+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: What sample rate?

  1. #41
    Join Date: Mar 2017

    Location: London N2

    Posts: 1,752
    I'm Edward.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gazjam View Post
    You just agreed with me without realising it.
    Cool.

    Of course I realised I agree with you.

    My point is why would you stay in the 16 bit domain when upsampling if you knew the sq will be rubbish.
    Main: Tidal/Roon > MiniITX > Metrum Hex > LDR > either Radford STA25 V or Trilogy 968 > Tannoy (Eaton or Berkeley).
    2nd: Tidal/Roon > Roopio on Pi > Chevron Paradox > Firebottle Buffer > Sugden Masterclass IA-4 > Kudos Cardea


  2. #42
    Join Date: Feb 2013

    Location: W Lothian

    Posts: 63,148
    I'm Grant.

    Default

    think you often see that with qobuz, as many you would maybe think would be done in hi rez are kept at 16/44. also you get others at odd levels so obviously they are adj level to suit the sound quality
    Regards,
    Grant .... ؠ

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply-doesn't-work
    .... ..... ...... ...... ................... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
    OPPO BDP-103D - JBE SERIES 3/B&O SP1/PROJECT PHONOBOX DS2 USB - QUAD VENA 2 - IFI PURIFIER 2/TWIN PRO MONOBLOCK POWER AMPLIFIERS - LEAF HD BLUETOOTH - OPPO PM-3 PLANAR, SONY H900 & NURAPHONE HEADPHONES - ZBOOK/ IFI SILENCER/WIN10 PRO/AUDIRVANA & JRIVER - SMSL M6 DAC & IFI SILENCER - RPI 3+, DIGIONE HAT/VOLUMIO2 - EDINGDALE MK1 SPEAKERS - CABLE INC CHORD, MOGAMI, SUPRA & WIREWORLD

    **Men are not punished for their sins, but by them**Don't be such a big girl's blouse!**
    ***SMILE, BE HAPPY***

  3. #43
    Join Date: Feb 2010

    Location: Moved to frozen north, beyond Inverness

    Posts: 1,578
    I'm Dave.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    There's no data in the groove of a vinyl record though, it's just a groove. Man.

    I was an early adopter of SACD. Initially I thought it was the second coming. With the hybrid discs I was puzzled that the CD layer and SACD layer sounded no different. Then I found out.

    Also had one of the upsampling players. Didn't like it, sounded a bit blousey, thought the upsampling was to blame. With CD you could not switch off the upsampling. But it could be used as a stand alone DAC too so I hooked up a transport and could switch between 16/44.1 and 24/384 at will with the remote. Not a scrap of difference.

    Not to say that up sampling will not make a difference sometimes. Depends on all sorts of things. Lots of variables involved.
    This probably won't be your cup of tea, but over the last year I've got into playing different recorders (the blowy things, the 'orrible squeaky things which some 3-8 year olds like to annoy you with right down yer lug'oles ....).

    Seems that "real" players can tell the difference between models - and yes - now that I've got more than ten different models (though only one bass recorder - which is just passable). From a player's perspective I can say that there are differences. In order to decide which of some of the models to buy I looked at the Thomann web site - such as this - https://www.thomann.de/gb/yamaha_yrt304b.htm
    You should notice that there are audio samples, which are supposed to be representative of the model.
    Compare that one, for example with this one https://www.thomann.de/gb/aulos_211a_robin_tenor.htm or even this one https://www.thomann.de/gb/thomann_tr...lockfloete.htm

    It is possible that you won't hear much difference, particularly if you're not a player. I actually do have one of the Aulos models - it's OK, and one of the Thomann models - which is really not great. I also played a Yamaha which I borrowed - and perhaps it did sound the best on the Thomann web site - though like Thomann's own instrument, it has fussy keys which don't work too well.

    Another comparison site is this one - https://youtu.be/DEJA49rZyCs - you won't find out which is which until much later, if you ever do.

    A three way comparison is here - https://youtu.be/tnTimwvHmwM

    Sometimes the audible differences seem very small - though that may also depend on the state of one's ears. Sometimes putting olive oil in the ears can make a significant difference to how things sound - sometimes good - and sometimes not good at all. I am prone to ear wax, so sometimes I get a big problem, though often now I just leave things alone and problems do quite often just go away. I do, however, think that extended listening on headphones can make wax and hearing problems much worse.

    If you can't hear all the resolution which others claim you should, don't worry about it, unless it bothers you.
    Last edited by dave2010; 02-11-2019 at 17:12.
    Dave

  4. #44
    Join Date: Oct 2008

    Location: Glasgowshire

    Posts: 7,571
    I'm availableforweddingsAndBarmitzvas.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edward View Post
    Of course I realised I agree with you.

    My point is why would you stay in the 16 bit domain when upsampling if you knew the sq will be rubbish.
    I dont.

    Dabbled with upsampling, HQ Player and the like, but nowadays prefer playback in native format.
    My Dac upsamples to DSD anyway, so upsampling is moot in my case.
    I enjoy Hifi n stuff...

  5. #45
    Join Date: Sep 2019

    Location: Bristol (south of).

