192khz/24 bit dacs that much better than 96 khz ?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Bert D, Dec 19, 2001.

  1. Bert D

    Bert D Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are the 192's that much better than the 96's ? I noticed that my H/K receiver and "high" end ones like Denon's top of the line have 192's. Being that use my system predominantly for music, not HT, is that a factor in looking for a new receiver ? Newby at all this, so take it easy if a redundant or "dumb" question. Thanks. [​IMG]
     
  2. PatrickM

    PatrickM Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    1,138
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bert,

    I believe for the most part having the ability to do 24/192 is nice but pretty useless right now since nothing allows you to receive a 24/192 signal.

    Having said that, I believe the majority of higher end DAC's come with the ability to do 24/192 along with 24/96 so you can't have one without the other.

    So, the answer to your question is for the most part your getting a higher end DAC if it comes with the ability convert 24/192 along with 24/96.

    Patrick
     
  3. Kevin C Brown

    Kevin C Brown Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2000
    Messages:
    5,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    192 = 2 x 96 so the 24/192 DACs are therefore twice as good as the 24/96's. [​IMG]
    Seriously, it is not necessarily true that if you have 24/96 that you also get 24/192 (my Sony TA-E9000ES pre/pro for example).
    My personal opinion, is that if you really had true 24/192 DACs and processing, you wouldn't necessarily need 5.1 analog passthrough *depending on the quality of those DACs.*
    Theoretically, 24/192 is better than 24/96, but you might not be able to hear the difference in the real world anyway.
    Depends, depends, depends...
     
  4. Marty Neudel

    Marty Neudel Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 1999
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    0
    People, let's get real here. The 96&192 figures determine the top of the frequency range, offering (appr.) 48 and 96 (actually slightly lower) kHz limits. My amps start seriously to lose accuracy after 20k. My speakers can't go appreciably above 20k. I certainly don't hear much above 16k; and we don't appear (in tests) to sense (over)tones much above that.

    The 24 bit figure determines dynamic range. People on this forum objected in TPM to the dialogue level necessitated by the dynamic range of 20-bit codecs. The dynamic range allowed by 24-bit resolution goes into the painful area.

    Bigger numbers don't necessarily buy us usable benefits.

    Marty
     
  5. Philip Hamm

    Philip Hamm Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 1999
    Messages:
    6,873
    Likes Received:
    2
    Marty,
    Was that post a joke? [​IMG]
    Do you know how PCM works?
     
  6. Todd Hochard

    Todd Hochard Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 1999
    Messages:
    2,312
    Likes Received:
    0
    Theoretically, the "oversampling" of the higher rate DACs reduce the quantization noise, since more bits can represent the higher frequency signals.
    Of course, none of this would be necessary if the world would just wise up to the striking clarity and simplicity of DSD processing.[​IMG]
    In reality, the rest of the analog circuitry in the signal path makes a bigger difference, IMO. The wave shaping that occurs here typically is the determining factor in how a piece of gear sounds.
    Todd
     

Share This Page