Zp 24/96

So that would imply that so-called "super-tweeters" that reproduce frequencies far above what we can hear could be a good thing by removing that "strain" from the tweeter's transducers right?

Firstly it's not just the speakers: it's every electrical/electronics component in the system. That means your amplifier as well.

I guess it would be possible to make an audio amplifier which handled ultrasonic noise with less intermodulation than conventional amplifiers, but it would be a lot of effort and you would end up with a very expensive piece of equipment. As far as I know no one makes such a beast.

Secondly, even if you can totally remove the audible artefacts that could be caused by these ultrasonic frequencies, the fact that the amp and speakers has to handle them in the first place puts an additional load on the system: you are burning off some of your system's power on something that, at best, you will never hear.

Ultimately what would be the point? The problem is artificial and is self-created (by using hires files). It seems a bit daft to create such a problem and then spend time and money trying to find Engineering solutions to cure it.

The best way to reduce the impact of ultrasonic noise is to filter it out. A good way to do this is to downsample to 16/44.1 or 16/48.

Cheers,

Keith

Are there other effect (maybe implication is a better word) to the sampling rate?

(Not an electrical engineer here, mostly curious)

I am thinking that higher sampling rate would give you more "interpolation" points in between the discrete therefore possibly a better resolution overall resolution. But maybe it is not a factor or it is not worth the extra points.

Thanks

Are there other effect (maybe implication is a better word) to the sampling rate?

(Not an electrical engineer here, mostly curious)

I am thinking that higher sampling rate would give you more "interpolation" points in between the discrete therefore possibly a better resolution overall resolution. But maybe it is not a factor or it is not worth the extra points.

Thanks

Mathematically, there is no need for a "more interpolation points" in order to recreate the entire original signal. Per the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem, a perfect reconstruction of a signal is possible when the sampling frequency is greater than twice the maximum frequency of the signal being sampled. Therefore, for all audible frequencies (up to 22 kHz), a 44.1 kHz sampling rate is more than enough to create a perfect copy of the original audio signal.

I am thinking that higher sampling rate would give you more "interpolation" points in between the discrete therefore possibly a better resolution overall resolution. But maybe it is not a factor or it is not worth the extra points.


I'll echo what jgatie said.

Quote often when sampling is being discussed, diagrams of sine waves with "jaggies" are used. The trouble is these are highly misleading and naturally leads to the intuitive conclusion that a higher resolution is better because it will create a smoother curve, and that must be better somehow. Unfortunately intuition is wrong here.

The mechanisms and mathematics of sampling show that it is possible to recreate a perfect sine wave (the purest possible tone, representing a single frequency) with just two samples. You can increase the sampling frequency and, therefore, the resolution to give you a billion data points, and you will not make that sine wave any better.

Cheers,

Keith

The idea that two ultrasonic signals can collide with audible results is called "intermodulation". Even though nether a 40kHz or a 42kHz signal can be directly heard by humans, if they pass through a nonlinear system, a 2kHz tone will be clearly audible. This is a case where two "out of band" signals will interact and cause the creation of an "in band" product.

Further, since the 2kHz intermodulation product is in band, it will be subject to the usual distortions that create harmonics and further intermodulation products with the program material.

In the end, these two inaudible signals create a blizzard of in band, very audible problems. And, they are easily preventable by blocking the ultrasonics.

You cannot compare a production SACD to a production CD. They are well known to be mastered differently, with more time, care and emphasis being given to the SACD version.

Actually the SACD has a CD layer that would be sourced from the same master. You can listen to either one on most universal players. (An egregious exception is the SACD of "Dark Side of the Moon" The CD layer on that was deliberately compressed to make the SACD version sound better.)

Actually the SACD has a CD layer that would be sourced from the same master. You can listen to either one on most universal players. (An egregious exception is the SACD of "Dark Side of the Moon" The CD layer on that was deliberately compressed to make the SACD version sound better.)


Read what I said: "You cannot compare a production SACD to a production CD." Meaning you cannot compare a SACD to it's regular CD version. I said nothing about comparing the SACD layer to the CD layer on the same SACD, for I have no data on whether they are the same mix or not. However, I do know for a fact there are SACD versions which are mastered differently than the standard CD version.

I am one of those who would prefer that Sonos offer high rez. The reason is that many who record or master digital music claim that it sounds better, and their opinions should not be discounted. I would like to find out for myself.

That being said, if you really want to improve sound, there are other things that will make much more dramatic improvements--improvements that you won't have to ask yourself if they are really there. First, buy the best speakers you can afford and take the time to set them up properly. Second, control vibration and EMI/RFI as best you can. Third, and IMO most important, treat your room. Strategically placed bass traps and other absorbers/diffusers made more of an improvement in my listening experience than any other change I have made over the years.

Finally, thank you Sonos for providing an incredibly good product that has given me great enjoyment over the past few years. And please give us hi rez.

That being said, if you really want to improve sound, there are other things that will make much more dramatic improvements--improvements that you won't have to ask yourself if they are really there. First, buy the best speakers you can afford and take the time to set them up properly. Second, control vibration and EMI/RFI as best you can. Third, and IMO most important, treat your room. Strategically placed bass traps and other absorbers/diffusers made more of an improvement in my listening experience than any other change I have made over the years.

Finally, thank you Sonos for providing an incredibly good product that has given me great enjoyment over the past few years. And please give us hi rez.

The first part of the above is spot on - I would just add speaker positioning in the room to factors that have audible impact, and I guess that is what you allude to in your reference to proper set up. Once you have addressed these, hi rez won't make an ounce of audible difference. Too many people forget to address these issues that deliver 90-95% of the quality of the heard sound in these days of reliable solid state electronics upstream of the speakers.

Unless - as has been pointed out often here - the hi rez files have superior mastering. And in which case, the better sound is solely on account of this mastering.

I am one of those who would prefer that Sonos offer high rez.

Sonos has already indicated that the idea is not under consideration. For the short term, get used to it and down-convert (bit perfectly) your music to a format that Sonos can play. Longer-term, you can politic Sonos for a change...

The reason is that many who record or master digital music claim that it sounds better,...

And they would be wrong. Read the relevant information posted via links in this Thread. Science trumps the mythical "Golden Ear".

...and their opinions should not be discounted.

Sure they should. Especially when the facts (not opinions) are decidedly against the "high-res" cohort.

I would like to find out for myself.

Good luck. Unfortunately, it will not be by using Sonos, at least anytime soon.

Best of Luck