196Khz from ASIO4ALL?? Is this possible?

[XdigiX]

Hi Guys,
I believe it was questioned here as to why audio equipment manufacturers make 192kHz where it can be hard to notice any difference over 96kHz or 48kHz? One interesting point is really how they can specify the device and market it.
A brief look at the apogee page reveals a rather impressive 119dB of dynamic range "weighted". This can be looked at as a 20 bit DAC (using an effective-number-of-bits ENOB calculation) again a nice number, but I guess you can already see you are missing 4 bits of the 24bit of the maximum word length!
No another piece of clever specification (and I've NO idea exactly how apogee themselves interpret the spec's I'm just speakin hypothetically!) is if you specify the DAC with a widened measurement bandwidth i.e. from 24kHz up to 192kHz, then you potentially stand to gain ~19dB to your spec. So lets say then that your dynamic range is now 119dB - 19dB = 100dB.
Now did I readed that the dynamic range was "weighted"? Oh well I guess this may be adding a dB or 2 to the measurement.
So... If we are now finding out our ENOB number again, well now our 20 bit could in reality be more like a 16 bit. But a least I get 8 "extra" bits in my word length of 24 bits

Now this I guess is a pessimistic view and I'm not sure how well it fits with the topic but I hope it may shed some light on why anyone may want to push the "boundarys" of this equipment so high.
And if you are spending a lot on the equipment find out exactly what the number mean in each case(from the manufacturer not just in general)

I'm just kinda learning this stuff as I go along, so please help or explain if I've got anything wrong here, rather than jump down my throat

ds1

ref:
http://www.edn.com/article/CA6643378.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENOB

[johnny h]

Hi Guys,
I believe it was questioned here as to why audio equipment manufacturers make 192kHz where it can be hard to notice any difference over 96kHz or 48kHz? One interesting point is really how they can specify the device and market it.
A brief look at the apogee page reveals a rather impressive 119dB of dynamic range "weighted". This can be looked at as a 20 bit DAC (using an effective-number-of-bits ENOB calculation) again a nice number, but I guess you can already see you are missing 4 bits of the 24bit of the maximum word length!
No another piece of clever specification (and I've NO idea exactly how apogee themselves interpret the spec's I'm just speakin hypothetically!) is if you specify the DAC with a widened measurement bandwidth i.e. from 24kHz up to 192kHz, then you potentially stand to gain ~19dB to your spec. So lets say then that your dynamic range is now 119dB - 19dB = 100dB.
Now did I readed that the dynamic range was "weighted"? Oh well I guess this may be adding a dB or 2 to the measurement.
So... If we are now finding out our ENOB number again, well now our 20 bit could in reality be more like a 16 bit. But a least I get 8 "extra" bits in my word length of 24 bits

Now this I guess is a pessimistic view and I'm not sure how well it fits with the topic but I hope it may shed some light on why anyone may want to push the "boundarys" of this equipment so high.
And if you are spending a lot on the equipment find out exactly what the number mean in each case(from the manufacturer not just in general)

I'm just kinda learning this stuff as I go along, so please help or explain if I've got anything wrong here, rather than jump down my throat

ds1

ref:
http://www.edn.com/article/CA6643378.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENOB

There's no point worrying about this level of dynamic range. An extremely quiet room is about 20db, whereas permanent and instant hearing damage can occur at 120db. So unless you have incredibly loud speakers, a silent room and an insane desire to permanently damage your hearing, 100db dynamic range is more than you need!

[XdigiX]

120dB here refers to dynamic range. I think you are confusing it with sound pressure measurements. They both use dB's but that's just cause they are large ratios.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Which is why the CD format is still perfectly valid for high quality music reproduction. It has a practical noise floor around 93dB below the peak level and the ability to reproduce signals a further 20dB or so below that if the source recordings are properly dithered.

However, for original source recording purposes, where signal levels can be unpredictable, it is wise to add a further 20dB or so of contingency headroom, extending the dynamic range requirement of an A-D (and monitoring D-A) to about 120dB or so. This is acheivable with decent converters, and even budget converters wil only fall a few decibels short of this.

The point about extended bandwidth sampling allowing some dynamic range figure fiddling is a valid one -- as is the use of weighted figures... but I think the real reason for manufacturers offering elevated rates like 192 and 384kHz is because they can and people are generally impressed with bigger numbers.

In reality, the performance at these higher rates is almost always inferior (from a jitter point of view if nothing else) to single and dual rates.

Hugh

[Kolakube]

So not a great choice for the PC. Perhaps take it back and get something more suitable, rather than pissing about with this crappy ASIO4ALL nonsense.

^^^^ @ Johny H,

As said mate you don't need a sound card. So im not "pissing" around with all this crappy ASIO4ALL as you put it.

I have both mac and PC so still a great choice for me.

Why do you hate Apogee so much?

[Exalted Wombat]

We're past the stage when DAC technology was new, affordable stuff cut too many corners, and paying big money got you something really better. Well past it. Now, the DAC on a domestic computer's motherboard is really pretty good for simple playback. There's no reason, except marketing, why it couldn't be even better and come with a proper ASIO driver as standard, but the bean-counters prefer to save a few pennies and have you buy a separate card. Competence kicks in at quite a moderate price point. There's still a demand for something "better" - i.e. more expensive. Manufacturers are happy to supply it. It's interesting that Apogee are reported as concentrating on Mac users. Read into that what you like!

