4 ms·

24/192 playback isn't entirely silly. It's probably true that you can't hear a difference between a perfectly reconstructed 16/44.1k audio and perfectly reconst

24/192 playback isn't entirely silly. It's probably true that you can't hear a difference between a perfectly reconstructed 16/44.1k audio and perfectly reconstructed 24/192k audio. But the quality of your DAC certainly does matter, as well as the analog hardware that's after it. If a device has a 24/192k DAC, it means the manufacturer didn't just use the cheapest DAC they could find, and it's more likely to be high-quality (plus, it shows they care about audio quality, so they may have gone for a higher-quality analog hardware too). In a perfect world, cell phone and music player manufacturers would advertise "this phone has a Wolfson DAC and uses OPA2134 opamps running at 9V in the output stage". But the mass consumer market doesn't care about those things, so for now all we have to go off is "this one supports 24/192 so it's probably got better hardware" (or the alternative, "this one says it has Beats Audio so it's probably got hyped bass and is terribly inaccurate").

tracker1 12y ago
Not sure about that... when 100mbps hubs started rolling out, there were 10mbps ones that actually ran better... same goes for the 100/1gbit change. Eventually the higher capacity cheap versions got good/better enough. But just because the sample rates are higher, doesn't mean the parts/materials are better.
- KeytarHero 12y ago
  You're right, it doesn't - a high-quality 44.1k DAC will out-perform a low-quality 192k DAC any day. But device manufacturers (especially when it comes to phones) are generally not using high-quality DACs. As I said, I wish phone manufacturers advertised which DACs they were using. A hub is different. A hub is a device you buy specifically for its networking performance. On the other hand, 99% of the market doesn't buy their phone for its audio quality.
derf_ 12y ago
Did you read the article? "The ultrasonics are a liability during playback.... Neither audio transducers nor power amplifiers are free of distortion, and distortion tends to increase rapidly at the lowest and highest frequencies. ...any nonlinearity will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum. Nonlinearity in a power amplifier will produce the same effect." I would not expect a willingness to exploit consumers' magical thinking to be a good signal for quality engineering.
- hackinthebochs 12y ago
  Does the same also go for high end audio equipment that a typical audiophile might have?
- KeytarHero 12y ago
  That's what audio mastering is for. A good mastering engineer tests their masters on iPhone headphones as well as studio monitors. > I would not expect a willingness to exploit consumers' magical thinking to be a good signal for quality engineering. Companies do this all the time, not just in audio, and they have for years. I don't know why most consumers would need a phone with a camera more than 8 MP, when most users will only ever display it on a 1080p (~2 MP) screen. I don't know why anyone needs a screen with more than 300 PPI. I don't know why anyone needs a TV with higher than 120 Hz refresh. But guess what, if Nokia puts a 41-megapixel sensor on their phone, I'm willing to bet they've also got a darn good lens. If Google wants to put an almost 500 PPI screen on their phone, I'm guessing they've chosen a screen that also has pretty good contrast & color. Sample rate/depth is one thing device manufacturers can do to easily send the message "we care about audio quality" to the general consumer market, just like how a 41 MP phone camera tells you they are serious abut the quality of their camera. Obviously you shouldn't judge a phone's camera or screen by the number of pixels alone. Unfortunately, it's much easier to directly compare screens and cameras than it is phone DACs. I wish there was a good benchmark system for audio hardware, but it's really hard to find accurate, unbiased, quantitative information.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > I don't know why most consumers would need a phone with a camera more than 8 MP, when most users will only ever display it on a 1080p (~2 MP) screen. (1) Many computers, TVs, tablets, smartphones, and laptops now have screens with greater than 1080p resolution ("Quad HD" 2560x1440 is particularly common), so I don't thinks it true that most will only ever display pictures on a 1080p screen, heck, many of them will be taking pictures on devices with greater than a 1080p screen. (2) Often pictures, after being taken, will be cropped; so the image that will be viewed on a screen (of whatever size) will be some subset of the full picture taken.

tracker1 12y ago

Not sure about that... when 100mbps hubs started rolling out, there were 10mbps ones that actually ran better... same goes for the 100/1gbit change. Eventually the higher capacity cheap versions got good/better enough. But just because the sample rates are higher, doesn't mean the parts/materials are better.

KeytarHero 12y ago
You're right, it doesn't - a high-quality 44.1k DAC will out-perform a low-quality 192k DAC any day. But device manufacturers (especially when it comes to phones) are generally not using high-quality DACs. As I said, I wish phone manufacturers advertised which DACs they were using. A hub is different. A hub is a device you buy specifically for its networking performance. On the other hand, 99% of the market doesn't buy their phone for its audio quality.

derf_ 12y ago

Did you read the article? "The ultrasonics are a liability during playback.... Neither audio transducers nor power amplifiers are free of distortion, and distortion tends to increase rapidly at the lowest and highest frequencies. ...any nonlinearity will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum. Nonlinearity in a power amplifier will produce the same effect." I would not expect a willingness to exploit consumers' magical thinking to be a good signal for quality engineering.

hackinthebochs 12y ago
Does the same also go for high end audio equipment that a typical audiophile might have?
KeytarHero 12y ago
That's what audio mastering is for. A good mastering engineer tests their masters on iPhone headphones as well as studio monitors. > I would not expect a willingness to exploit consumers' magical thinking to be a good signal for quality engineering. Companies do this all the time, not just in audio, and they have for years. I don't know why most consumers would need a phone with a camera more than 8 MP, when most users will only ever display it on a 1080p (~2 MP) screen. I don't know why anyone needs a screen with more than 300 PPI. I don't know why anyone needs a TV with higher than 120 Hz refresh. But guess what, if Nokia puts a 41-megapixel sensor on their phone, I'm willing to bet they've also got a darn good lens. If Google wants to put an almost 500 PPI screen on their phone, I'm guessing they've chosen a screen that also has pretty good contrast & color. Sample rate/depth is one thing device manufacturers can do to easily send the message "we care about audio quality" to the general consumer market, just like how a 41 MP phone camera tells you they are serious abut the quality of their camera. Obviously you shouldn't judge a phone's camera or screen by the number of pixels alone. Unfortunately, it's much easier to directly compare screens and cameras than it is phone DACs. I wish there was a good benchmark system for audio hardware, but it's really hard to find accurate, unbiased, quantitative information.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > I don't know why most consumers would need a phone with a camera more than 8 MP, when most users will only ever display it on a 1080p (~2 MP) screen. (1) Many computers, TVs, tablets, smartphones, and laptops now have screens with greater than 1080p resolution ("Quad HD" 2560x1440 is particularly common), so I don't thinks it true that most will only ever display pictures on a 1080p screen, heck, many of them will be taking pictures on devices with greater than a 1080p screen. (2) Often pictures, after being taken, will be cropped; so the image that will be viewed on a screen (of whatever size) will be some subset of the full picture taken.