arthur killen

1 minute ago, Glenn Stanton said:

and the hyper-twisted platinum coated silver power cord ($15K each), audio wiring ($32K each), optical cable ($14K each), and speaker wires ($2K/ft). power filtration ($47K), faraday cage ($200K depending on room size), and the proper furniture polish to "soften harsh reflections" ($500 per 8oz)

@Byron Dickens -- this isn't hogwash for the people who can hear it 🙂 lol

Hi Glenn. Audiophile systems don't have to cost thousands. I've definitely never spent that much on gear. Most of my components are less than $500. I'd encourage you to try it, if you haven't yet. I was a skeptic, and used to wonder why people don't just get an interface and some monitors instead. Anyway, the tone here doesn't seem the friendliest, so have a good one folks.

Hi Byron, I'm curious which types of audiophile systems and source material you've experimented with, to lead you to that conclusion?

On 12/18/2022 at 8:41 AM, Pro-tone said:

Hi!

I'd like to ask you add 768 kHz support since now it is limited up to 384 kHz. That sample rate required to set it in the project to export audio (with further downsampling till 96kHz)

I've been using Cakewalk since the 90's, and until 2 years ago, would've had a snarky response for this request. Nyquist theorem, music for bats, etc.

Then, I was exposed to audiophile setups and DSD. It was a bit of an ego hit, realizing that those systems were exposing aspects of my recordings that weren't audible with my studio monitors, headphones, and audio interfaces. Stuff like soundstage and imaging, which I always thought was snake oil, turned out to be real.

So now, I record in DSD, and downsample to 352 kHz PCM in Cakewalk strictly for volume adjustments (most plugins don't support 352kHz, and will further downsample to 192 or 96), and export back out to DSD. This is another area where I would have previously argued that going to PCM in Cakewalk negated the point of recording in DSD. But then I tried it, and there is a difference.

If Cakewalk supported higher than 352 (I use even multiples of DSD sampling rates), then there would be less downsampling required (half as much in my case), and even more of the DSD recording's original depth/soundstage/imaging would be retained throughout the process.

Admittedly, this is a niche need, and most people's systems would not reveal any difference. But in my case, this is a valid scenario.

Sorry for the rant, but hopefully some of the folks on this thread will understand where some of these unique requests are coming from. The high sampling rate doesn't allow you to hear higher pitch sounds, but it does have an effect on the sounds in the human hearing range, with a proper setup and a revealing system. You'd at least need a good DAC (not a recording interface), speakers made for audiophiles (not studio monitors or big box speakers), and a good amplifier (not a big box receiver) to hear it. But it's there.