View Full Version : File-Based Audio Done Right at John's
Yesterday I had a mini session round at John's to hear some more of what he has achieved with digital streaming, some of which I had had a taste of when he brought his gear round to mine (a memorable eye opening). John's system is very different in components from mine, and yet quite close in its acoustic presentation. My system is very traditional media (records and silver discs), John's is virtually all file-based.
John will be able to give chapter and verse on his kit, suffice to say that it's quite a simple setup: a twin laptop approach, running JPlay, feeding his USB DAC (I forget the name), into a Behringer DSP amp which splits the mid/treble off to a T-Amp and performs room correction and bass duties into the bass drivers of his speakers. The speakers are dual 15" driver open baffle Hawthornes.
The dual laptop thing needs explaining: one laptop runs JPlay in hibernate mode, receives the stream via ethernet and outputs it to USB. No file access as such so a very cleanly timed system which I think is the secret to superb replay. The second laptop also runs JPlay and accesses the file library, allows selection and then streams it to the first laptop.
So how does it all sound? Very immediate with incredible attack - those good characteristics of horn speakers without the cuppy colourations. Smooth and liquid with not a hint of harshness, quite an achievement in view of its strong dynamics. The flow of rhythms is to the fore and they do a very good job with female vocals (I brought along my favourite female test tracks on a USB stick). Hi-res tracks are played with no change in the presentation save for finer detail. A converse way of putting it is that standard 16/44 CD rips sound very good indeed, losing nothing at all compared with playing them in a CD spinner. Bass in John's small room is tight and controlled and very punchy. It's hard to think that a T-Amp is putting out all that mid power; remarkable!
We switched to classical and the sense of scale was still there. They played Vivaldi with gusto and confirmed to me that this is a great system irrespective of musical style. Of course, John's system is focussed on his preference for strong guitar-based music, we all to a greater or less degree direct our component selection in the direction of our musical tastes, but I didn't hear one track played badly during this session.
I had brought round some files that I had ripped from CD and then upsampled to 24/96 with noise shaped dither using the SOX utility. Comparing the 16/44 originals with the 24/96 upsamples was fascinating and we both agreed that the upsampled files had the edge in instrumental definition and lack of harshness in presentation. Fascinating!
We discussed air and space and agreed that perhaps the next step for John might be to add supertweeters to his speakers, just to lift the mid/treble transparency up even further.
We did compare the sound with just the one laptop running JPlay, and it took a small but notable hit in sound quality, so John has done well to develop the twin PC approach. I wonder whether a small fanless ITX PC build with enough SSD just to boot Windows 8 and JPlay, for streaming duties, might replace his hibernating laptop and could be placed right next to the DAC with a short USB cable? Food for thought.
Mentioning food, we took a break at the local Mexican, which gave us a chance to talk music bollocks for an entertaining interlude. An overall very enjoyable visit, and I can say with absolute certainty that this is the best file-based system I've ever heard. Thanks, John.
The Grand Wazoo
06-04-2013, 23:56
It sounds like you two had a fun and interesting time - Bits and burritos?
Sounds like a great evening. The SOX thing is interesting,
I was really impressed with the SOX software It basically upscales the music file: what it did was to allow you deeper into the music giving more detail and air. We came to the conclusion that it allows the DAC to pick up what is going on deeper in the mix.
We also played the Salvation which we both agree sounded excellent just using a £50 cartridge that has to be heard that to be believed. It was good that Martin could hear the TT properly set up this time.
Martin brought some nice wine around
All in all educational to both of us and of course good fun.
One of my theories is we have set ups that highlights our own preferences at this level and mine is set up to get the best the best out of guitar based music and world music.
Just a bit of background to the set up
The amp is a Bantam board I am using a slagle volume control with the amp set on high gain to give me a bit more grunt. This goes into the duel concentric driver. I then send a signal from the amp to the Berhinger, I cut out the bass around 57 and use a soft slope cut off to control the bass. I have also added a bit of gain lower down so it pushes out the bass a bit more. (I do like a bit of attack) The DAC is the JK32 a great little DAC that picks up loads of detail. The Salvation uses a Acutex 415 STR cartridge that is great for rock and gives a bit more bass than my 2 pc set up and is very similar throughout the rest of the range as the pc set up.
