In Reply to: RE: Question posted by ahendler on September 18, 2017 at 15:21:14:
How about in the link below? John Atkinson reviewed the (now discontinued, so this is not a shill) Ayre A/D converter and listened to rips of LPs:
"I tried a variety of sample rates with these LP rips: 44.1kHz was very good, but didn't capture the essence of the original LPs' sounds; 96kHz was better; but there was no doubt that with a 192kHz sample rate I could not distinguish between the LP and the digital rip. And believe me, I tried. I A/B'd the two versions until blood came out of my ears and I was heartily sick of this music I hadn't heard for, in some cases, decades. When, in An Oxford Elegy, John Westbrook declaimed "Come, let me read the oft-read tale again . . ." for what must have been the tenth time, I felt like screaming "No! Don't read it again!
"With the 192kHz rips, the LP's surface noise floated free of the music in a manner similar to how it does with analog playback, making it easier to ignore it. At 44.1kHz, the surface noise was integrated into the music, increasing its annoyance."
Unfortunately he wasn't specific about which DAC he was using, but the fact that the analog-digital-analog conversions did not change the signal quality at all (at least at the quad rate) is something of an achievement, I think. And it also helps put into perspective the advantages of higher sampling rates, especially with regards to transients (such as the surface noise of the LP).
Cheers,
Charles Hansen
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Question - Charles Hansen 09/18/1720:59:02 09/18/17 (7)
- RE: Question - ahendler 21:38:08 09/18/17 (6)
- Another data point - Charles Hansen 05:01:16 09/20/17 (0)
- RE: Question - Mr_Steady 05:27:54 09/19/17 (3)
- RE: Question - ahendler 10:11:10 09/19/17 (2)
- RE: Question - Mr_Steady 12:05:03 09/19/17 (1)
- RE: Question - ahendler 15:37:45 09/19/17 (0)
- RE: Question - Charles Hansen 05:14:45 09/19/17 (0)