Thanks for that comments, Mnyb's! Mnyb;602719 Wrote: > If you have a DAC thats indicates icomming sample and bitrate. > > it's quite easy to see that you indeed get 24/96 . >
Well, unfortunately mine doesn't. > > > Also with the right logging turned on the server settings you see in > the server wich transcoding parameters that where choosen for the > transcoding. > > Hm... I'm honestly not so much into that, so I don't know if I will be able to figure out, how to decrypt a log file, and with what settings I will have the right data logged. > > > it has also been tested to death before, this Q pops up every odd week > since forever since SOX transcoding where introduced. They should > really change this bitrate indicators to be more correct. > > how right > > > But it's given low or no priority as the performance is not affected > only the piece of mind of audiophiles ;) It's a cosmetic bug . > > right too. Just asked myself if I am an audiophile... as I actually don't consider myself as one. Some definition I found says: "Quite often, audiophiles are as passionate about the equipment they use as the music they listen to." For my part, that's not true, fortunately, I don't care about the gear, as long as I feel as near to the live music as possible inside my living room... and of course, I don't want to buy expensive hi-res files from hdtracks, to have them down sampled after... so that's why I wish to have certainty. > > > Not really it is a bug that hit the forum as we have a tread about it > every week :-/ > > My suggestion has always been that this indication is not really > needed, just say "transcoded" or similar. Normal users wont care, > audiophiles get upset with the current bug, and the OCD's among us can > always use the logg functions to verify our settings ;) yes I have done > that... and peekat at what my DAC is reporting 96k 88.2k 44.1k or 48k. > > " > -Now, it is generally accepted that converting FLAC-Files on the Server > (and not on the touch) delivers better sound quality (like suggested e. > g. on http://www.computeraudiophile.com/co...x-Touch-Review )- > " > > No it's not generaly aceppted that it is soo, maybe by some audiophile > fringe, but it has no basis in reality or science. > Science has not measured what comes out of the speakers, comparing both settings, I guess... As for "reality", I did the comparison, measuring with my ears. I am not a physician, but a musician and with ears quite a bit trained... And I am obviously not the only one that came to the result that there IS a difference. > > Same audiphile's places rocks on their components, and spray their > cables with mystical iontments from nordost ? > If you were a sportsman, would you accept if someone tells you not to do sports, because other sportsmen use t-shirts with weird colors on their bicycles ...? > > If one hear a night and day diff it usually down to use of replay gain > tags and volume adjustment setting (many have such tags and the funtion > is sometimes on) not realising that the overall volume will be roughly > 10dB lower, just turn of volume adjustment and they are the same. As > the transcoded stream does not cary these tags replay gain will not be > used with WAV so it will ofcourse be a staggering diff as wav is much > louder. > With all volume adjustment settings off it should be the same. > Of course volume settings are off. Thats why we odd audiophiles use preamps ;-). And well, "should" be the same is the physicians answer, the musician will tell you: listen... Back to the technicians logic (just trying ;-) ): You might have observed that sound quality on the Touch degrades when it handles high processor load. For instance, to test: Connect a USB hard disk with a couple of thousands of flac files on it to the touch, play a file, and then, open the music directory on the touch's display... your music quality will degrade very obviously while the internal server crawls through the files. So why should a higher processor load for decoding flacs not have a influence, too? The difference might be small, but if you really pay attention to that, audible. Question of preference more than question of science... > > Bit perfectness can be tested with a DTS track encapsulated in normal > stereo wav or flac , if one bit is off your HT processor will only > output white noise. > You can test he whole chain, burn such track on a cd and rip it with > your normal settings and it easy to see if something is changing the > bitstream somewhere from CD ripper to tags or sbs settings or other > things. > DTS will only work with the volume at 100% btw as the digital volume > also shiftsd the bits, so the "dts bit" will be off and the processor > confused. Would probably be a nice test to do... however, I might not have understood 100%, but would that prove that the server dos no down sampling on high res files...? I mean, the resulting CD rip file would be 16 bit 44.1 khz stereo - and nobody claims that these are down sampled... -- diego ------------------------------------------------------------------------ diego's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40897 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84787 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
