You are here

A-D & D-A converters, budget vs high-end

Page 7 of 7

Re: A-D & D-A converters, budget vs high-end

PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:04 pm
by Studio Support Gnome
Jack Ruston wrote: uses a rather unusual chip, .


Oooh do tell.... ?? Beetroot?? Sweet Potato ?? , Parsnip?? Celeriac? some sort of reconstituted lentil and quinoa derivative ??

Re: A-D & D-A converters, budget vs high-end

PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:54 am
by Tim Gillett
Jack Ruston wrote:As an aside, on the quality Vs consumer issue...Universal are now demanding that all material is tracked at 96k. You're not supposed to just upsample your deliverables, but to start all projects at 96k. That's their new spec. They're worried about future formats, and how standard rates might be found lacking in future. I don't want to get into a discussion of whether that's useful, practical, easy to get around etc. The point is that that is the requirement. Not quite the same issue as the quality of conversion at standard rates, but it indicates a market demand for higher fidelity. (Tim's emphasis)

J

At least one classical seller is offering up to 192/24 downloads.

From their website: "24-bit FLACs (studio quality) are the highest quality we can offer. They are substantially superior to CD quality, i.e. even closer to the live experience. You will find many recent albums (and many more to come!) in this format." (my emphasis)

and this: "The sample rate of these files varies, depending on the rate that was used for the recording in question. It ranges up to 192 kHz, which may easily cause the file size for one such album to reach a gigabyte, despite the packing capacity of FLAC. So you need a fast internet connection to download such files, but they're worth it." (my emphasis)

This same website links to a high end audio gear retailer which gives what seems to be a selective account berating the limitations of 44.1/16 as a playback standard.