Audiophile chatter


#1

Most hifi system do have DAC that supports higher than cd quality.
Both my hifi and my phone have a DAC that can do 24bit/192kHz natively so no need to convert.


Digital releases
#2

I can agree with that. But, I ask you this. What about your preamp(s). Your amp(s)? Are they tube or IC? Your speakers? Do they have built-in cross-overs or do they accept all input provided to them?

Specifically,

What kind of phone does this? If it is not too much trouble, please provide a make and model.

EDIT: I also assume you are not running copper wire, but optical. If you don’t mind again, what do you run for your HiFi system? I run a Yamaha pre-amp and amp, along side a Pioneer Elite stable platter CD player. I run this through Polk Audio towers and sub. I showed you mine, and am willing to share pictures with me in the shot as proof. Show me yours?

EDIT 2: You may reply your input is not CD, that is ok. This only means I ask for the transfer method between source and, well, what is sent to your ears.


#3

My current phone is a Samsung S9, my previous phone is a note 4 and both seem to have supported 24bit/192kHz.
My phone before that was a Samsung S3 and that may have had a 24bit/96 dac depending on the region.

I have an Onlkyo TX-NR676E with copper wire to some Wharfedale bookshelf speakers.
I have a pc running kodi (connected over hdmi) with my flac files so it should be sending everything at the correct bit rate and sample rat.


#4

Thanks for the make/models. I looked up those phones and others, it is interesting what they are doing and claiming. I have never heard sound from Wharfedale speakers though, but after looking them up, I would believe that is due to geographical differences.

Since all of this really does not apply to this post, is there a different place to discuss? I am interested to hear your opinions of some things, but do not want to clutter up a topic with such things.


#5

I moved this to its own topic. Feel free to geek away :slight_smile:


#6

@dns_server - I do not use phones for much other than calling, so I am curious to see what you think. Do you think that the phone can actually deliver on those statements? It does appear that as of recent, they are (some of them) using DACs that do support such things, but I wonder if it actually delivers.

An example of what I mean is I buy the biggest and best amplifiers, but I connect junk speakers to them. Those amplifiers, although nice, won’t sound any better than the speakers they are played on. So I wonder if that although the DAC can accept in and handle such things, does it really make it to your ears without passing through something that brings it back down?

To you point though, with DACs that support it, there is no need for it to convert, which is for sure a plus.


#7

It probably does not make a difference when listening having a dac that supports higher bit rates or sample rates.

Adding higher bit rates adds more accuracy when recording so it will record the frequency to a few more decimal places. This does not make much difference in practice but for lower frequencies ie 10’s of hertz it record it better.

Adding higher sample rate is a good thing if you are mastering the song but is a bad idea for playback.
You get more ultrasonic frequencies that you cannot hear and these frequencies can interfere with frequencies you can hear adding more noise.
It is useful for mastering as you have more overhead when you apply effects such as reverb.
You can up mix to a higher sample rate, apply the effect then down mix and get a better result.


#8

For recording, absolutely, high sample rates are better. Cannot agree with you more on that. The headroom, or overhead as you said, is exactly what I see as the benefit as well. There is also the Nyquist which says we should be at 96kHz, using the nearest common one. I cannot disagree with the theory, but I have yet to find a solid difference, on the end user view.

Digital clipping is also improved (reduced), as long as everything is done right in mastering. AlthoughI would argue why it is there to begin with. But that is a different topic.

How much difference do you see in your 16 vs 24 bit FLACs? Now on that, there is another part untouched, which is the sample rate. IMO, a 24 but FLAC should be at 96, but the commonly used 192 is fine, but I think a major waste unless you are making the raw recordings from the sound booth, etc. But I see some 24 bit FLACs in at only 44.1, which all this is doing is providing more bits to define the exact same audio as the 16 bit.

I would tend to agree with you on “Adding higher sample rate is a good thing if you are mastering the song but is a bad idea for playback.”. the first portion, agree 100%. But on the second portion, I see the point I mentioned prior on sending frequencies that are not supported or wanted, but IMO you are really trading one source of artifacts for another. So that would greatly depend on the equipment involved. Which goes to your statement, where I agree that it is most likely better to have your file in the proper formatting for listening. As most of us cannot hear past 20-20k (apparently there are some that claim to be special), having such things there is wasteful on resources as I cannot hear it anyway, mostly.

Back to the phone though, I see that they started using those higher end DACs a few years ago. As I mentioned, I use phones for calls and really nothing more, so I have nothing to speak to there. In your opinion, do you ever hear any of it anyway, given that the output is sent via a 3.5mm jack (I assume) and then delivered over that small wire to headphones? There may very well be no issue with the 3.5mm jack and small wire as the length of the wire on this is usually short enough, and there is very little wattage.

Wow, ok that was a lot. As it relates to MB here, do you think that a 16 and 24 bit FLAC could be under the same release, given the proposed variation idea, where the difference would be noted? My opinion is based on the difference that an end user cares about. I can easily hear a difference on the Amazon MP3s vs an iTunes M4A, so to me, there is justification for the different release. But with a 16 and 24 bit FLAC, I cannot even get to solid and concrete non audible differences. Obviously the differences are there, and I am sure that is said recordings were used to make a 2nd, 3rd and even 4th generation copy/master, I am sure there will be a noticeable resulting difference there. But does it make sense to say, that for the purposes of MB, that lossless is lossless as far as a release goes?


#9

Before I forget, what I run for my system is currently head with a Yamaha RX-V2300. It is sort of aged at about 12 years I think, but it has outperformed my other units. I have prior used Pioneer and another Yamaha model. It does the standard for such a unit with the 24/192 DAC. For CD, I have my primary which is the Pioneer Stable Platter, marketed now as the Elite series, PD-S501. It uses the PD2026, a Pulseflow DAC, which is a branded name for a bitstream DAC, and most all times outperforms my newer Onkyo DX-C390, which is the expected 24/192 DAC. But… it is a CD player so as long as it is properly oversampled per theory, is more than is actually needed anyway.

Obviously there are numerous digital capable inputs to actually use the higher resolution, and that is always where I question everything. I take the extra care on the speakers, as they have dual binding posts, I run 2 sets of 6AWG copper cable to each tower connected to independent amplifier channels, but even that will introduce loss. But I cannot much control the inputs, at least not to the same level. It is there that I believe the breakdown is, resulting in a failed delivery of real 24 bit audio. Of course, having that capability in the places where it sits in the setup is great, as long as it is not getting converted all around. There is again why I normally prefer the 16 bit for playback. The 16 bit performs beyond my hearing anyway, assuming my hearing is that of a human and the audio being played was properly prepared.

My intent for MB is simply determining what factors should warrant a separate release, assuming the “release variation” discussed is put in place. Given that the above conversation is likely over the heads of many or even most people, I would assume that calling all of them lossless and identifying the type of lossless on the reference is adequate. It is my opinion that end users who but the 24 bit+ FLACs are mostly being scammed anyway. Sure, there are some users that want, need, or that can use such a thing, but otherwise, the consumer is basing their buying decision with the sales statement that it is better. I would not say that the 24 bit is better, but I will say it is different.