I agree with Martin the next step would be to add a super tweeter. Our systems are similar in scale but because of Beryllium drivers his system has bit more air than mine whilst mine a bit more attack (but just our personal tastes showing up in our systems) We also talked about how some people like this sense of resolution whilst others shy away from it.
One of the amusing chats we had is how my bass pushes out but does not thump, whilst Martin speakers does the thump and also pushes out. We both like music to be felt in the body
I think what I most pleased with is that using a alternative method eg Tamp active bass and open baffle speakers I can get great sounds
Ali Tait
07-04-2013, 08:35
Aye, once you hear OB's and like them, it's difficult to go back tobox speakers. Your system sounds broadly similar to mine John, shame we are so far apart, it would be good to compare.
Yes would love to hear your speakers Ali
I love what good OB do: its shame more people do not give them a go
Ali Tait
07-04-2013, 09:47
Not the highest WAF though!
Yes agree but no denying there something that big speakers bring to the party
Ali Tait
07-04-2013, 10:32
Aye definitely. No substitute for square inches!
realysm42
07-04-2013, 10:57
I'll try pub one day I think, when we be got a big enough listening room!
Sounds like you had an interesting time!
Aye, once you hear OB's and like them, it's difficult to go back tobox speakers.
I like what OBs do, Ali, but I love my 'box' speakers too (though it's a bit insulting to call the beautifully shaped Ushers boxes). One thing big ported speakers do better is very deep bass.
Yes Martins beasts go a bit deeper than mine, its swings and roundabouts at this level
anthonyTD
07-04-2013, 11:56
Sounds like you had a very interesting and rewarding evening! :)
A...
Ali Tait
07-04-2013, 12:30
I like what OBs do, Ali, but I love my 'box' speakers too (though it's a bit insulting to call the beautifully shaped Ushers boxes). One thing big ported speakers do better is very deep bass.
Yes, it's subjectively deeper, but there is a large distortion component in there. I'll trade a little depth for better accuracy. I understand why people like the bass from big box speakers though.
Martin controls that very well but uses room treatment to help. One of the most non boxed sounds I heard
Ali Tait
07-04-2013, 13:11
I'd like to hear them sometime.
It's a long drive, Ali...
...but you'd be very welcome!
Ali Tait
07-04-2013, 13:20
Cheers Martin! :)
If I'm ever down that way I'll let you know.
Same here but think are set ups should be quite similar
For the terminology, is upscaled meaning bit rate, as opposed to upsampled?
I've only used upsampled: in my case I took a 16/44 CD rip and used SOX to upsample it to 24/96 with noise-shaped dither. This is proper upsampling since noise has been added to hide any quantisation effects.
The effect we heard must be down to the replay chain pushing the brick-wall filter higher up and out of the audio range, but I must say I was really surprised at the positive improvement.
I thought I'd heard the term 'upscaling' before, but I think it only applies to video..
That then made me think that upsampling only meant the sample rate and there was another term for the bit rate..
I wonder if it might have sounded better at 88.2 instead of 96 - no rounding errors to entertain with a straight doubling of samplerate.
How something handles complicated maths of say 44.1 into 96 can be strongly dependent on the competance of the algorythm and whoever wrote it. Whether one hears the difference much between good and bad algorythms I don't know - I remember reading Tom(?) Faulkner saying he did (the audio engineer who wrote in Hifi News from time to time).
It was a surprise to both of us but on both tracks the effects were obvious and is certainly worth investingating
Have you got SOX working yet, John?
Nat - good point about 88.2, I shall experiment with it. I can also push up to 192 to see what effect it has.
I give it another try tonight Cheers for your help
176.4 I would have thought Martin not 192...
When I ran a squeezebox setup I played around with SOX up sampling and found it to be a bit of a mixed bag tbh.
Coming from the point if view of objective listening, rather than just going by the numbers, I found many factors could determine wether it was a positive improvement or not.
Whether you used your computer or your dac to upsample gave different "results" using the same Setting....even the the style of music using the same settings determined wether it was an improvement it not IMO.
It's a very subjective field...different SOX algorythyms do change the sound, but which one do you prefer...and does it work in YOUR system?
We all like to quantify things, the best this, best at, but my findings were like a lot of other areas in this game, highly subjective.
It's free to try and you may like it, give it a go.
