Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
Read my Dan Lavry post, that document gives the full proof !! Nyquist is an absolute! -- DaveWr DaveWr's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9331 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
bhaagensen;694440 Wrote: Its a nice read and he's probably right in his conclusions - however one of his main poinsts, as I see it, can not be inferred (only) from what he's writing. In particular, the reconstruction of a discrete signal into a continuous one c.f. Nyquist. In fact to the contrary - the reconstruction part of the theorem directly requires an infinite sum. This is easy in mathematics, but how the engineers implement it is still something even folks like Monty does not explain in any detail - in fact, its often completely ignored... But why??? Edit: So basically his whole sampling-rate argument relies on the *one* statement that the analog signal can be reconstructed losslessly. There is not a single word of argument in favor of this... its not enough to reference Nyquist, is it. Yes it is enough in this case. Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorum came long before the advent of digital audio. Somewhat like Einteins theories of Relativity coming before space travel. For example, Einstein predicted (amongs many things) that time would slow down in a fast moving clock relative to a fixed observer. Very few people believed this counter-intuitive assertion. Experiments in the 50's later proved this assertion to be in fact true. Sampling Theorum predicts perfect reconstruction provided that the lowest frequency to be reconstructed is below the Nyquist limit. The ONLY people who DON'T believe this to be true are: 1) some people selling outrageosuly priced audiophile snake oil 2) some people who write for hi-fi mags. 3) some people who have been listening to the nonsense spouted by 1 or 2 above. The point is that increasing the sampling frequency does not and cannot alter the sampling and reconstruction of frequencies below the Nyquist limit. What it does do is to move the Nyquist limit. That's all it does. As others have mentioned, moving the limit upwards can be useful when engineering to avoid side-effects from the necessary recovery filters for a DAC... but this is only really relevant to analogue filters (which are generally no longer used). It is certainly NOT necessary to set a Nyquist limit 4x higher than the extreme upper limit of human hearing!. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/W7)+Teddy Pardo PSU - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters,VdH Toslink,Kimber 8TC Speaker Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
Thinking about the other end of the spectrum, this is one reason for the sub versus no-sub debate. By nature, ears register higher frequency distortion products more than the deeper fundamentals the sub is producing. And keeping distortion low at low frequencies is very difficult. Darren Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
Its not that I'm questioning Nyquist - but its a *mathamatical* theory involving the concept of infiniteness - in particular the reconstruction theorem involves an infinite sum. If you read the wikipedia page on this stuff, its noteted that for this reason, any real-world implementation will only be able to approximate the reconstruction part. Its clever and good stuff, but not implied by the theorem itself. What I've yet to come across, are good arguments comparing the precision in approximation cf. any usefulness added information in terms of higher sampling rates, could have? (I read Dans paper long ago and AFAIR he doesnt dicsuss this much either - but I'll have another look). PS I've made this complaint on these forums eariler - no avail :) PSS If you want to argue by scientific standards, this is a part not to be left out. -- bhaagensen bhaagensen's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7418 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
Perhaps look at this this way. The circumference of a circle is pi*d - easy. Very few people know how to compute this *exactly* on a computer - not so easy :) (However its easy to approximate within an error of...) -- bhaagensen bhaagensen's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7418 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
Irrelevant analogy, just because you use an irrational number in a calculation, which is always approximated. On that basis sine waves, which most people believe in aren't accurate, as they require an infinite series... sin x = x - x3/3! + x5/5! - x7/7! + -- DaveWr DaveWr's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9331 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] ZMIX Converter Test(60 generations of AD/DA bounce)
pski;694042 Wrote: State the point. Point to evidence. The audibility of ADC's and DAC's is highly exaggerated especially if they are of half decent design . -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93881 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
If it where not it would not work you would not get =20kHz upper limit the fact that a DAC reproduce 20k from a 44.1 sampled signal proves that it is actually working closely enough to Nyquist and likewise if an ADC samples with 44.1k and still gets 20k it is working ? ( the theoretical fs/2 would be 22.05kHz ) Most DAC's in test also produces textbook impulse response graphs and have no more distortion and intermodulation etc close to 20kHz than they have anywhere else , there are exceptions my crappy PC soundcard or probably pulse audio re-sampling etc (ubuntu) produce clear intermodulation products . So when it's not working it's very evident it just fails and you have imaging/aliasing all over the place , when I get home I could produce links to interesting intermodulation test tones for DAC's these are very close to fs so if your dac have problems close to fs you will hear it :) These tones are on 44.1 base and 48kHz base respectively Also the crude visual examples in the article , where a handful of sinc functions get you pretty close to real reconstruction , where in reality practical gear have much higher precision . The infinite is a red herring in this case , if it where huge problems with practical implementations it would be very evident. Practical gear is close enough http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=694461#post694461 -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
