Caiman passive output mod revealed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StanleyB

That's a different ball game though.
Based on my own experiments, an upscaled 44.1KHz version of the album "Hotel California" sounded worse then the original 44.1KHz version.
But the official 24/96KHz release sounded better than the 16/44.1KHz and 16/96KHz upscaled version.

Please note that upscalng appears to affect only the frequency, not the bit depth according to my findings. If anyone else got the bits to also upscale from 16 to 24, I'll be interested to know what the equipment was that you used.

---

Foobar lets you up the bitrate to 24bit.

..at least the setting SAYS you can.
cant you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StanleyB

That's a different ball game though.
Based on my own experiments, an upscaled 44.1KHz version of the album "Hotel California" sounded worse then the original 44.1KHz version.
But the official 24/96KHz release sounded better than the 16/44.1KHz and 16/96KHz upscaled version.

Please note that upscalng appears to affect only the frequency, not the bit depth according to my findings. If anyone else got the bits to also upscale from 16 to 24, I'll be interested to know what the equipment was that you used.

---

Yes indeed Stan.I haven't yet heard an upsampling dac,but most of what I have read concurs with your findings

Agree about the Hotel California 24/96 also.I have it,and it's definately superior to the red book IMO.

The only benefit to upscaling is that it pushes the brickwall filtering further up the frequency spectrum and reduces high frequency hash close to the theoretical 22.05kHz maximum. As Stan says, it cannot add information that was not there in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MartinT

The only benefit to upscaling is that it pushes the brickwall filtering further up the frequency spectrum and reduces high frequency hash close to the theoretical 22.05kHz maximum. As Stan says, it cannot add information that was not there in the first place.

---

Thanks for that Martin,
If it moves the digital hash towards being outwith the range of hearing...its a good thing I guess...
maybe akin to making the best of the 16/44 information you already have then?
Can you hear it though? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ali Tait

Agree about the Hotel California 24/96 also.I have it,and it's definately superior to the red book IMO.

---

The files are actually 24/192.
The red book CD is very poor in comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reid Malenfant

You are highly unlikely to get any difference in audible bass level from changing a 1uf cap to 1.6uf ;) All you'll be doing is shifting the -3Db frequency lower & it'll already be sub 10Hz.

---

As I am new to the world of DIY HiFi electronics I wonder what would be a difference in bass or overall sound quality when compared 1uF cap with 47uF capacitor?

I want to compare it higher values as the sound difference from 1uF and 1.6uF is minor (from this post http://theartofsound.net/forum/showp...&postcount=692)

I know I can insert the caps and hear it for myself, but want to know about theory too.
Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stratmangler

The files are actually 24/192.
The red book CD is very poor in comparison.

---

Ah yes,had forgotten Chris.The Touch won't play192 though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ali Tait

Ah yes,had forgotten Chris.The Touch won't play192 though.

---

That's because you're running it from the tinySC (internal server).
If you're running it from a computer or intelligent NAS you should be able to get the serving machine to downsample on the fly.

Actually, the NAS thing may not necessarily work.
It all depends on how you are serving the music files, and whether the device carrying the server client is up to the job in hand - downsampling is quite processor intensive

Just got the Guruplug,finally! Will be fiddling this weekend to see if I can get it running. Don't have a clue about linux though,so should be fun!