After much gnashing and grinding of teeth, lashings of FUD and 3 months of my life I'll never get back, what was best for me was trying to get the best original file source I could, things like not ripping to Flac, or even Wav..but Aiff because to me it SOUNDED better when it entered my lug holes. source first, as Ivor T used to say.
The golden rule for me is as little processing and extra overhead as possible.
Get the original file sorted first, if its a favourite album, buy a better quality pressing, have the option of a 24/96 download? Get that instead.
With my Touch setup I really looked in to this in some depth.
Never used Linux so much for years!
Editing the convert.conf comparing different pre and post echo settings, linear phase vs minimum phase vs polyphase, allow/disallow anti aliasing, dither on/off, how MUCH volume attenuation to apply and did it affect sound quality rather than just avoid clipping...all that stuff.
Yup, it did change the sound but my findings were in the end that it was analogous to running a graphic equaliser, but a lot more subtle and a helluva lot more work.
The level of return for me was not worth the effort and high levels of FUD in the long run .
I even found there to be a "best setting" for close miked acoustic tracks, a best setting for classical, best setting for rock...that kind of thing.
Maybe it's a stage I had to go through to get back to where I was and make the most of what I had. :)
Coming back to the PC arena, one thing I did settle on (when I was playing around with upsampling settings on Foobar and Jriver) was that upsampling 16/44 to 88.2 sounded better across the board than upping it to 96.
This was the start of my going down the "less is more, get the source right" way of thinking.
Is free to try and it may work for you in your system with your ears.
Like everything in is hobby you should try it for yourself - especially if its free. :)
Thanks Gaz and Neal. Most interesting. I'm definitely going to play with 88.2 upsamples. 176.4 is not an option as the Bushmaster doesn't decode it. Also, looking at the time it takes for SOX to upsample a track, there is no way that on-the-fly upsampling is going to give as good results.
I'm slightly puzzled at the WAV reference, since this is the native representation of a file with no compression or other handling. It always represents the file as-is.
I've never understood why upsampling is so often done to a non-multiple sample rates. Probably my logic is too simple but 88.2 from 44.1 seems so easy to implement and any additional benefit of going to 96 must be so small. Surely it's not worth the possible detrimental side effects of poor conversion.
Mathematically, the formulae don't care. It's as easy in maths to calculate interpolations as it is exact multiples. In fact, software like SOX and streamers probably use the same algorithms regardless.
Also, an upsample from 44.1 to 88.2 doesn't involve simple doubling. It's much more complicated than that.
Mathematically, the formulae don't care. It's as easy in maths to calculate interpolations as it is exact multiples. In fact, software like SOX and streamers probably use the same algorithms regardless.
Also, an upsample from 44.1 to 88.2 doesn't involve simple doubling. It's much more complicated than that.
I understand that, I'm thinking more that doubling the sample rate suggests to me there will only be one correct algorithm whereas more complex algorithms for non-multiples will take us down the path of which one sounds best. Rather like downscaling a digital photo isn't so simple and different algorithms produce differing qualities of results, also a lot depends on the viewing medium. The same could well be true for audio and dacs.
It would be interesting to see the spectrum analysis of 16/44.1 up-sampled to 16/88.2 in something like Audacity vs the original file...think I'll have a go when I get home tonight...over on AudioTalk, Stevetheshadow is using the Mac Midi setting to up-sample to 88.2 and is reporting a nice improvement so there maybe some milage in this.
Interesting reading:
http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2011/02/audio-sampling-rate-88-2-vs-44-1/
Get what your saying Martin re: Wav format, and whilst its true both Wav and Aiff are "uncompressed" PCM formats (as opposed to lossless), I think they store data on the disc differently?
One has the most significant byte first and the other one last...does this make a difference anywhere except on paper though?
Don't know don't really want to think about it too much, (less FUD the better), but I listened to the same tracks in both formats and there was worthwhile improvement to my ears (and a couple of mates) using AIFF.
iWas so convinced of it I converted all my Flacs to Aiff.
Looking at it logically, I think it may come down again to the "less is more" way of thinking?
Perhaps the way AIFF files are stored on disk requires less processing, hard drive crunching or memory overhead before playback, albeit probably very slightly less.
Thinking along the same lines of why Wav is potentially better an Flac, despite the fact bit for bit a Flac file is exactly the same as a Wav...But only AFTER its been converted to PCM.
