Phantom Gold doesn't support 192/24, surprising answer from support??

[ogs]

Other posts here imply that they can do this through optical

It seems like new units from Devialet does max out at 96kHz on optical. I think this could possibly be linked to parts supply.  The receiver part that can handle 192kHz is from a different supplier AFAIK. The toslink spec is max 96kHz, but 192kHz is possible if the right part is used. As I said earlier in the thread, optical 1 on my 250 worked at 192kHz, but optical 2 stopped at 96kHz. If the192kHz part is not available at the moment Devialet has no choice - or Devialet has decided that 96kHz is good enough and uses the part that is easiest to get.

[Pim]

@rsemedo You have been ripped off mate but not by Devialet. here's no musical information above red book so whoever sold you the 24/192 probably told you a lot of lies. They all do.
Here is an email I received from Dr AIX, one of the very few gentleman who records in real high res and admits there's no discernible difference between high res and red book for the consumer.

Hi-Res Matters ... and It Doesn't
The results of my survey will be hard or impossible for many to accept. Those with a financial stake or vested interest in "hi-res" audio will continue to perpetuate the myth. I've had a few polite back and forth exchanges with David Solomon, the evangelist for Qobuz, on one of the FB audio groups that focuses on high-resolution audio. His contention — and one that I completely agree with — is that using high-resolution audio to produce new recordings makes a difference. He bolsters his position with "testimonials" from respected audio engineers and producers including Grammy-winning Bill Schnee and Cookie Marenco. Their arguments are well-founded and true but they do not conflict with the findings of my survey. How can hi-res audio absolutely make a difference and according to my own survey be indistinguishable from standard-res audio?

Because we're not talking about the same thing. David and his group are focused on one end of the production chain and I'm dealing with the other end. Making a recording requires a lot of individual steps. There's time spent in the studio or at a live venue capturing performances through microphones, preamps, and preserving them on recording devices — analog or digital. Additional vocal or instrumental parts are then layered on to the "basic tracks" over the course of weeks or even months. And finally, the individual tracks are blended, tweaked, and balanced into a surround or stereo mix – called the mixdown stage. At the end of the process, a mastering engineer assembles the album, applies EQ and compression, and adds the metadata to the final files prior to replication or distribution. All of this should ideally happen in high-resolution. Why?

Because one of the primary goals of the audio engineers working on the project is to record the instruments and vocals in the best quality possible. You can always make a recording with lots of fidelity sound worse but you can't go the other way. When the artist is singing or playing a new part, the engineer can only guess at how loud the artist will sing or play. Having 24-bits affords recording engineers additional "headroom" before excessively loud moments overload some part of the signal path, distort and sound terrible. Using 24-bits provides over 120 dB of potential signal to noise specifications. Increasing the sampling rate helps with filtering and analog to digital conversion. Moving to high-resolution during the production phases of a commercial recording project makes all the sense in the world.

But engineering a new album project in a professional recording studio is very different than playing back a final mastered, released track in your own home on your own system. As the HD-Audio Challenge II clearly demonstrated, playing back music in "hi-res" audio — with sample rates higher than 44.1 kHz and word lengths longer than 16-bits — doesn't provide any perceptible fidelity improvement over using Red Book standards. The industry will continue to try and defend "hi-res" audio and market ever higher specifications because they want us to purchase new "hi-res" equipment, subscribe to pricier music services, and buy our favorite music all over again. But signing up for the highest tier of Spotify or buying Blu-ray music discs won't make any difference in your music enjoyment.

If I were an evangelist for a "hi-res" streaming service or the head of marketing for a digital music download site (wait a minute I am responsible for iTrax.com, the first high-resolution music download site ), I would have a hard time acknowledging and accepting the results of the HD-Audio Challenge II survey. As someone that has championed hi-res audio for over a decade, the results directly contradict many of the articles on this site. But I didn't manipulate the data to conform to my previous position of advocating for hi-res audio. I wanted to know if real world audiophiles could hear the "dramatic" improvement in fidelity claimed by NARAS, the DEG, CTA/CEA, music services, and the music labels. I'm satisfied that hi-res doesn't matter as a final delivery format. However, it does matter while Bill Schnee, Cookie Marenco. or I are making new recordings. We can all be right. And audiophiles should understand the facts.

