Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

which sound card sampling rate adapted to amplifier

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • which sound card sampling rate adapted to amplifier

    Hi


    It is my first post to your forum


    I would like to know if there is an interest to use a high end sampling rate sound card ( 192 khz ) for only CD/mp3 file playing ; even if lossless file like flac become more and more used .

    Maybe it is important for audio processing filters ?


    Do you think Jacks output are good enough instead of RCA or clearly the RCA are better even if Optical link will be the top but there is so few amplifiers with this kind of input


    Thanks by advance

  • #2
    Jack--your talking about the audio routing program right?

    never used it. tried, but didn't understand it..

    the sampling rate is only as beneficial as the rate the cd was ripped at. ie: if you ripped a cd at 64 kbps at 2400bitrate, setting up Jack, or VAc to use 4800bitrate will have zero noticable effect.
    My OLD 2001 Mitsubishi Eclipse GT:
    "The Project That Never Ended, until it did"


    next project? subaru brz
    carpc undecided

    Comment


    • #3
      IMO is should be 48k (ie, 192k for 4ch) - I always thought 44k was too low.

      But what comes out of RCA or Philips or Optic depends on what is sent to it.
      RCAs are capable of high frequencies with less interference, but both cover the required 20+kHz range. And I can send 8bit at 300bps thru an optic....

      And don't get carried away with bits - consider the other "quality".
      It can be like comparing a 1MP Zeiss-lensed pic with a "normal 12MP pic - the 1MP cab be far superior! (Besides, what point is 12MP compared to (say) 4MP - more storage sales by the big companies?)
      Last edited by OldSpark; 03-14-2011, 08:52 PM. Reason: Corrected 22k to 44k...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by OldSpark View Post
        And don't get carried away with bits - consider the other "quality".
        It can be like comparing a 1MP Zeiss-lensed pic with a "normal 12MP pic - the 1MP cab be far superior! (Besides, what point is 12MP compared to (say) 4MP - more storage sales by the big companies?)
        i know it is not your intention, but many times, 12mp is more desirable then 1mp because it will allow the image to be edited:cropped/zoomed, later with less reduction in image quality.
        My OLD 2001 Mitsubishi Eclipse GT:
        "The Project That Never Ended, until it did"


        next project? subaru brz
        carpc undecided

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by soundman98 View Post
          i know it is not your intention...
          True, but it's still the same...
          Expand fuzzyness & ghosting...

          If it's out of focus, then does the greater resolution help?
          Same for lack of lens quality.


          But no - size was not my intention. Nor mis-sized cropping....
          Quality was.
          And the need for "quality" 12MP? Really? Admittedly it is only double 3MP resolution and 2MP was considered the minimum acceptable and 4MP quite acceptable (or was it more than acceptable?)

          Comment

          Working...
          X