Not offering this as a reason, just as a theory, may be barking up the wrong tree totally. :)
Thing is though, for me it all comes down to what sounds better, even if its just a slight improvement it's worth having.
I've found everything, no matter how small, can make a difference.
One I'd like to try out is Broadcast Wav, apparently used by many recording studios as the "best" recording format, though e added features like timecode data etc might not translate to better audio quality.
Also there's the question of compatibility...but could be fun to give it a bash anyway.
I'm with you there, Gaz. I have definitely found that adding noise shaped dither makes all the difference (and, of course, makes the individual interpolations mathematically uncertain).
Gaz, there should be no difference in the playback of AIFF vs WAV. Both are a wrapper / container for PCM data, yes AIFF is stored little endian and WAV big endian...this makes no difference! Yes the headers are different but we are not playing the headers. There must be some other reason for your perception of better playback with AIFF.
For reference I've not heard any difference with FLAC vs WAV either when first decoded on my squeezecentre server and transmitted to the squeezebox, decoding on the touch though is a slightly different matter but in reality its all but inaudible.
Oh, forgot theres two versions of AIFF one little endian and one big endian...
Thanks Gaz and Neal. Most interesting. I'm definitely going to play with 88.2 upsamples. 176.4 is not an option as the Bushmaster doesn't decode it.
ooo... Whilst I know I'll probably not get around to buying a Bushmaster until his superdooper one is made in a couple of years, but that's a shame. Wonder why, receiver chip?
Yeah..just pick your favourite flavour of distortion. :)
Gaz, there should be no difference in the playback of AIFF vs WAV. Both are a wrapper / container for PCM data, yes AIFF is stored little endian and WAV big endian...this makes no difference! Yes the headers are different but we are not playing the headers. There must be some other reason for your perception of better playback with AIFF.
For reference I've not heard any difference with FLAC vs WAV either when first decoded on my squeezecentre server and transmitted to the squeezebox, decoding on the touch though is a slightly different matter but in reality its all but inaudible.
Oh, forgot theres two versions of AIFF one little endian and one big endian...
I hear you Neal, on paper they should be the same.
Listening though can be a different matter :)
member of the "can hear the difference" camp here - very much so. :)
The thing with upsampling to 96 from 44.1 is about the algorithm to an extent but more about how that algorithm handles the fact that 96 / 44.1 is only accurate to 21 decimal places. (2.176870748299319727891).
Using that number then will cause non-terminal decimals (ones that don't end) or others that are beyond the scope of the bit handling capability of the processor and it then down to the algorithm to work out how to handle them. Some processors even go a bit funny when reaching limits and if the algo author doesn't know the chip it's running on well enough then they won't be able to work with the specific limitations. Easy way would be to make a limited scope algo that rounds up or truncates to less accuracy than is possible etc etc.. Hence, personally, I'd trust most those by expensive hardware manufacturers like dCS or other studio gear or software that costs loads and pays the work needed to get algos right. i.e. wouldn't trust cheaper software with complicated upsampling where the algo is probably some off the shelf maths.
Of course, this is much much harder when done on the fly rather than upsampling the file and saving as a new one, in which case the software can take as long as it likes to do the calculations.
Again, whether you can hear it or not is another thing!
I cant question your experience, I just cant see how and it is polar opposite to mine.
I hear you Neal, on paper they should be the same.
Listening though can be a different matter though :)
member of the "can hear the difference" camp here - very much so. :)
Then again, for other reasons (and you get a conversion factor of only 5 decimal places to have to deal with) Benchmark upsample to 110KHz.
Their reasons are given here:
http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/discuss/sites/default/files/Upsampling-to-110kHz.pdf
Gary and Neal blind test experiment! Fight!
I cant question your experience, I just cant see how and it is polar opposite to mine.
Well, that's hifi for you :)
always for me the ultimate measuring device is my lug holes....
(usually sanity check it with another bod or two)
Wonder why, receiver chip?
That's my understanding. 24/192 sounds superb, though. In any case, I've never seen a commercial 176 recording.
Gary and Neal blind test experiment! Fight!
No fight here Nat! I respect Gaz experience, I'm just trying to understand. :)
Gary - I know you've done a lot of work on the MCRU server. Have you found that upsampling files (not on the fly) has given any worthwhile improvement? I'm simply amazed at what John and I heard with SOX file upsampling.
Depends on a lot of factors Martin tbh.
