digital filters. 2 use no analog or digital filters and all are relative stone age in the numbers game. Even on Hi Res recordings NOT played natively at their 24/192 res, they STILL sounded better. I suspect due to much better analog output stages.

Granted you will have to buy a USB to Spidf converter for them to play from a computer but that's pretty cheap.

Sound quality first. Then make correlations to design approaches.
Click to expand...

You can only do so much by ear. You need hard measurements.
 
bachdude said:
But it does have scientific backing, if I understand Lavery correctly, in that the electronics are not up to snuff which cause accuracy problems and distortion. So I guess you are correct in that there is nothing wrong with high sample rates per se, but combined with the hard realities of current electronics, it does cause problems.
Click to expand...
The white paper is over 5 years old. The blurb you quoted from Benchmark is over 7 year old. Benchmark now uses 192K. Things change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MuseChaser
High Sampling rates, TIM, and...?
Replies
1
Views
142
JohnT123
JohnT123
Gang-Twanger
HRT's new "LineStreamer +" ADC For Digitizing Vinyl
Replies
5
Views
4K
SoNic67
SoNic67
Retrovert
Ultrasound: Music Above 20KHz
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Retrovert
Retrovert
Back
Top Bottom