HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

The odd reality for me is that even though I 'know' that my 96/24 recording of Black Sabbath's Paranoid cannot be as good as the 96/24 I got from Qobuz, I prefer mine every time. Maybe my ears aren't digital enough.

CycleCoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:38 am Once the signal leaves the dac it's analogue again, and our amp and speakers treat it just like any other signal.
So my question is then, is there a number of "dots" (I prefer to think of them as "slices") needed before that information being fed to the amp is indistinguishable from analogue?

If you believe the inventors of CD 44.1KHz is sufficient, but we know that this isn't the case. Whether you can detect what is lost depends on your hearing. For many years 96KHz was the norm for digital mixers but Dante extends that to 192KHz, is that enough? I don't know but I doubt the industry would be investing in Dante equipment if it didn't make a difference

CycleCoach wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:38 amOr is there a fundamental difference in the nature of the sound which means it will never be as good/be the same?
My guess is that if the slices are thin enough, (dots close enough together,) then we won't know the difference. But that's a guess.
Also. What about records cut from a digital master? Do they sound worse than all analogue? Do they still sound better than a FLAC file or the like?
DQ made some interesting comments on the Genesis re-masters recently. Maybe the answer is that the processing/mastering process is critical to the finished sound, and that makes the most difference?

The problem with remastering is that you can't replace what has been lost so the remastered version will never be any better than the original from which it is created no matter what the sampling rate of bit depth. The idea that a high enough sampling rate will eventually be indistinguishable from the original isn't new but what that sampling rate might be is an excellent question, for which I have no answer.

Geoff.R.G wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:37 am Interestingly, the higher the sampling rate of a digital conversion the closer the output wave form becomes to analogue,

+1

Like many I thought the days of vinyl were numbered when CD came on the scene. I started buying CDs instead of vinyl from early 1986 when I bought my first CD player. To my ears CD did provide a cleaner more precise sound but something was lacking. As has been mentioned in this thread I think emotion is the most apropriate word coupled with an increased sense of space and warmth.

The effects of digital are not just confined to play back. In the early 80s I bought vinyl wfhich was both recorded on analogue tape and digitally. They sounded a lot different even if it was the same band. The digitally recorded vinyl has a sense of clinical coldness while analogue albums have warmth and more emotion. The most striking example I found was the Rainbow albums "Difficult to cure" and the digitally recorded follow up "Straight between the eyes". A couple of years ago I went on a guided tour of the Rock n Roll Museum in Dublin where there was an analogue recording studio with equipment used by Thin Lizzy. The guide said that many bands were not happy about recording with digital and stayed with analogue because its warmth and pleasing effect on the ear. I was allowed to handle an analogue master tape and was struck by its size thickness and weight.

Digital has made huge strides in recent years and the biggest I believe is increased Bit and sample rates. 44kHz is inadequate and to my ears quadrupeling makes a huge difference. The Mscaler was expensive, but after hearing it in my system I could not be without it. It is like having the benefits of analogue and digital combined.

CN211276 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:00 pm A couple of years ago I went on a guided tour of the Rock n Roll Museum in Dublin where there was an analogue recording studio with equipment used by Thin Lizzy. The guide said that many bands were not happy about recording with digital and stayed with analogue because its warmth and pleasing effect on the ear. I was allowed to handle an analogue master tape and was struck by its size thickness and weight.

It is surprising isn't it? Even a 10.5" reel of 1/2" tape would do some damage if dropped on your foot. A reel of 2" tape would be somewhat heavier.

I see that Roland have updated the UA25EX USB audio Interface with a new model called the Rubix 24.



This does 192KHz / 24bit recording. As does it's slightly more simplified version the Rubix 22:



Looks like it has everything I need for vinyl rips.
Only €150....

.... Hmmmm ....

I have found a big leap from 96kHz to 192kHz whereas I struggle to hear a difference between 44kHz 16 Bit and 96kHz 24 Bit.

Deep sigh.

More hmmmmm ....




I think that before I go for 192KHz that firstly a different cartridge needs to be tried in the Debut2, and I am already considering upgrading that to a Pro-Ject X1.

And thereby hangs the tail - how much do you need to upgrade the 'data retrieval device' to fully realise the benefits of 192khz. A rhetorical question I know, along with other hifi greats such as how much is too much?

I know that my installations are all comfortable with 96KHz, but 192 asks a lot from smaller processors like the Pi2B and also the network must be able to handle the data transmission rate.