Upsampling generally I found can make a difference, but its not always a preferable one.
It was an option I looked at during testing.
I found the improvement varied too much between type of music played, what Dac was used...so I wouldn't advocate it quite honestly.
There's an advantage to not doing it on the fly as it increases the workload on the system, but in my experience removing the need to uncompress the Flac file (by converting to PCM) gave a bigger improvement than upsampling in general.
For instance a 16/44 file upsampling to 24/192...gives you what?
Imo A lot of bit padding and increased file size for a subjective improvement in sound.
Be interesting for you guys to blind test a 16/44 Flac up sampled to 24/96 compared to the same Flac converted to AIFF PCM.
It's horses for courses, I don't think there's a definitive answer to this one, except to apply the usual caveats?
Aghh so perhaps the DAC had a influence on what Martin and me heard Its a shame we did not have another DAC to test this against
The DAC always has an influence, John. Mind you, judging by the best sounds we achieved yours is a very fine one indeed.
I couldn't bring the Bushmaster as you need a USB input.
Yes its a really good DAC I probably get the Ciunas when it comes out.
Yes its a really good DAC I probably get the Ciunas when it comes out.
That's Ciúnas.....I discovered it's easy type ú :) u + "alt gr".
I too want to compare the new JK dac to the JKDAC32 and a coupe of other DACs have have here for review.
Canetoad
08-04-2013, 17:11
ooo... Whilst I know I'll probably not get around to buying a Bushmaster until his superdooper one is made in a couple of years, but that's a shame. Wonder why, receiver chip?
From contact with Stan the BM checks for sample rates etc in firmware. He gave me a circuit mod to change that to using hardware (chip). I'm not sure I want to make the change.
176.4 is one of the sample rate options when extracting wav/flac from DSD files, usually from sacds. I just use 88.2 to save the hassle. Bit rate is 24.
I've had a play with Audacity, I need to listen a lot more and in my main system rather than headphones and with more variety of material. I've converted a standard WAV track to AIFF and also up-sampled it to 88.2/16bit. I can't tell the difference between the AIFF and the WAV, files sizes are identical, so I've put that to one side for now and compared the 88.2/16 WAV vs 44.1/16
There is a difference its difficult to detect on my headphone setup but its there...slightly more presence and smoother in presentation I would tentatively say. Comparing the spectrogram of the two files clearly shows some differences and interestingly information, very low level, up at 23Khz, way beyond my hearing threshold! Also midband and lower down some notable differences. There's stronger amplitude and more lower level information shown, this may account for the impression of greater presence / body to the sound.
Now, the interesting question is what does the resample algorithm in Audacity do? The information cant be 'real' as the original file is a bandwidth limited redbook standard file. Certainly the information past the Nyquist point has to be false and the extra detailing calculated from the original data also 'false'...so at the moment I dont know what to make of it. The differences seem subtle at the moment so I need more time to evaluate...interesting!
A bunch of us had a play with the JK Dacs at a get together at mine..
not sure tbh.
Edit, OK I need to upgrade Audacity to 2.0.3 as it now uses the SoX resample libraries :doh:
Ali Tait
08-04-2013, 17:59
A bunch of us had a play with the JK Dacs at a get together at mine..
not sure tbh.
Aye, neither was as good as the valve dac.
Hi Gary
I remember Nick DAC won from your report. I can only compare it against the DACs I heard and it did very well using Jplay
What USB DAC would you recommend Nick DAC a bit out of my price range The Ciúnas is rated better still
Ali Tait
08-04-2013, 18:06
Don't get me wrong John, the dacs were good. It's probably the valve output stage that we preferred the sound of.
Understand Ali The trouble with DAC's is just to much choice
Also John we didn't use JPlay, only Jriver.
This might have been a factor?
Normally for up to £500 I'd recommend the Rega dac, but despite sounding extremely good the USB only goes up to 16/48 - no hires.
If this isn't a problem I'd go Rega, particularly if you like an "analogue" sounding digital source.
The Mdac is good, but I wouldnt put it in a bright system. Like the Rega it has several filters you can select (like SOX!) and you might find a flavour you like better.
Those are the ones I've heard, some more Ive not heard but read good things about.
TEAC UD-H01 - £300
Matrix Mini-I - £260
StanB's Bushmaster? (Does it do hires?)
wee bit more expensive but possibly worth it?