So down sample your 24/192 to red book and enjoy the music.

[Snoopy8]

24/192 works with USB on the Phantoms.  Only achieved 24/96 on optical. I am sorry but looks like you will have to return it.

I was not aware that Phantoms have USB. Is this correct? Do you mean UPnP?
I always assumed that the toslink input on a Phantom supported 24/192. AFAIK several posts here at DC (over the years) also say this.

One recent example: https://devialetchat.com/Thread-Good-qua...8#pid93958

Oops!  Will correct original post to UPnP.

[Snoopy8]

24/192 works with USB on the Phantoms.  Only achieved 24/96 on optical. I am sorry but looks like you will have to return it.

What you mean on USB? The Phantom Golds don't have an USB connector...? Possibly, but what they are doing is misleading(lying) advertising...since they say it supports up to 192/24....

My BAD! Sorry,  I should have said UPnP instead of USB. Corrected original post.

[Jean-Claude]

I recommend french assistance. I got a big issue two years ago with a MacbookPro/Cambridge AudioDAC/optical cable/Phantom Gold connexion when I tried to use one of my two Golds in such a configuration in a second home. The Devialet adviser pulled out all the stops to fix the issue; including testing at her home some solution she thought about and finally got the idea to reconfigure a cpl/wifi device she asked me to send to her (freely), in order to use it as a decoy. Her solution finally worked.

[ragwo]

No problems here

Are you using a converter to have optical? The DigiOne does not have a toslink out I believe?

Yes, I use a Cypress DTC-2 for the coax to toslink conversion. It supports 24/192.

[rsemedo]

I recommend french assistance. I got a big issue two years ago with a MacbookPro/Cambridge AudioDAC/optical cable/Phantom Gold connexion when I tried to use one of my two Golds in such a configuration in a second home. The Devialet adviser pulled out all the stops to fix the issue; including testing at her home some solution she thought about and finally got the idea to reconfigure a cpl/wifi device she asked me to send to her (freely), in order to use it as a decoy. Her solution finally worked.

Yes, thank you, I hear the French support is much better....but I'm assuming you need to speak French..?...will need to go back to my school days... 

[rsemedo]

Hi there

Something seems a bit strange here - I'm surprised that the tracks even start to play if its not supported - do they sound OK when it starts to play - does it just stop suddenly, or fade or distort.

I don't output this rate through optical but I can confirm that upnp supports this rate.

Other posts here imply that they can do this through optical so either your Golds are faulty or something is different in the format you are playing - you don't say as far as I can see what type of files you are playing at this resolution - anything unusual or with some wrapper around them?

kantblue

I'm using FLAC files with Roon like the user above...my Roon End Point is the Primare NP5, but I used others with the same result... :-(

[rsemedo]

Other posts here imply that they can do this through optical

It seems like new units from Devialet does max out at 96kHz on optical. I think this could possibly be linked to parts supply.  The receiver part that can handle 192kHz is from a different supplier AFAIK. The toslink spec is max 96kHz, but 192kHz is possible if the right part is used. As I said earlier in the thread, optical 1 on my 250 worked at 192kHz, but optical 2 stopped at 96kHz. If the192kHz part is not available at the moment Devialet has no choice - or Devialet has decided that 96kHz is good enough and uses the part that is easiest to get.

In my case, it actually plays 192/24 files for a while but then stops and gives "no cable detected" message...but I'm talking Phantom Gold not the standalone DACs...

[rsemedo]

@rsemedo You have been ripped off mate but not by Devialet. here's no musical information above red book so whoever sold you the 24/192 probably told you a lot of lies. They all do.
Here is an email I received from Dr AIX, one of the very few gentleman who records in real high res and admits there's no discernible difference between high res and red book for the consumer.

