[Arny Krueger]

"TT" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

So with SACDs 2.8MHz sampling and 1 bit resolution
doesn't that therefore overcome this problem with PCM?

Doesn't seem like SACD makes much of a difference in
this regard. Remember that the basic message is that 96
KHz sampling is already more than enough for the best
possible sounding audio.

From my limited understanding I gained the impression that
192kHz was losing the 24 bit resolution.

In fact there are no practical converters operating at any sample rate that
would be appropriate for audio, that also deliver true 24 bit resolution.

The way I interpret Lavry's statement is that all other things being equal,
operations at 192 KHz will be signficicantly degraded compared to operation
at about 1/3 that rate.

Quote: "There is a tradeoff between speed and accuracy"
and "Sampling audio signals at 192KHz is about 3 times
faster than the optimal rate. It compromises the accuracy
which ends up as audio distortions."

IOW a given converter that operates at 192 KHz will not have the high
resolution it has when operating in the 64 KHz range.

So surely if higher sample rates lose bits then *IF* you
only have 1 bit to start with it would be very hard to
lose it. Or if you did then that would be very sad
indeed ;-)

Don't confuse the terminology "1 bit converter" with the effective
resolution of the converter being in the range from 14 to 20 bits for audio.
The terminology "1 bit converter" related to some internal operational
details.

I read this as higher sample rates are good *if* you had
the processing power not to lose bits.

It is not really about processing power as much as it is about the
effectiveness of various elements of the converter itself. 1 bit convertors
work with pulses. As the sample rate goes up, elements of the converter lose
accuracy, and the pulses start getting a little mangled and prone to being
slightly misinterpreted.

So like I said I
would have been more interested in the comparison with
SACD/DSD as it would seem it overcomes the problems as
presented in the article.

Unlikely. SACD uses some of the same kinds of circuit elements as a
so-called "1 Bit" ADC or SACD. As the SACD converter treis to run faster and
faster, these same circuit elements also lose accuracy in a similar fashion
as they do inside the 1-bit converter.

BTW to quote from the above again "Sampling audio signals
at 192KHz is about 3 times faster than the optimal rate"
so it would appear he says the optimal rate is approx
64kHz. So where does that leave your 44.1kHz which is
perfect in your opinion? I believe I could live with
64/24 CDs quite nicely ;-)

It is a fact that converter accuracy and price/performance are no longer the
stumbling blocks to sound quality that they once were.

There is no reliable evidence that the 16/44 data format is a stumbling
block to the sonically-accurate reproduction of music thqat is distributed
to end-users. However, not all of the market that Lavry sells to is
sufficiently aware of this. Lavry's problem is that some of the people in
the market he serves, think that very high sample rates have a practical
justification.