Stello DA100 Signature - £750
An alternative is to use a USB/SPDIF converter like the MF Vlink 192 with the Rega. I use that setup and it sounds great with hires stuff.
Out of the box suggestion?
Meridian Explorer Dac.
http://www.tonepublications.com/macro/meridian-audios-explorer/
looks interesting, gets good reviews.
Always best to try and hear before you buy in your system, not always possible though. :scratch:
Cheers Gaz
The JK beats the Rega in Jplay using USB I already heard the difference. Also do not want to add another circuitry I heard the difference again and much prefer it as part of the DAC
I been playing around with Audacity trying to get the best out it with regards to up-sampling of music. It does a similar job to SOX but as I do not understand MS-DOS I find this has been just a simple case of trail and error with Audacity with results I can hear
With my set up makes a noticeable difference in detail and depth. Its has a bit more of a fuller sound compared to SOX. I played around with a few different genres starting of with Jeff Beck Nadia as that shows up faults very quickly
Audacity is another free download
Here are the settings I am using and how to get to them
Step 1 Click edit and then preferences at the bottom on left hand side go into Quality I used the following settings Default Sample Rate 88200 hz Default Sample Format 32 bit float (the DAC I am using goes up to 32bit) Sample rate converter best quality. Dither Shaped (for real time conversion and high quality conversion)
Step 2 Go to file and then click edit chain In left hand column click add I called my file name HD WAV then go to insert and click export WAV
Step 3 Insert audio track
Step 4 Export audio track
Beware it uses a lot more space on your hard drive and make sure you keep the original file when playing around with it
Its worth a play around and if you get serious you can change all your files in one go (I not reached this stage as still playing with what it can do)
Default Sample Rate 88200 hz Default Sample Format 32 bit float (the DAC I am using goes up to 32bit) Sample rate converter best quality. Dither Shaped (for real time conversion and high quality conversion)
Very interesting, John. Maybe there is something in 88.2 being the optimal upsample rate for 44.1 material? I will experiment with your settings back in SOX. Since Audacity uses the SOX engine, they should achieve similar results.
It could also be the 32bit part I been mostly comparing the frequency rate so far
integer upsampling (I.e. 44.1kHz to 88.2) is preferable to my ears than 44.1 to 96 or 192 kHz. the conversion maths is much simpler and there is no spectral content in the source above 22 kHz anyway.
my dac up samples to 24/384 natively and I didn't notice any appreciable difference between up sampling with SOX or just letting the DSP manage it.
cheers
Alex
electric beach
17-04-2013, 20:42
When John came round he played an example of the upsampling he's done with Audacity and I've been having a play myself since. At first I used the 24 bit setting and although interesting, it was the 32 bit/ 88.2 setting where the magic started. Yes John, the Oppo does handle it, it makes toast as well ;)
The presentation is certainly smoother and more open, seeming to have better seperation without pulling the cohesion between a group of performers apart. On recordings where female singers get a bit strident there's no longer a wince factor, there's no less treble energy but it's clean and clear. I thought it was just going to be an improvement in upper frequencies, clarity and the acoustic but there's more. Bass has a bit more drive, it's not just tighter. In music styles that show it, the subtleties of how a note is struck and the decay are more obvious.
The 'magic' is that the combination of all of these elements is making the musicians' techniques and expression effortless to follow and quite fascinating.
Nice one Martin, we like this a lot :cheers:
Gaz, I could see myself converting all my files after a bit more experimenting as I've yet to hear any negatives or compromise. Would you expand on what you heard when it didn't work for you, maybe I'm just not focussed on some aspect yet. Was it certain types of recording or types of music? Reduced excitement factor through the smoother presentation or something like that?
It could be that this is playing to my system's traits particularly well and I'm hearing an unusual and disproportionate improvement, but for example my system is not short of an open and spacious acoustic to start with, as John can attest.
Brilliant - I'm going to play with 32/88.2 upsampling but I don't know if I have anything to decode it yet!
Great result Steve. Happy the 32 bit worked. It has a lot more space and detail and agree results are across the spectrum and its not subtle.
Steve system is very open and transparent.
So far the up scale has improved every file I up scaled
In Steve system the SOX set up you use Martin worked better it gave the results the Audacity set up makes in my system. Cannot figure out why the difference between systems.