The analogt may not be aces, but the point was that in regards to the article it doesn't say much new that hasnt already been said a zillion times. The final parts of the argument is missing though I'm sure the engineers know. There must be some (scientific) epsilon-bound on how little DACs miss the mark? So there is still room for the audiophile crowd to go ballistic on sampling rates - as I see it. -- bhaagensen bhaagensen's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7418 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
In conclusion i agree with you mnyb and others. Its just that wrt the end result the rigidness of mathematical sampling theory does (alone) not carry through all the way. -- bhaagensen bhaagensen's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7418 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
bhaagensen;694465 Wrote: The analogt may not be aces, but the point was that in regards to the article it doesn't say much new that hasnt already been said a zillion times. The final parts of the argument is missing though I'm sure the engineers know. There must be some (scientific) epsilon-bound on how little DACs miss the mark? So there is still room for the audiophile crowd to go ballistic on sampling rates - as I see it. Well as described oversampling is used both in recording and playback . So it's about the intermediate carrier to the listener . In that case a modern DAC would not even theoretically have problems playing back 44.1 it's doing at much higher rate anyway so it could be made watertight that way . And the reducing to 44.1 from something much higher is carried out in software at the record company no messing around with analogue filters in this case It is perfectly reconstructed sound 0-20khz in our audible range . So eventual non nyqvist ? behaviour is outside the bandwidth we care about anyway, why cares if the DAC is not perfect at 100kHz it sure is at 20kHz . So the argument should be about the format of delivery to a consumer for that format to carry all information that we can hear it's enough if it is sampled to that limit. And as said it can be perfectly reconstructed from such information, the weapon of choice is in many cases oversampling . -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
What a good article. I loved his statement in the outro: The more that pseudoscience goes unchecked in the world at large, the harder it is for truth to overcome truthiness... Almost by way of an example (although he doesn't make the link himself), in footnote 18 he includes a quote from Wired magazine: Some purists will tell you to skip FLACs altogether and just buy WAVs. [...] By buying WAVs, you can avoid the potential data loss incurred when the file is compressed into a FLAC. This data loss is rare, but it happens. I wonder if Wired picked that up from TAS. :) -- chill chill's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10839 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
bhaagensen;694467 Wrote: In conclusion i agree with you mnyb and others. Its just that wrt the end result the rigidness of mathematical sampling theory does (alone) not carry through all the way. Human hearing does not carry through all the way either. We are also not infinite. Audiophiles spend a lot of time rearranging deck hairs on the Titanic. But it does make them feel better. ;-) -- mlsstl mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
Unfortunately, the picture isn't as clear or as simple as he tries to portray. The Boston Audio DBT had flaws which are pointed out in many critiques all over the net. Among other things, he seems to thing the point of high res recordings is so we can hear high frequenies (above 20k); that of course isn't the point. He talks about macro dynamics of music, but not microdynamics. Finally, he may be correct. But it may also be irrelevant that he is. Some have made the case that you can hear everything on a well produced Redbook file that you can hear on a hi-res file, only some of the detail is easier to hear on a high res file. This alone can account for the subjective impression that the hi res sounds different or better. In any case, even the authors of the DBT admit that there best sounding files were those from SACD. This they attribute to better/different mastering of the hi-res files, and not to any inherent superiority of the format. That may be. But then that alone is a good reason to buy them and listen to them. -- firedog GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DAC-V3, MF X-150 as pre-amp, Grant Fidelity B-283MKII bufferClassDaudio SDS-470 amp; Devore Gibbon Super 8 Speakers; Dual 506 + Ortofon M20 (occasional use); sometimes use PC with M-Audio 192 as digital source. SB Boom in second room. Arcam CD82 which I don't use anymore, even though it's a very good player. firedog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11550 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
firedog;694484 Wrote: He talks about macro dynamics of music, but not microdynamics. But what is microdynamics? Does it have a sensible definition, or is it just one of those woo-words that can mean anything that the user wants it to? (something like Spiritual Holistic Quantum Dynamics?) -- Soulkeeper 'Bug 17797: Updating wiki.slimdevices.com' (http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=17797) Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
