In Reply to: Re: Why don't they use 176.4/24 instead posted by graemme on October 27, 2005 at 06:48:16:
The point is still valid though (why use 192), and i have yet to hear a sampling rate conversion that is truly transparent (although several come close).perhaps they did not have equipment to support 176.4? i know mine required a firmware upgrade before it would support 88.2 or 176.4.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Why don't they use 176.4/24 instead - Christine Tham 13:26:17 10/27/05 (9)
- Sincere question: Your what?... - Djhymn 18:50:51 10/29/05 (0)
- Re: Why don't they use 176.4/24 instead - graemme 01:12:48 10/28/05 (5)
- Re: Why don't they use 176.4/24 instead - Christine Tham 01:44:24 10/28/05 (4)
- see mlssa.com for an interesting upsampling paper - head_unit 00:55:46 10/30/05 (1)
- Thanks - enjoyed reading both articles (nt) - Christine Tham 04:01:45 10/30/05 (0)
- Christine Please Comment On Up-Sampling - PhillyB 09:19:58 10/28/05 (1)
- I'm not a big fan of upsampling ... - Christine Tham 15:12:28 10/28/05 (0)
- Why do you expect a truly 'transparant' sample rate conversion? - Frank.. 23:43:23 10/27/05 (1)
- I *dont* expect a truly 'transparant' sample rate conversion - that's the whole point (nt) - Christine Tham 00:00:19 10/28/05 (0)