Music Servers-Azur 640H, Olive Musica, Escient fireball

[jackpod]

XMLobby

[jackpod]

and TVLobby

[jackpod]

and one of my home automation pages, this is the interior lights

[jacksonbart]

nice

[Rivendell61]

Rivendell61

Sounds like there's some more work to be done until they resolve their implementation issues. I would stay clear of 192khz implementations that do not perform well and have to be switched down to 96khz.

I have equipment with true 24bit /192khz DAC's as well as 24bit 96khz DACs that can run oversamped to 192khz, as well as 20bit DAC's and there is clearly a significant advantage to operating at 192khz non oversampled.

The Onkyo TX-NR1000 has 7 independent DAC's, one for each channel, and sounds superior at 192khz than at 96khz.

So I would not generically say that running at 96khz is better than running at 192khz.

I can imagine that being the case if there's some implementation littations.

Perhaps it was a mistake to have mentioned a specific DAC. Again, no, as I said in my post above: it has nothing to do with a particular converter--it is inherent in all DAC circuit architecture. No DAC (that is well designed--some poor converters may) will perform better at 192 than 96. In fact, some very good DACs will operate better at even lower rates.

Now, this says nothing about what someone may like or not like ala your Onkyo. There are many reasons why a DAC may sound different/better at a less optimal rate--but I won't go there. And subjective preference does not always track signal accuracy.

The 192 speed issue is very well discussed. Here is a brief explanation of one of the reasons 192 underperforms 96:

"The point about 192kHz being worse than 96kHz centers around practical behavior of real life electronics. The settling time of any sampling circuit is finite. A given sample/hold circuit (or sampled integrator in switch-cap sigmadelta circuits or voltage switch in continuous-time filtered deltasigma circuits) can settle, for example, to 1ppm in 10us but only to 10ppm in 1us. This means that when you're trying to sample faster, you won't get the job done with the same accuracy."

But all this is really nothing to someone listening to music--the flaws in a 192 DAC are at the extreme margin and may even be perceived favorably. I was only contradicting you because your original stated a 192 DAC was needed for SOTA performance--quite the contary. Belief in 192 does drive lots of sales--so don't expect main line consumer converter makers to be honest about them the way many pro makers are.

Mark

[Guest " "]

Rivendell61

This is turning into a speaker wire makes a difference but does not make a difference disscussion.

Best I can do is offer you to listen to a unit with a good 192khz/24bit DAC implementation and cycle thru the various khz ranges so you can decide for your self based on what you will hear, as opposed you what we might be reading.

[Rivendell61]

Rivendell61

This is turning into a speaker wire makes a difference but does not make a difference disscussion.

Best I can do is offer you to listen to a unit with a good 192khz/24bit DAC implementation and cycle thru the various khz ranges so you can decide for your self based on what you will hear, as opposed you what we might be reading.

Speakerfritz, my criticism was only of the language/info not your gear. No question: subjective appreciation of the sound is ALL that matters here.

Mark

[Guest " "]

I think I initally introduced the notion to investigate the type of DAC architecture used.  Below is a intresting report.

http://www.audiodesignguide.com/DAC_final/DacFinal.html

To summarize, 

Crystal CS4397 - bit too smooth

Wolfson WM8740 - fantastic

Burr-Brown - too banal

Analog Devices - too analytic