[JohnR]

There are lots of things bandied about on these forums that turn out to be utter rubbish and unnecessary.

 

I do need to go back and read the article more carefully, but I understood that he is not arguing against higher bit depth/rates used in recording and mastering, just that higher than 16/44.1 is not necessary for final delivery. He is assuming that no manipulation of the bits occurs in the playback system, and that the DACs oversample. While I know there is a "bit perfect" camp, I think this will become a very small minority, esp since the thing that triggered the article is the idea that 24/196 will become a regular "consumer" format. As far as oversampling, the argument could also be made that doing it in software is better than doing it in a DAC, or that it would be better to not have to do it at all. But that would come down to the shifting sands involving cost vs results where the assumptions get changed to whatever is needed to win the argument.

I will have to read the article more carefully though.

[Napalm]

some industry reflections, this one's from Naim, in the latest Gramphone magazine : [...]

I'm with Naim on this one. Most music recorded these days is compressed to fit within a 6-10dB spread for which 16 bits are more than generous.

Name me 3 CD/SACDs/whatever pressed last year that you bought and found to be of impeccable sound recording technique.

Otherwise I think that 44.1kHz is too tight. Not necessarily because you might be able to hear 22kHz, but because it imposes some tight constraints on the reconstruction filters with the result that either they would be very expensive or of poor quality.

[bdiament]

I must say, "articles" and "white papers" like this give me a chuckle.
They also make me sad because I know a lot of folks will simply believe them and not listen for themselves.

My take on 24/192:

First, I've heard a number of converters that actually perform *better* at 24/96 than they do at 24/192.  Does this mean 24/192 isn't as good as 24/96?  Not at all.  I simply means that some converters (all too many unfortunately) do not have the clocking accuracy that is up to the significantly increased demands of the 4x rates (i.e., 176.4k and 192k) and do not have analog stages that can deliver at wide bandwidths.

Given a converter design that is up to the task (there are some, for sure) what I find is that for the very first time in my experience, I have a recording device that delivers an output I have not yet been able to distinguish from the input signal coming from my microphones.

This is something I have never experienced from any analog device or any digital device before.  There was always an easy to hear, telltale coloration.  With the best digital systems today, operating at 4x rates, that is gone.  A threshold is crossed that is not remotely achieved by 2x rates (88.2k and 96k) or any analog recorder in my experience.

For me, this is not only a jaw dropped, it is cause for great celebration.  The promise of digital, for a quarter century, nothing more than marketing drivel over an inferior medium, have finally been fulfilled.

Can you hear it at home?  In my opinion, quite easily.

So when I read "articles" and "white papers" telling me 24/192 is somehow not desirable or even inferior, it is a lot like someone trying to tell me there are no colors in a rainbow.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

[ted_b]

I must say, "articles" and "white papers" like this give me a chuckle.
They also make me sad because I know a lot of folks will simply believe them and not listen for themselves.

My take on 24/192:

First, I've heard a number of converters that actually perform *better* at 24/96 than they do at 24/192.  Does this mean 24/192 isn't as good as 24/96?  Not at all.  I simply means that some converters (all too many unfortunately) do not have the clocking accuracy that is up to the significantly increased demands of the 4x rates (i.e., 176.4k and 192k) and do not have analog stages that can deliver at wide bandwidths.

Given a converter design that is up to the task (there are some, for sure) what I find is that for the very first time in my experience, I have a recording device that delivers an output I have not yet been able to distinguish from the input signal coming from my microphones.

This is something I have never experienced from any analog device or any digital device before.  There was always an easy to hear, telltale coloration.  With the best digital systems today, operating at 4x rates, that is gone.  A threshold is crossed that is not remotely achieved by 2x rates (88.2k and 96k) or any analog recorder in my experience.

For me, this is not only a jaw dropped, it is cause for great celebration.  The promise of digital, for a quarter century, nothing more than marketing drivel over an inferior medium, have finally been fulfilled.

Can you hear it at home?  In my opinion, quite easily.

So when I read "articles" and "white papers" telling me 24/192 is somehow not desirable or even inferior, it is a lot like someone trying to tell me there are no colors in a rainbow.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

+100   

Just find a copy of anything on Barry's label, (I recommend Equinox) in 24/192 and find a DAC with a good sweetspot at 24/192, then sit back and listen to real timbre; tonality; organic music.  Those who don't hear the obvious, can't.  Sucks to be them. 

[django11]

+100   

Just find a copy of anything on Barry's label, (I recommend Equinox) in 24/192 and find a DAC with a good sweetspot at 24/192, then sit back and listen to real timbre; tonality; organic music.  Those who don't hear the obvious, can't.  Sucks to be them. 

At 45 bucks a pop I won't be hearing anything ...  I know, a guy has a right to earn a living but...

[jamesg11]

The issue then becomes to find that dac, with the 24/192 friendly bandwidth etc. Very few reviews focus on this aspect.
I do need to compare my 2 dacs with 24/192 capability, Cyrus DacX & Mytek dsd. But, first I need to get a quality usb asynch for the cyrus; & I don't think I've read specifics about 24/192 re mytek. Has anyone?

[ted_b]

Our Myteks do 24/192 via USB and firewire very nicely. 

[bdiament]

Hi jamesg11,

The issue then becomes to find that dac, with the 24/192 friendly bandwidth etc. Very few reviews focus on this aspect....

I've never seen *any* review talk about this.  They generally just see the numbers on the spec sheet and then go from there.  Some will listen to poor designs and blame the format.  (Much like riding in a car with a flat tire and a few missing spark plugs and saying "cars aren't faster than bicycles".  ;-{)

An number of DACs can do 4x rates.  Many sound very good.  (This is exactly what I don't like about them.  I'd rather they sound like the input rather than editorialize, even in a "pleasant" way - but that is just my own preference.)

I'm partial to Metric Halo's ULN-8 and LIO-8 myself.  Also the Sonic Studio units, which are actually Metric Halo designs.  I'm sure there are others too.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com