To summarize in Steve system the SOX code added more depth in my system the Audacity up scale adds the depth
I think its something how are drivers are working differently and concentrating on different aspects but really guessing
electric beach
17-04-2013, 21:09
John, could you describe how to process more than one track at a time?
I get back to you at the weekend but pretty sure you can see how to do that on you tube.
Well, I've upsampled a file in SOX to 32/88.2 and, playing back using VLC, it confirms the file format and the Caiman plays it! First impressions are good so I'll listen some more tomorrow and figure out a way of playing the file on my big system (so far, all my trials have been on the PC system).
SOX command to upsample to 32/88.2:
sox.exe -S -G --multi-threaded %1 -b 32 %2 rate -v 88200 dither -S
where %1 is the infile and %2 the outfile (works as a batch file).
Steve the above is worth a try but I do not really understand MS Dos so not really able to help but it probably work better in your system
electric beach
17-04-2013, 21:46
You think you've got problems John. Valerie's wetting herself, says us two couldn't manage to find a matching pair :lol: ..... :rolleyes:
English not your first language then Martin? ;)
I've got a son who could help though. He speaks Martian :rfl:
Oh dear - level of understanding alert!
Sorry about that, guys, I've selected English again :o
electric beach
17-04-2013, 22:04
For the hard of learning, why would your direct code method differ to Audacity running SOX engine? You see what I did there, almost sounded like a plausible question!
I did hear a track on my system that you upsampled Martin and it did sound different to John's.
I think its to do with the coding
But to be honest I do not have Scooby do (Clue)
I don't know why SOX and Audacity encoding should sound different. I'll have to experiment some more.
electric beach
18-04-2013, 05:42
Bloody hell - it was a sensible question :eek:
All up and about early aren't we! Hands off cocks and on with Sox!
Always in the office at 6am, Steve. Now for my 2nd coffee...
I am usually chatting with Fe
Well, I've upsampled a file in SOX to 32/88.2 and, playing back using VLC, it confirms the file format and the Caiman plays it! First impressions are good so I'll listen some more tomorrow and figure out a way of playing the file on my big system (so far, all my trials have been on the PC system).
SOX command to upsample to 32/88.2:
sox.exe -S -G --multi-threaded %1 -b 32 %2 rate -v 88200 dither -S
where %1 is the infile and %2 the outfile (works as a batch file).
Martin/All,
You don't need to apply dither when upsampling, only when downsampling. Dither is applied to reduce noise in the LSBs of the bit depth-reduced sample when you are averaging values below the 16th bit LSB. You are just increasing noise in the upsampled file by adding dither.
I think that most of the apparent increase in SQ when upsampling red book audio is to do with the differing effect of digital filters applied higher in the frequency range, with less aliasing/time smearing effects on the audible frequency content of the signal compared to the effects of filters when the sample rate is so close to audible frequencies (as it is with 44.1Khz sampling).
There isn't any more HF content other than some noise created by upsampling process, but the effect of the digital filters is moved further away from the audio band. Similarly, increasing the bit depth of a 16bit signal is just padding it with 8 or even 16 bits of zeros, no changes in dynamic range by increasing the bit depth of the source material. It may have an effect on the DAC, depending on whether it truncates bits the 8 LSBs in a 32bit container.
Cheers,
Alex
Cheers,
Alex
Hi Alex
I do understand, however I was experimenting with adding noise as it represents the least evil compared with quantisation noise. Covering it up (albeit at extremely low levels) seems to benefit sound in the upsamples. However, I shall experiment a little more with and without dither.
If you look at the spectrogram of a 44.1 to 88.2Khz up sample at the same bit depth you'll see some very strange things the two files are quite different.
---------------------------------
Posted using Tapatalk :)
I find upsampling a mixed bag On my more heavier material I actually do not like what it does I think its something you have to thread with caution
WOStantonCS100
23-04-2013, 21:53
Forgive the diversion; but, in just reading the title of this thread, something smacked me in the head. I've been listening to file-based audio ever since I purchased my first CD. Analog aside (which I'll never give up for many reasons) and considering that all I'm doing, when I record on the Tascam, is creating files, I don't see why I should have an aversion to playing files whether it be from a disc (DVD) or a hard drive. :scratch: My only real criteria for file playing would be a quiet delivery system and that seems quite doable, if less tactile and visually appealing. But, for the sake of the music... hmmmm... something for me to think about.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.