192 khz DAC vs. 96 khz DAC?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by BenG, Mar 18, 2002.

  1. BenG

    BenG Agent

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm considering picking up one of the new Onkyo 600's when they come out next month; however, I have the opportunity to purchase an Integra 6.2 right now for a very reasonable price. The only difference that I can discern (a center surround channel is not important to me at all) is the DAC for the L/R channels, the new Onkyo has 192khz/24-bit whereas the Integra has only 96khz. I like the looks of the Integra, and if this is not a huge difference, I'll probably pick it up.

    I listen to lots of 2-channel music, so if this will make a difference, I will wait for the Onkyo. Also, does anyone know if the Integra will handle a 4-ohm load?
     
  2. Peter Johnson

    Peter Johnson Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whilst its possbile the 192kHz *might* sound better than the 96kHz, its not because of the fact one is 192, and the other 96kHz.

    CD's are 44.14kHz. Thats it.

    The differences between the two DAC sections are more influenced by the DAC chip implmentation, inc. power supply etc, rather than the chip choice.
     
  3. RicP

    RicP Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  4. brian a

    brian a Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ric,
    A question with my new found knowledge. [​IMG]
    you say a lower the occurance of aliasing, but I thought that if you used a lowpass filter on the incomming signal and followed Nyquest's rate aliasing could be avoided all together. Is that not correct.
    Granted I haven't read the chapter on noise shaping other than a quick skim, but I didn't think aliasing would be a bigger problem on a 96KHz ADC than a 192 ADC unless you were trying to capture signals over 40KHz or so. No?
    Also, what source are you currently using you processor's ADC for? I don't think I'll have anything for the Outlaw to sample.
     
  5. Kevin C Brown

    Kevin C Brown Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2000
    Messages:
    5,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ric-

    And...

    (from another thread)

    I was always under the impression that true upsampling (44.1 to 88.2 kHz, etc.) *could* improve the sound.

    But resampling, say 44.1 kHz to 48 or 96 kHz would have the potential of worsening the sound.

    This is why for years and years, the DAT folks tried to avoid sample rate conversion between the CD std of 44.1 kHz and the original DAT std of 48 kHz. And in fact, *now*, all DAT decks are compatible with either 44.1 or 48.

    No "re-sampling" necessary.

    The new Sherwood pre/pro is said to "upsample" CDs to 96 kHz. But to me, that is potentially a very "not-good" thing unless it is selectable.
     
  6. John Kotches

    John Kotches Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    2,635
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kevin,

    The upcoming pre/pro is based on the R-963 Receiver. It upsamples to 24 bit/192K, not 24/96K.

    All,

    Another reason that 24/192K DACs (with no upsampling implemented) is that the DACs are changing over to 24/192K DACs for DVD0A compabitility.

    Most (but not all) players take the 16/44.1K signal and leave it alone, no upsampling or resampling is performed.

    THere are exceptions.

    Regards,
     
  7. Marc_E

    Marc_E Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2001
    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with John, it is prep for future/new media like DVD-A, SACD, and whatever other stuff the electronics/music industry has cooked up to take our money.

    Marc
     
  8. RicP

    RicP Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  9. Warren_Sc

    Warren_Sc Second Unit

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  10. Peter Johnson

    Peter Johnson Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    RicP,
    I know how it all works..I am an EE [​IMG]
    You dont need a 192kHz DAC to oversample. A 44kHz will do it just fine. You can oversample at 8x etc, whatever you want.
    The 192kHz DAC is capable of processing an incoming 192kHz signal. This too can be oversampled.
    Which is absolutely pointless if you dont have a source which will output a 192kHz signal.
     
  11. Marty Neudel

    Marty Neudel Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 1999
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    0
    >Another reason that 24/192K DACs (with no upsampling implemented) is that the DACs are changing over to 24/192K DACs for DVD0A compabitility.<

    John,

    since no receiver is able to take advantage of a digital signal from a dvd-a/sacd player this is (in most cases) a chance for manufacturers to sell us the newest and the latest, taking our money again, and giving us no usable advantage.

    Someday, the music industry may allow us to feed the digital signal from the latest i/p device into our receivers. They may even do it without adding a noise-producing copy protection scheme. And on that day we will all be able to click our heels together three times and follow Toto home.

    Marty
     
  12. John Kotches

    John Kotches Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    2,635
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marty,

    The same DACs are often used in DVD players and receivers. As such, the conversion to DVD-A capable DACs is affecting both players and receivers.

    Regards,
     
  13. Craig_Kg

    Craig_Kg Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2002
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wouldn't the main benefit of 192kHz DACs for a receiver be in the digital processing for bass management and DSP modes? Like Peter Johnson, I can't see what a 192kHz DAC has to do with oversampling. The film analogy doesn't work for me either. If you played a 24fps movie at 48fps but showed each frame twice, you still the image aliasing - upsampling and interpolating is a totally different matter and here a 192kHz DAC (with correspinding ADC) could make a huge difference.
     
  14. Steve & Karen

    Steve & Karen Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since the thread has wandered into the DVD-A & SACD debate, I just wanted to add 2cents for HDCD... it makes a real difference (I can hear it and I don't have audiophile ears)... even for regular CDs not recorded in HDCD... which means in the here, hear [​IMG] & now it makes a real difference for 95% of what most people got.
    -Steve
     
  15. chung

    chung Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2002
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  16. Peter Johnson

    Peter Johnson Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, but the point is, you dont need a 192kHz DAC to over sample up to 192kHz.

    You can oversample as much as you want with any DAC (within reason.)

    192kHz DAC's are new....yet 8x oversampling (just a common number, many go a lot higher) has been around for MANY years.

    192kHz DAC is just capable of accepting a signal which is sampled at 192kHz...which is probably better (Ive never heard one) than anything we currently have. The problem is...what signals sample at 192kHz?
     
  17. Craig_Kg

    Craig_Kg Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2002
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  18. chung

    chung Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2002
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  19. RyanDinan

    RyanDinan Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2000
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    0
    chung,

    I believe this is what Peter is trying to say:

    "Sampling" is the bits of precision along a waveform; i.e., 16bits. The more bits you have, the more smooth your waveform can be. So "oversampling" would be increasing the amount of bits along the waveform - In 3D lingo, it's kinda like adding more verticies along a spline to smooth it out, and not have it be as faceted.

    The frequency is the highest audible range that can be sampled; i.e. 44.1kHz. Meaning, peaks will hit that frequency range. Oversampling does not mean increasing the frequency range. The frequency can be changed from 44.1 to 48 or 96, but that would really not do anything substantial, as there was nothing above 44.1kHz captured to begin with. Oversampling increases the precision of the original waveform - i.e. - going from 16 bits to 20 or 24bits. But the frequency can stay the same....

    I hope my understanding is correct! :b

    -Ryan Dinan
     
  20. chung

    chung Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2002
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
     

Share This Page