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
Printable View
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.
That's Ciúnas.....I discovered it's easy type ú :) u + "alt gr".Quote:
Originally Posted by John
I too want to compare the new JK dac to the JKDAC32 and a coupe of other DACs have have here for review.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by nat8808
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:
Aye, neither was as good as the valve dac.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazjam
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
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/macr...dios-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
Ok John. :)
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)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
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
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
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
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
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.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinT
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
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.