Focus on 24/192 Misguided?.....

A LINN Akurate DS is around $7,500 new. Only other things you need are a NAS and an iPad. So, less than $10k retail, easily. Sure that setup you described was expensive, but you do not need a "dedicated computer" at all. I am using a $350 NAS with a 3TB HDD loaded with 24/96k and 24/192k WAV and FLAC files. The only IC's I need are a pair of RCAs into my amps. So, I am talking about a DAC (no moving parts) and yes, a HDD in a dedicated NAS, but compared to the alternative? Really?

Kijanki.... put aside the technical and go listen and enjoy your system. But using ALAC (compressed) and a Benchmark DAC1, you could be doing much better.

Audiofreak32, I enjoy my system all the time. ALAC is lossless while wireless transmission is bit perfect. Benchmark is as clean as it gets on the verge of being sterile but it fits perfectly with my warm sounding Hyperion HPS-938 speakers. In addition my Benchmark is modified with better sounding op-amps. Sure I could be doing much better but for much more $$$$.

Linn looks very impressive but it is $7500 while Benchmark + AE were $1100 total. I'm perfectly happy with 16/44 limitation of AE, having over 1500 redbook CDs on HD. Computer costs me nothing since I already have one. My setup also requires only one pair of ICs.

04-20-12: Kijanki
Al, I wonder if 24/192 contains any ultrasonic frequency at all. Why would they leave it preparing hi-rez files? Where this ultrasonic frequency comes from? Again, notion that 192kHz sampling is harmful is a little farfetched.

Hi Kijanki,

What he is referring to is the ultrasonic output of the musical instruments themselves. Yes it would be at very low levels, and with a lot of instruments it would probably not be present to a significant extent at all. But his point, debatable though it may be, is that leaving it in can't do any good, and MIGHT do some harm, depending on the non-linearities that may be present in the playback system.

It would be left in the hi rez recording to avoid introducing a sharp cutoff filter into the signal path, which as you realize is one of the fundamental benefits of high rez.

Along the lines of my earlier comments, I'm skeptical and/or uncertain about a lot of his points, and how they would trade off in terms of significance against the presumable benefits of high rez. But I don't consider his arguments to be outlandish or unreasonable.

Best regards,
-- Al

It no his arguments, but the conclusions he draws that takes him over the top.

Much of his argument is premised upon amplifier circuits not being able to handle ultra sonic signals cleanly. Do they still make high end electronics that can't handle a 100kHz signal?