[johnny h]

So not a great choice for the PC. Perhaps take it back and get something more suitable, rather than pissing about with this crappy ASIO4ALL nonsense.

^^^^ @ Johny H,

As said mate you don't need a sound card. So im not "pissing" around with all this crappy ASIO4ALL as you put it.

I have both mac and PC so still a great choice for me.

Why do you hate Apogee so much?

Because they have stupidly withdrawn PC support, which makes their soundcards a very bad choice for anyone who doesn't wish to be needlessly and permamently tied to Apple.

[James Perrett]

There is a huge elephant in the room (or this thread!) and it just has to be said.

Why didn't you just buy a firewire soundcard which had proper PC drivers in the first place?

I'm afraid you aren't reading properly - the Apogee is just a simple DAC here - not an audio interface. Many modern PC's have SPDIF built in and it is the built in SPDIF that he is trying to use here. The Apogee is irrelevant - it could just as easily be a Lavry, Benchmark, Mytek, Sonifex or other brand of decent DAC.

James.

[ken long]

Many modern PC's have SPDIF built in and it is the built in SPDIF that he is trying to use here.

Good call. Hadn't even thought of using the SPDIF.

[johnny h]

There is a huge elephant in the room (or this thread!) and it just has to be said.

Why didn't you just buy a firewire soundcard which had proper PC drivers in the first place?

I'm afraid you aren't reading properly - the Apogee is just a simple DAC here - not an audio interface. Many modern PC's have SPDIF built in and it is the built in SPDIF that he is trying to use here. The Apogee is irrelevant - it could just as easily be a Lavry, Benchmark, Mytek, Sonifex or other brand of decent DAC.

James.

No, I read it. Still seems crazy to use the in-built soundcard spdif because you have an incompatible external firewire soundcard.

Surely its a much more better and flexible idea to use a firewire soundcard which is fully supported on the PC and Mac!

[Kolakube]

Sorry guys but im using firewire.

Wombat, your so mis informed about every issue we discuss.

A dedicated DAC that costs a grand is light years above a £300 sound card.

Yes built in DACs have improved. It goes without saying dedicated DACs haven't exactly stood still.

[Kolakube]

Also......

Apogee DAC on windows 7 (which will be here for the next 5-10 years no doubt)

http://intergalacticplanetary.net/blog/2009/08/29/apogee-mini-dac-works-in-windows-7/

Seems its only Vista that the DAC wouldn't work on. Mind, Vista was nothing short of an abortion of an OS. Im still on XP as a result.

[Exalted Wombat]

Sorry guys but im using firewire.

Wombat, your so mis informed about every issue we discuss.

A dedicated DAC that costs a grand is light years above a £300 sound card.

Yes built in DACs have improved. It goes without saying dedicated DACs haven't exactly stood still.

My belief (and it IS largely a belief - I haven't dedicated my life to doing properly structured blind comparisons of equipment) is that D>A conversion is now pretty well understood, moderately-priced gear does the job and boutique equipment is as much a rip-off as e.g. "magic cables" in the audiophool world.

Your belief is that something costing twice as much MUST be twice as good.

I don't think we're going to convince each other Peace.

[Kolakube]

Yeah fair enough we can agree to disagree.

But its not so much about money. SInce the days of my hi fi separates, separates were always better than a midi hi fi.

I feel the same still applies today. One box does all approach never works for me.

Also, keep in mind my MiniDAC was £750 (ish) I dont require a sound card to go with it as its the firewire version.

So in other words I have paid £750 for a great sounding soundcard (forget the DAC bit)

If I had to pay £500 for a soundcard and then £750 for the DAC then id be more inclined to agree with you but I have paid £750 for an interface that gets the audio out of my PC and onto my monitors.

I honestly dont think this is a bad price considering even if you do just see it as a pro quality sound card.

[Martin Walker]

My belief (and it IS largely a belief - I haven't dedicated my life to doing properly structured blind comparisons of equipment) is that D>A conversion is now pretty well understood, moderately-priced gear does the job and boutique equipment is as much a rip-off as e.g. "magic cables" in the audiophool world.

Your belief is that something costing twice as much MUST be twice as good.

I don't think we're going to convince each other Peace.

Hi EW!

I have to agree with kolakube on this one - assuming you have some acoustic treatment in your room and discriminating loudspeakers (or alternatively a good set of headphones) most musicians should hear the difference between the conversion quality of an audio interface costing a few hundred pounds and a quality DAC like this one from Apogee, or other similarly priced models from Lavry, Benchmark and others.

No it won’t sound twice as good, but the difference should be significant (as kolakube has already said he noticed).

Mid-price DACS are certainly not in the same league as ‘magic cables’

Martin

[Paradigm X]

at the risk of confusing an already confusing, but highly entertaining thread, ive found a lot of softsythns sound better at 88 or 96k, as aliasing is pushed up. Albino3 is just one. I spent a fair bit of time testing all this out, and bounced out at 96k, and resampled down with a quality resampler (voxengo) and it was still much better. Any which internally upsample wont benefit tho.

I was told a handy tip to work at 44/24 while building a tune, then bounce out at 96k, pushing up the buffer size to compensate if necessary.

Could be wrong tho.