View Single Post
Old 21st August 2019
  #28
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAH View Post
Please remove the last accusative paragraph, else I could blame you in being deaf not hearing the vast difference between 44-48 and 96, or not bright enough to see the direct relation between using DAT and DDL in that both are non-high-res digital with destroyed 3d space resolution.
2001 is good, but there must be better references on vinyl cut from tape with no DDL. 24/96 hip-hop records, I have failed to find.
I don't need my hearing validated by strangers on the internet, nor am i arguing that sample rates don't have an impact on sound.

With regards to your linking DAT and DDL, again, those things are completely unrelated. You may as well include DASH, DA88, and even Pro Tools to that list of 'resolution killers'. And let's not even get into the hip hop-specific quandary of 32k 12-bit samplers and their impact on 'depth'.

What you're effectively arguing is that no worthy digital reference material existed prior to the advent of Pro Tools HD in the early 2000s. Is that your position? If so, then why the preoccupation with DAT (a storage format, and one which you've never actually used)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAH View Post
It is not logic but the observations. This topic has been discussed many times/ It is probably has more to do with the DAC artifacts moved to the ultrasonic range at higher sample rates, though native 24/96 sounds still better than upsampled 24/44-48 at 96.
Are you familiar with the concept of oversampling? Most modern DACs don't actually record the signal at 44.1k or 48k. They record the signal at much, much higher resolutions. So, there aren't really a lot of "DAC artifacts" relative to the sampling process.

Most DACs' biggest weakness is the analog section, and all the high resolution sampling in the world can't fix what's already been broken by that.
2
Share