    Posts: 139
    I'm Kev.

    Default

    So it would appear that sample rate questions are the new cable thread?
    I have dropped to 24/96 and it sounds fine.

  6. #46
    Join Date: Feb 2008

    Location: Down South

    Posts: 2,402
    I'm Neal.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edward View Post
    Hi Dave, I agree about your main point about possible improvements via upsampling (I to do image processing) but my narrow point was about doing upsampling (or indeed any processing) whilst staying in the 16 bit domain.
    Yeah, upsampling is a frequency change IE inserting samples not a bit depth change. A greater bit depth helps when manipulating digital files like when changing peak levels after which you dither to the required bit depth.

    Patrick was shat upon earlier and unfairly, he knows his stuff, the analogy was a good one given a sampling rate (24fps) of a none BANDWIDTH LIMITED input. The resulting aliasing being seen as a wheel rotating backwards.
    Listening in a Foo free Zone...

    Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

  7. #47
    Join Date: Feb 2010

    Location: Moved to frozen north, beyond Inverness

    Posts: 1,578
    I'm Dave.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NRG View Post
    Yeah, upsampling is a frequency change IE inserting samples not a bit depth change. A greater bit depth helps when manipulating digital files like when changing peak levels after which you dither to the required bit depth.
    If upsampling is used, with interpolation then arbitrary data values may be obtained. If using floating point arithmetic these can be mapped to any bit depth by truncation, though the preferred method would be to use dither.

    Whether this could realistically lead to any perceived sound improvement I couldn't say.

    Once one starts messing with filtering etc. all sorts of perceived "improvements" can be noticed. In image processing I have been amazed at some of the effects - one being haze removal. The point of the image processing analogy is to show that "improvements" are possible. Such improvements may not actually correspond to reality - it may actually have been hazy in the example mentioned - but then one can open up all sorts of discussion about what "reality" is anyway.

    These perceptual changes emerge after either linear (most common?) or non-linear filtering. Doing manipulation of audio signals using digital processing can use filtering explicitly, but will usually change the data very slightly (unless true lossless procesing is used), and the changes may be perceived as improvements, or not. Such changes, which strictly should be considered as noise, will also interact with the analogue circuitry used for the playback.

    Someone up thread suggests "too many variables"!
    Dave

  8. #48
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 26,597
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dave2010 View Post

    Someone up thread suggests "too many variables"!
    Yes, too many variables to be able to deduce purely from listening as to what is causing the outputted signal to be different. Or even if it is actually different. That doesn't seem to stop people from jumping to conclusions or coming out with some pretty outrageous theories as to why. But it's all good fun.
    Current Lash Up:

    *Sony SCD XB790QS* Nelson Pass DCB1 / Krell KSA100 mkII * JM Lab Electra 926 *


    'You fool! To think that your ape-brain could contain the full knowledge of the Krell!'

  9. #49
    Join Date: Feb 2013

    Location: W Lothian

    Posts: 63,148
    I'm Grant.

    Default

    like most things for the end user, what sounds best is best . folk can overthink things and spoil what should be pleasure of discovery
    Regards,
    Grant .... ؠ

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply-doesn't-work
    .... ..... ...... ...... ................... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
    OPPO BDP-103D - JBE SERIES 3/B&O SP1/PROJECT PHONOBOX DS2 USB - QUAD VENA 2 - IFI PURIFIER 2/TWIN PRO MONOBLOCK POWER AMPLIFIERS - LEAF HD BLUETOOTH - OPPO PM-3 PLANAR, SONY H900 & NURAPHONE HEADPHONES - ZBOOK/ IFI SILENCER/WIN10 PRO/AUDIRVANA & JRIVER - SMSL M6 DAC & IFI SILENCER - RPI 3+, DIGIONE HAT/VOLUMIO2 - EDINGDALE MK1 SPEAKERS - CABLE INC CHORD, MOGAMI, SUPRA & WIREWORLD

    **Men are not punished for their sins, but by them**Don't be such a big girl's blouse!**
    ***SMILE, BE HAPPY***

  10. #50
    Join Date: Feb 2010

    Location: Moved to frozen north, beyond Inverness

    Posts: 1,578
    I'm Dave.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    Yes, too many variables to be able to deduce purely from listening as to what is causing the outputted signal to be different. Or even if it is actually different. That doesn't seem to stop people from jumping to conclusions or coming out with some pretty outrageous theories as to why. But it's all good fun.
    Indeed. A few years ago I looked at some waveforms from clarinets, and simulated clarinets. The odd thing was that some of the simulated clarinets had really odd waveforms, yet sounded much closer to so some of the real clarinet samples, while some of the real clarinet samples sounded really quite different from some of the others. I was a bit surprised, but that's the way things are.

    Despite being aware of some obvious deficiencies in my hearing compared with many years ago, I continue to be amazed on occasions at how much better and realistic (!!) real live sound by live performers in an appropriate environment is, compared with even reasonably good "hi-fi". Of course, sometimes it can be worse, but not often. It's usually much better by several orders of magnitude That applies to almost all forms of music, or aural experiences.
    Dave

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •