...As an aside, people keep talking about 96 KHZ/192 Khz as the better data rates but in reality, 88.4 Khz and 176.4 Khz are more optimal. Anyone know why?
You got it. Hopefully anyone targeting CD is using multiples of its sampling rate and therefore, when releasing the high resolution versions, would put out that. If they are creating at 96 and targeting the CD, then that is less optimal. And if they are creating at 88 and releasing at 96, that is really non-sense.This is just a guess, but 88.4 and 176.4 are multiples of 44.1--the redbook sampling rate--so I would think that it might make resampling between formats easier. ?
It is true. Just using the pro data rate of 48Khz would have given us nearly perfect scenario. If we are going to change it, then anything north of 50 to 55 Khz will do the job. Building good digital systems would have been cheaper and easier if they had just given us a bit more headroom.
As an aside, people keep talking about 96 KHZ/192 Khz as the better data rates but in reality, 88.4 Khz and 176.4 Khz are more optimal. Anyone know why?
If I am converting analog to digital (e.g. my turntable through the TacT preamp), isn't (in theory) 24/192 better than, say, 24/48, since I am not creating or reading a CD?
Chuck, the TacT DSP's process in and convert everything to 96, so you may find that leaviing the output @ 96 provides the best AQ.If I am converting analog to digital (e.g. my turntable through the TacT preamp), isn't (in theory) 24/192 better than, say, 24/48, since I am not creating or reading a CD?
Chuck, the TacT DSP's process in and convert everything to 96, so you may find that leaviing the output @ 96 provides the best AQ.
Regarding the, uh, English in the Lavry white papers and documents, they definitely weren't edited by a fine hand. Dan is (as I recall) Russian, via Israel, and is a very smart (and engaging) fellow. So's his wife Priscilla. They're both music enthusiasts to the max. However, Dan's written English has its moments. He definitely presents things in a straightforward and graphical manner, which is quite helpful to the beginner, and useful to the more advanced reader.
And he prefers digitally-controlled analog attenuators to the all-software designs of, for example, Berkeley and Weiss (Weiss also makes an all-analog passive attenuator). Either approach can give very good results, although my personal bias is to do it all in software. Others think differently.
In addition to knowing his Bechsteins from his Boesendorfers, Daniel's favorite instrument is the accordian. Why? Vell, with accordian, one can play real Russian folk music!
Regarding higher sampling rates, etc., remember that Nature sometimes fights back. Sure, well-recorded and mastered 88/24 sounds terrific, to my ear: it's really free from "effort" and "sluggishness". On the other hand, certain artifacts and distortions hidden by the lower SNR of 44 can emerge. It's sort of like the difference between 480P and 1080P: the lower resolution format hid a multitude of sins. Under the microscope of 1080P, all is revealed.
Hey Peter, you lost me there. What do you mean?
Yeah, the frequency conversion deal is a real nightmare (speaking of jitter, anyone?)... The DICE chipset in the Weiss INT 202 can do this quite well... and the users manual is 250+ pages. One doesn't get into arbitrary frequency conversion without a lot of processing power.
Look at those jitter measurements. This is accomplished by a hybrid PLL that includes both software and hardware components. Attached is an excellent dive through the DICE product.
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
|Julian (The Fixer)|
Website Build | Marketing Managersing