firedog;694484 Wrote: Unfortunately, the picture isn't as clear or as simple as he tries to portray. The Boston Audio DBT had flaws which are pointed out in many critiques all over the net Among other things, he seems to thing the point of high res recordings is so we can hear high frequenies (above 20k); that of course isn't the point. He talks about macro dynamics of music, but not microdynamics The inability of humans to achieve perfection in blind testing seems to be the touchstone used by those audiophiles to dismiss the results of any test that challenges their beliefs. As many others have pointed out, conducting good blind tests is difficult and even the best tests will never cover all theoretical possibilities. That's true whether the subject is audio or something else. OK, even if perfection in such tests is impossible, what does one do with the accumulated evidence that says that many of the breathtaking differences audiophiles hear under sighted conditions are either wildly exaggerated or even imaginary? In the post quoted above, the case for supersonic frequency response is damaged, so the issue is switched to microdynamics - another audiophile term that has no specific meaning beyond the vague impression assigned by each individual. Can one give an example of a sound that gets lost on a CD that would be heard on a higher-rez recording? In addition to the Empire Brass (brass is always a challenge to record well), I also listened to some Boston Camerata last night, an early music choral group. I could clearly pick out individual voices from the 30 or more singers, whether massed, lead or background singers. What did the CD lose that a high-rez would have revealed? Clearly and accurately presenting the voices of 30 people singing together would seem a good test for the ability of a recording to maintain clarity and not lose articulation. Yes, I've heard a number of high-rez recordings and they do tend to be excellent. But I also have many CDs with superb audio quality. I rather strongly suspect the quality of the high-rez recordings is far more due to extra care given in the recording, mixing and mastering process than any inherent technical advantage. These recordings are marketed to a discriminating group of listeners and typically cost more, so they better be giving them something for their money. -- mlsstl mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
bhaagensen;694457 Wrote: Its not that I'm questioning Nyquist - but its a *mathamatical* theory involving the concept of infiniteness - in particular the reconstruction theorem involves an infinite sum. I also think this is the weakest spot in the argumentation of the paper. While in theory with Nyquist I can reconstruct the waveform with the lower bound of samples (i.e. 2x frequency) perfectly, I need infinite sums for it - so speaking in algorithms: I cannot compute it in reasonable time. So what is done in DACs is to approximate the original waveform with as much sums as possible in a given timeframe. Let's say for proper playback I can do 100calculations (take whatever number you like) in 1ms. Based on 100 calculations: can I get a better approximation of the original waveform if I have 100 samples or 200 samples ? Reading Wikipedia articles about Nyquist doesn't give me an answer for that. But that's the central question that needs to be answered, not if Nyquist in theory can reproduce a waveform with a given number of samples. -- bluegaspode Did you know: *'SqueezePlayer' (www.squeezeplayer.com)* will stream all your music to your Android device. Take your music everywhere! Remote Control + Streaming to your iPad? *'Squeezebox + iPad = SqueezePad ' (www.squeezepad.com)* Want to see a Weather Forecast on your Radio/Touch/Controller ? = why not try my 'Weather Forecast Applet' (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=73827) Want to use the Headphones with your Controller ? = why not try my 'Headphone Switcher Applet' (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=67139) bluegaspode's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=31651 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
bluegaspode;694492 Wrote: So what is done in DACs is to approximate the original waveform with as much sums as possible in a given timeframe. NO The DAC generates a stepped ladder function, the reconstruction filter turns this into the recovered waveform. In the case of many modern, oversampling DACs, the reconstruction filter is a simple 2nd order analogue filter. No limited number of calculations. Yes the transform theory for the filter is a set of infinite sums, but the filter is a filter. -- DaveWr DaveWr's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9331 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
bluegaspode;694492 Wrote: Let's say for proper playback I can do 100calculations (take whatever number you like) in 1ms. Based on 100 calculations: can I get a better approximation of the original waveform if I have 100 samples or 200 samples ? NO Assuming the 100 sampling frequency met Nyquist criteria and the ADC didn't use old style brickwall anti-alias filters, and that the anti alias filters were set to the same frequency, the post DAC signal would be identical in both cases! You could get Phil to check using his difference test, there would be nothing. Above Nyquist sampling means all the data is available to recover the total signal. It doesn't need infinite processing power, it is an analogue technique. The modern approach using oversampling take the anti aliasing ADC filters and the reconstruction DAC filters way out of audible effects range. However there are still the matters of ADC and DAC linearity, are the steps really equal; what is the clock v data jitter presented to the DAC, that effectively changes step sizes with time (note the higher the sample rate the tighter the jitter spec needs to be); what is the underlying noise level. 24 bit DACs don't usually achieve much more than 21 to 22 bits of signal to noise performance. -- DaveWr DaveWr's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9331 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
