Digital music sampling and playback rate

[El Camino]

Excuse the noob question, as I've only returned to music recently and everything has gone all 0s and 1s.

 

Could someone please elaborate on the finess of music sampling rate, eg a FLAC 24/192khz, or a CD 16/44khz, AND then translate this to the DAC playback sample rate, where I've seen upwards of 32/384khz (but as I've found, doesn't sound as good as a 24/96khz DAC).

 

Is there a sweet spot where the music sample rate matches the DAC playback sample rate? Does it matter if music sample rate is higher or lower than playback DAC sample rate?

 

FWIW, I bought an Audio GD DAC (capable of 24/192) from an SNAer recently, and it hits the sweetspot for me with a FLAC album 24/192 (Magnificat, Arnesen from 2L label). This combination has made me enjoy music all over again, like the old Marantz CD players that sounds so syrupie but always priced too much for me. Is the sample/playback and enjoyment just a coincidence?

Edited November 5, 2019 by El Camino

[Guest Muon N']

Some people like forms of high res, and DSD ect', up-sampled, over-sampled and all that, and some like myself are happy to go non-oversampling with 16/44.1

 

So much to go through in regards to recorded sample rate vs playback rate, I'll leave that for others.

 

Welcome to the forums, Simon.

 

Edit: just noticed the syrupie Marantz players, I'm part way through modifying an old Marantz CD-60SE, so gave me a chuckle

Edited November 5, 2019 by Muon N'

[Ittaku]

The quality of the recording is infinitely more important than the sample rate.

[LHC]

20 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

The quality of the recording is infinitely more important than the sample rate.

This is true. However hi-res audio (including SA-CD) somehow encourages higher quality of recording and mastering. Classical music labels like Pentatone is an example. 

[Ittaku]

2 minutes ago, LHC said:

This is true. However hi-res audio (including SA-CD) somehow encourages higher quality of recording and mastering. Classical music labels like Pentatone is an example. 

I don't disagree with classical. Generally if they're making highres releases they tend to be better quality recordings as well, and I only buy highres now if I can, but that doesn't seem to be the case with other genres of music. I'm a huge fan of pentatone myself too.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Ittaku

[El Camino]

9 hours ago, Muon N' said:

Some people like forms of high res, and DSD ect', up-sampled, over-sampled and all that, and some like myself are happy to go non-oversampling with 16/44.1

Ok good to know that there's no need to chase any illusive sample rate matches or ever higher rate.

 

9 hours ago, Muon N' said:

I'm part way through modifying an old Marantz CD-60SE

Is this a two box player? Back in the nineties, my fondest memory of CDs was a two boxes Marantz player that was just sublime, but priced in the kilobuxes, so it remained out of reach for me, along with Nakamichi tape decks etc.

[El Camino]

9 hours ago, Ittaku said:

The quality of the recording is infinitely more important than the sample rate

Aren't high quality recordings also have higher sample rate? Most hires recordings I've bought recently are 24/192 vs CD quality of 16/44.

[Ittaku]

1 minute ago, El Camino said:

Aren't high quality recordings also have higher sample rate? Most hires recordings I've bought recently are 24/192 vs CD quality of 16/44.

There's a lot of debate about how audible the extra information is, and there's a fair amount of research that shows that a properly rendered 16/44 playback is indistinguishable from a 24/192. That said, the equipment has to be capable of rendering 16/44 well enough for this to be the case. 24/192 is easier to render without harm in the audible range. I simply see highres as a kind of insurance that your DA conversion is less likely to harm the playback audibly as the digital filtering doesn't have phase, amplitude, and timing effects within the audible range.

[Guest Muon N']

1 hour ago, El Camino said:

Ok good to know that there's no need to chase any illusive sample rate matches or ever higher rate

Depends, most folk are into higher res now, I'm maybe odd. But 16/44.1 done well sounds very good.

 

I don't know, follow what sound right to you.

 

1 hour ago, El Camino said:

Is this a two box player? Back in the nineties, my fondest memory of CDs was a two boxes Marantz player that was just sublime, but priced in the kilobuxes, so it remained out of reach for me, along with Nakamichi tape decks etc.

That may have been the CD12/DA12 http://www.thevintageknob.org/marantz-CD-12.html

 

No, mine is a modest one box situation, but sound much better than stock with some mods.

Funny enough the TDA1541A single crown chip I have in it was pulled from a DA12.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Muon N'

[Stereophilus]

1 hour ago, Ittaku said:

There's a lot of debate about how audible the extra information is, and there's a fair amount of research that shows that a properly rendered 16/44 playback is indistinguishable from a 24/192. That said, the equipment has to be capable of rendering 16/44 well enough for this to be the case. 24/192 is easier to render without harm in the audible range. I simply see highres as a kind of insurance that your DA conversion is less likely to harm the playback audibly as the digital filtering doesn't have phase, amplitude, and timing effects within the audible range.

Agreed.

 

Having good upsampling is the other insurance policy.  There are many ways to do this, including software and hardware.  
 

If you go the NOS pathway, with 16/44 only, you are really relying on the DA conversion to be as pure as possible... no insurance.

 

 

[Guest Muon N']

1 hour ago, Stereophilus said:

If you go the NOS pathway, with 16/44 only, you are really relying on the DA conversion to be as pure as possible... no insurance.

Implementation.

 

Some designers like Thorsten Loesch are big advocates of TDA1541A running non oversampling.

Edit: PCM63 and PCM1702/04 DACs are also very nice if done well, although I'm going on reputation with PCM63 as I have not heard it.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Muon N'

[Kali Mallikh]

Nos is better at any point of time

[Stereophilus]

13 hours ago, Kali Mallikh said:

Nos is better at any point of time

Many would disagree with this point of view.  And, despite your clear articulation, the brevity of your “argument” does not inspire any real confidence.

[Kali Mallikh]

Many would disagree with this point of view.  And, despite your clear articulation, the brevity of your “argument” does not inspire any real confidence.

It’s just my opinion that’s all

[El Camino]

1 hour ago, Kali Mallikh said:

It’s just my opinion that’s all

Would you mind elaborate on why your opinion is NOS 'can' result in more favourable outcome (better at any point in time)?

Is it a purity thing?