Resolution 48kcompared to 96k


#1

Here is my question . As you might have read I have a new office system and it has a active cross over .

It has a resolution of 48k max. And the ad and da converters at 19bit and 20 bit. Now the bits seem high enough for as 24

Being the max of recorded material I have . But the resolution seems low, as the new unit I am proposing is adjustable to 96k.

Does this matter am I losing something now that I may hear if I invest in the new unit. At present the system sounds really good not perfection but good to my ears. I can quickly hear changes made form filter settings in dac ,s and of course different dac,s .

The new unit has a much newer type of processors . It’s another pro audio unit. And I would like to appoligise to elk and others of my former ignorance of dynamics. As the more I play the more I can see how dynamics that is missing is just not right. And a recording with more is overall better. Maybe it’s just too much headphone using. But my taste has changed as well as live recordings are more enjoyable to.

Anyway if this piece of this puzzle can be answered I would greatly appreciate it .



Al


#2

Not quite sure if the new unit would improve your sound but I’m glad that you saw the light, er, heard the sound on dynamics. :slight_smile:

Sample rate and bit depth differences aside, and I know I am beating a dead horse here, but you will not get the sound quality that the PWD or any of the other high end DACs are capable of after their signal is run through another ADA cycle in a digital crossover of this sort (there probably are exceptions, but at a price). Perhaps more important is the analog output stage of this unit. Matching the quality of the PWD output section? Good luck. I use one of these units myself (Behringer) and it absolutely kills the sound from the upper bass on up. I have a hybrid crossover setup. I use the RCA outputs from the PWD to drive the Behringer supplying everything below 150Hz and the balanced outs through an analog xover for the rest. If you have the xover components from your 1b’s you could do something similar with your Yamaha and it will sound much, much better. You’ll still have control over the bass which is where I do most of my fiddling, anyway, and have sweet mids and highs the way Arnie intended. The best of both worlds.


#3

This reminds me of an idea that I have. If I had unlimited funds and time to play, I would like to assemble a system with a high quality digital player like a Sonore Rendu (or PS Audio’s future offering :D) feeding a digital crossover which then feeds its digital output to matched sets of PWDs feeding whatever amps and speakers. Digital from source material through crossover to DACs directly feeding power amps. Convoluted? Should beat the crap out of analog going through a Behringer… :open_mouth:



J.P.


#4

You guys are killing me here . But I do see the point . However there are many hi end to ultra hi end speakers that do just this. Legacy does this as well and they even have a well known active cross over you can buy separately .

There is a device made by accuphase df55 it is about 20 k new . It’s kinda top dog in this, but before I go there I want to hear any improvement in what I have first. This is something most do not do, I get that . But there is plenty of people who do. Just like you wglenn . You had to have a reason for doing it. As for fiddling. , the unit I have has 15 presets to remember them . I have 5 setup now for different genre and recording qualities . Lastly as I live in NYC. I go the hear ultra hi end setups with my music. And make determinations from there as well.

As for changes from infinity original to this I have both . And to me this beats that hands down. First off the originals were not a line source they were a point source . The upper mid went through just one driver .

As now I have 6 . The idea is the same principle that the IRS V use. Only they have a passive two way and one active for the bass.



Al


#5
wingsounds13 said: Should beat the crap out of analog going through a Behringer.

Yep. Doesn't take much to beat that. :))

#6

Nice you guys don’t care it’s my money anyway. Lol.



I will post my results next week as I am picking the unit up on Monday.



Al


#7

Accuphase makes a really good one but it is 20k new


#8

@ALRAINBOW I suspect J.P’s idea is the “best” way if you are a purist. Any other method of digital crossover is bound to suffer too much degradation in the ADA conversion required. However, I would seriously look at DEQX, which offers a lot in one box.


#9

Hopefully the new unit will come with a good instruction manual. :slight_smile: Does it have an integrated analyzer?


#10

You Re a nudge . The unit does come with onscreen windows software for easy setup. I am picking a demo unit cheap so i can always sell it on ebay . On another forum they like the pick as there is some people using active crossovers . As it is tempting to just get a analog , but something much better then a berringer .



Lol. Just kidding but pass makes one but by the time i am done it will cost about 6 k. And an accuphase df55 is 20 k new and about 10 k used but hard to find. So for now a 2 k investment seems fine. I will post as it goes and a big thanks to all who is helping. Todays pauls post was a really good one and after reading it

There is no such thing as a virgin recording for most recordings . So EQ is the least of what is going on.



Al


#11

No offense taken. The way I use the Behringer it doesn’t get in the way too much… but it sucks by our standards. :wink:

Oh, If Paul would only get interested in digital crossovers and make them on par with the rest of his goodies… with EQ, of course! [-O<


#12

Thanks. Food for thought. Maybe I am crazy but if digital filters EQUILIZERS are used we must convert from analog to digital . And if so we are right back where we stand with keeping the signal path as pure as possible. Further more with out any doubt by me rearranging my existing IRS 1B system I have improved my system . And this is with a ten year old cross over. Another thing that is getting to me is people never consider almost any system is made to a price point. Even something regarded as the wholy grail of speakers as the IRS beta or the 1B, s . I could of bought the BETA shipped to my office for about 5k. I did not . Why it to had serious libations using the same upper midrange driver. Even Paul Recomend the 1B over the beta . What I think most really hi end users especially the ones who know much more than I. And that is pretty easy lol. But the point is the more we know the more convoluted the choices become.

What is the best sound that is what we are looking for .



Al


#13

And I just got a quote for the HDP 4 and some other stuff to make it a four way

And room correction all the stuff. About 8k. With setup support


#14

@ALRAINBOW Indeed to have digital EQ you must be in the digital domain. Analog won’t cut it. For that you’d need an analog EQ device.



What did I say about the Betas? I don’t remember. The Infinity IRS Beta was the second in line from the actual IRS. Below the IRS Beta came the RS1’s. I owned the RS1’s but wasn’t thrilled with them. I always wanted a pair of Beta’s.


#15

Sorry maybe I had it backwards. But when imposed the question in an email I was looking for a office rig.



I had my choice of beta or the IRS 1b s. I thought your advice was 1B ,s over the beta as you stated you liked them better.

No problem anyway as I have a pair of them in my home in NYC , and now my office too. The betas sounded fine but that diode overload was just too annoying to me . It shuts off way to often for me.

Al