earwaxer9;620060 Wrote: > I have been enjoying my 24/96 now for some time. Either native or > upsampled. I find it to be much more enjoyable than the 16/44.1. > Richer, more realistic. Not sure what can be credited. The sample rate > or the frequency. I suspect the frequency has a larger role, although I > havent tested it. I think the Transporter "architecture" has something > to do with that also. > > Of course I'm going to be curious about the 192khz realm! Thats the > duty of the audiophile. Always looking for the next "upgrade". I do > have some sanity though. I'm not distraught, although, I cant sample it > with the Transporter - it tops out at 96khz. Dont get me wrong - I'm > happy were I'm at. Just trolling.
In my personal experience (and IMHO), bit depth appears to make a bigger difference than resolution. Going from 44.1 kHz to 192 kHz is a definite increase in the signal density. However, that jump doesn't come even close to the dramatic jump you get when going from 16 bit to 24 bit. With 16 bit, you get a signal that can possibly assume 64,000 states. With 24 bit, you get a signal that can possibly assume close to 17 million states. Huge difference in the ability to communicate finesse, and those ultra subtle cues in music, the ones that make listening to high definition format so engrossing. Bit depth is often compared to the color depth on high definition TV screens. Sampling rate is compared to the screen resolution (720p vs 1080p). Overall, it is harder to distinguish 720p from 1080p, than it is to distinguish richer color when the bit depth increases. -- magiccarpetride ------------------------------------------------------------------------ magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=86510 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
