I'm going to try to make it.
- chris
> b) I've always found it ironic as a Stereophile reader that AFAIK,
there has been little
> discussion of the audio SOURCE MATERIAL electronics. I mean, if you
have a $40,000 system, does
> it make Miles Davis in 1958 sound that much better? All we hear
about is 1/2 of the equation:
> playback. The fact that it was recorded on a total piece of junk is
glossed over.
Hear, hear (I think that's a pun).
> c) I am always amused to see a "24-bit/96Khz" audio system that
uses 4558 op amps in the output.
> Or worse, the horrid little LM833 National part that has like 4%
THD at 4500Hz (when I first
> plotted one, I thought the AP was broken).
>
This is another very good point. Also don't forget those noise little
78XX/79XX regulators they use :(.
After working on soundcards a couple of things became clear. (Keep in
mind I'm talking about most commercial chips Crystal, AKM, AD, can't
comment on BB haven't heard em and not discreet converters.) There is
a big difference going from 16 bits to 24 bits. Even though the chip
makers call their chips 24 bits they are only really good 20 or 21
bit chips. Going from 44.1 kHz to 96 kHz you can hear a difference,
but it's not as significant as 16 to 24 bits. One big problem is if
you are using 96 kHz in a studio and you want to mix down to 44.1 kHz
the software will probably destroy the sound. All but the best
software doesn't do a good job of sample rate conversion.
Another thing with converters as Paul mentioned is the jitter. Most
of the stuff out there uses the old single bit converters. The new
multi-bit converters sound much better. Instead of integrating a
single bit they do multiple bits. This gives less error and makes the
effect of jitter much less and the sound quality better. So when
you're looking for a good set of converters ask if they are mutli-bit.
Good listening to one and all.
Jay
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.