Hi-Res Matters ... and It Doesn't
The results of my survey will be hard or impossible for many to accept. Those with a financial stake or vested interest in "hi-res" audio will continue to perpetuate the myth. I've had a few polite back and forth exchanges with David Solomon, the evangelist for Qobuz, on one of the FB audio groups that focuses on high-resolution audio. His contention — and one that I completely agree with — is that using high-resolution audio to produce new recordings makes a difference. He bolsters his position with "testimonials" from respected audio engineers and producers including Grammy-winning Bill Schnee and Cookie Marenco. Their arguments are well-founded and true but they do not conflict with the findings of my survey. How can hi-res audio absolutely make a difference and according to my own survey be indistinguishable from standard-res audio?

Because we're not talking about the same thing. David and his group are focused on one end of the production chain and I'm dealing with the other end. Making a recording requires a lot of individual steps. There's time spent in the studio or at a live venue capturing performances through microphones, preamps, and preserving them on recording devices — analog or digital. Additional vocal or instrumental parts are then layered on to the "basic tracks" over the course of weeks or even months. And finally, the individual tracks are blended, tweaked, and balanced into a surround or stereo mix – called the mixdown stage. At the end of the process, a mastering engineer assembles the album, applies EQ and compression, and adds the metadata to the final files prior to replication or distribution. All of this should ideally happen in high-resolution. Why?

Because one of the primary goals of the audio engineers working on the project is to record the instruments and vocals in the best quality possible. You can always make a recording with lots of fidelity sound worse but you can't go the other way. When the artist is singing or playing a new part, the engineer can only guess at how loud the artist will sing or play. Having 24-bits affords recording engineers additional "headroom" before excessively loud moments overload some part of the signal path, distort and sound terrible. Using 24-bits provides over 120 dB of potential signal to noise specifications. Increasing the sampling rate helps with filtering and analog to digital conversion. Moving to high-resolution during the production phases of a commercial recording project makes all the sense in the world.

But engineering a new album project in a professional recording studio is very different than playing back a final mastered, released track in your own home on your own system. As the HD-Audio Challenge II clearly demonstrated, playing back music in "hi-res" audio — with sample rates higher than 44.1 kHz and word lengths longer than 16-bits — doesn't provide any perceptible fidelity improvement over using Red Book standards. The industry will continue to try and defend "hi-res" audio and market ever higher specifications because they want us to purchase new "hi-res" equipment, subscribe to pricier music services, and buy our favorite music all over again. But signing up for the highest tier of Spotify or buying Blu-ray music discs won't make any difference in your music enjoyment.

If I were an evangelist for a "hi-res" streaming service or the head of marketing for a digital music download site (wait a minute I am responsible for iTrax.com, the first high-resolution music download site ), I would have a hard time acknowledging and accepting the results of the HD-Audio Challenge II survey. As someone that has championed hi-res audio for over a decade, the results directly contradict many of the articles on this site. But I didn't manipulate the data to conform to my previous position of advocating for hi-res audio. I wanted to know if real world audiophiles could hear the "dramatic" improvement in fidelity claimed by NARAS, the DEG, CTA/CEA, music services, and the music labels. I'm satisfied that hi-res doesn't matter as a final delivery format. However, it does matter while Bill Schnee, Cookie Marenco. or I are making new recordings. We can all be right. And audiophiles should understand the facts.

So down sample your 24/192 to red book and enjoy the music.

Thank you Pim, appreciate your email...it's all fine and a long discussion that I don't want to get into...let's just say each to their own, after all is music, different people, different experiences, etc, etc ...my point is, Devialet in their webpages market the message of supporting HiRes up to 192/24, I've been spending money over time to build a system that supports that resolution around my Phantom Golds...if that's not true they should remove that info from their website....there are many other products out there that support that (and above) resolutions and in the end, it's a consumer decision to pay the premium or not....but you cannot lie to people, because they charge a good premium for that capability/resolution, otherwise just call the Phanom's glorified Bluetooth speakers and if that's the case, I'm not paying ~5k for that product!