Can AIR stream 24 bit / 352kHz?

[weust]

I'm looking at the Jazz at the Pawnshop in 24 bit / 352Khz on HDTracks.com, but I wonder if AIR or the Devialet itself can playback the high sample rate.

Anyone bought the album in that resolution and comment whether or not it can actually stream the album?

I would buy the album in AIFF and place it in iTunes on my Mac Mini, if that helps.

[Pim]

You don't need to search for long on the net to find a lot of people who know more about audio reproduction that you and I that say that 24/96 is all you need for accurate reproduction and that anything above that can actually sound worse. Devialet themselves recommend 24/96 for analog inputs. 24/192 and 352 are just bigger buckets of the same stuff. Some might sound better but that's not because they're in a bigger bucket but because the mastering was done right. My advice; get the 24/96 version and enjoy the music.

[weust]

You don't need to search for long on the net to find a lot of people who know more about audio reproduction that you and I that say that 24/96 is all you need for accurate reproduction and that anything above that can actually sound worse. Devialet themselves recommend 24/96 for analog inputs. 24/192 and 352 are just bigger buckets of the same stuff. Some might sound better but that's not because they're in a bigger bucket but because the mastering was done right. My advice; get the 24/96 version and enjoy the music.

That's not answering my question at all.
Just a waste of my time reading it.

[amabrok]

You don't need to search for long on the net to find a lot of people who know more about audio reproduction that you and I that say that 24/96 is all you need for accurate reproduction and that anything above that can actually sound worse. Devialet themselves recommend 24/96 for analog inputs. 24/192 and 352 are just bigger buckets of the same stuff. Some might sound better but that's not because they're in a bigger bucket but because the mastering was done right. My advice; get the 24/96 version and enjoy the music.

That's not answering my question at all.
Just a waste of my time reading it.

Hi weust, take it easy, we all love to enrich threads by sharing thought, views and experiences. i believe it is part of the fun here.

as for your question, Devialet states that AIR is for Lossless streaming: absolutely no compression of the content up to 24bits/192kHz.

for more details check http://en.devialet.com/technology/devialet-air-en/

[Pim]

You don't need to search for long on the net to find a lot of people who know more about audio reproduction that you and I that say that 24/96 is all you need for accurate reproduction and that anything above that can actually sound worse. Devialet themselves recommend 24/96 for analog inputs. 24/192 and 352 are just bigger buckets of the same stuff. Some might sound better but that's not because they're in a bigger bucket but because the mastering was done right. My advice; get the 24/96 version and enjoy the music.

That's not answering my question at all.
Just a waste of my time reading it.

Sorry Weust,

I meant to add that to the end and completely forgot. It's been a long day...and your question has already been answered. Thanks Amabrok.

I subscribe to the daily posts of Mark Waldrep of Real HD. He's very knowledgable on the subject of HD recording and he seems to be a lone crusader against the spin that's being used by almost everyone out there who wants to make a quick dollar. Please have a read through some of his posts here

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?cat=45

and let us know what you think. He's convinced me that we're all being taken for a ride when it comes to what it actually is you need for a good sounding recording. Most companies just take an old recording, convert that to a higher definition file and charge more for it. I just don't want us to get ripped off by not getting what we pay for. One thing is for sure; If you bought a genuine High Definition recording than the least the seller should do is tell you how it was recorded and mastered. If they don't they're hiding something and it's most likely that they just copied an old file and made it bigger.

Again, sorry I didn't answer your question earlier. I hope you find something in Marks posts that interests you. Just a warning; he can get a bit boring because he's fighting the same battle every day. All that changes is the people he's fighting with.

Cheers,

Pim

[Charlemagne]

@Pim: good posting! I fully agree with you. Although Devialet can do 24/192 I limite the highres downloads to 24/96. About a year ago I attended to a workshop on highres recording. The technician of the Sniprecords Studio, who by the way does some excellent highres recording, explained that they did some elaborate testing about the highres recordings with all kind of shootouts and technical analyses. They found out that the 24/96 format gives the best results and they use that as a recording standard since.

Here is a link to a PDF-file about highres digital recording of Sniprecords:

http://www.sniprecords.nl/wp-content/upl...lained.pdf

SnipRecords records at 96 kHz 24 bit as we believe that this is the right sample rate and bit depth to store our digital music: detailed and high quality. The difference between 96 kHz and CD quality is clearly audible. Recording at higher sample rates than 96 kHz have no audible benefits. Our high resolution recordings sound more smooth, less restrained, more open and 3D compared to ordinary CD quality. And best of all, it creates the experience of being in the recording studio with the musicians!

Sniprecords is a Dutch recording studio wich produces excellent highres albums available as downloads only: http://www.sniprecords.nl/

[weust]

The main thing for me going with 192kHz sample rate is that when you choose 96kHz it will most likely (unless specifically stated) a down sample.
The idea of down sampling is what itches me. I don't like that thought.

I rather buy 192kHz if it's originally sampled that way, instead of buying a down sampled version.
There has to be some degree of loss there.
And I don't buy hi-s audio that's simply been upsampled or taken from old masters.
The ones I buy are new masters from the original master tapes.
Like the Kind of Blue album. That one sounds amazing compared to the older hi-res version.

I can agree that 96kHz is enough though. And don't think it is less good then 192kHz IF both are sampled independently.

And I thought myself too that 192kHz was the max Devialet supports.
Thanks for the link. Must have overlooked it somehow.

Will try to verify if the albums 192kHz and 96kHz are simple down sampled versions, or not.

---

Oh, and I will read the (boring ) link.
Read about Snip Records before. Not bought anything yet as I believe the albums didn't do it for me yet. But need to check again.

[f1eng]

Downsampling from 192 to 96 is trivial ( discard alternate samples) and will not lead to degradation.
Downsampling from 192/24 (or 96/24) to 44/16 is non-trivial (re-calculate every sample value) and a sophisticated algorithm is needed to achieve transparency.
IME there is a noticeable difference between the programmes used, but with the best there is no audible difference between the 44/16 file and the original 24/96 from which it is originated, at least on the type of music I have tried it.

[weust]

Ok, sounds alright. I'll keep it to my feeling then
Plus it doesn't hurt to have higher then 96kHz. Except on my credit card...

[Pim]

Hi guys,

Mark wrote another post about high bit rate. This one is easy to read and not at all boring

http://secure.campaigner.com/Campaigner/...et966&_v=2

If this doesn't convince you to keep half your money in your pocket then I guess nothing will. Weust, I guess your question opened up a whole new can of worms. I hope you're ok with me kidnapping your thread

Cheers,

Pim