This is just wrong. You don't need an infinite sum or anything, in theory you don't even need a DAC, all you need is a low-pass filter. A DAC is nothing else than a number of carefully tuned band-pass filters followed up by a low-pass filter to clean things up. No sums involved. No infinity involved. -- pippin --- see iPeng, the Squeezebox iPhone remote and *New: iPeng for iPad*, at penguinlovesmusic.com pippin's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13777 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
firedog;694484 Wrote: He talks about macro dynamics of music, but not microdynamics. Can you explain what this term microdynamic correpondents with from a technical standpoint of view? I lately linked to that thread already if you talk about time resolution: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=91126hl= You can always ask J.J. Atkinson for some math that underlines your statement. I am sure he will help you. The issue playing back signals above 20kHz can damage playback in the audible range is really interesting but not much sources i can find. The intermodulation of amps can be measured but even this is not easy audible. The speakers themself do so much more harm it doesn´t really matter. What i recognize is that with some newer BW speakers like the CM8 i see a hefty +10dB resonance on-axis at ~30kHz in frequency response graphs i found on the net. So playing back any content at that frequency may indeed trigger the tweeters break-up and distort sounds below. -- Wombat Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
As promised link to aliasing tests. http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_aliasing.php My own ungodly soundblaster cheapest possible souncard aliase above 18kHz And HF sweeps 22kHz down to 12kHz . http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_frequencycheckhigh.php These are 44.1 kHz files, so here you have it a 22k tone encoded by 44.1kHz sampling and it works this nice discussion re dacs is besides the point . The point is can a sample rate such as 44.1k or 48k encode the complete wave form below 20kHz of-course . Wanting higher rate is the same as wanting ultrasonics the quality below 20kHz does not improve as we have already encoded all information we need for that (nyqvist ) . So what god comes with the ultrasonics ? -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
Wombat;694512 Wrote: Can you explain what this term microdynamic correpondents with from a technical standpoint of view? I lately linked to that thread already if you talk about time resolution: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=91126hl= You can always ask J.J. Atkinson for some math that underlines your statement. I am sure he will help you. The issue playing back signals above 20kHz can damage playback in the audible range is really interesting but not much sources i can find. The intermodulation of amps can be measured but even this is not easy audible. The speakers themself do so much more harm it doesn´t really matter. What i recognize is that with some newer BW speakers like the CM8 i see a hefty +10dB resonance on-axis at ~30kHz in frequency response graphs i found on the net. So playing back any content at that frequency may indeed trigger the tweeters break-up and distort sounds below. Don't forget that by some perverse coincidence many that are very keen on hirez also use tube amps wonder what happens around the ultrasonic resonance in the output transformer ? or in general with such a design that struggles a bit at normal hf ? especially with SACD a lot of air and detail if you are unlucky , maybe ? but again this is stuff nobody have tested either . I have always wondered in general if not many exotic designs used by many audiophiles have unforeseen technical limitations that no normal engineer expects that can explain why some things are audible that should not be ? -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
bhaagensen;694459 Wrote: Perhaps look at this this way. The circumference of a circle is pi*d - easy. Very few people know how to compute this *exactly* on a computer - not so easy :) (However its easy to approximate within an error of...) Again: you don't COMPUTE anything here. We are talking about analog signals. To stick with your example: even though you can't compute the exact circumference of a circle to infinity, you can still draw one. And you don't have to do any calculations to do so. All you have to know is the radius, a single number, no additional information required. -- pippin --- see iPeng, the Squeezebox iPhone remote and *New: iPeng for iPad*, at penguinlovesmusic.com pippin's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13777 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
Mnyb;694320 Wrote: So what god comes with the ultrasonics ? I guess it would be this one?: +---+ |Filename: futfic_5107.jpg | |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13146| +---+ -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Snatch - The Transporter - Transporter 2 (oops) - Touch 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
pippin;694517 Wrote: To stick with your example: even though you can't compute the exact circumference of a circle to infinity, you can still draw one. And you don't have to do any calculations to do so. All you have to know is the radius, a single number, no additional information required. Plus this handy little tool: +---+ |Filename: compass_drawing_circle.jpg | |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13147| +---+ -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Snatch - The Transporter - Transporter 2 (oops) - Touch 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
DaveWr;694502 Wrote: Above Nyquist sampling means all the data is available to recover the total signal. It doesn't need infinite processing power, it is an analogue technique. Well sorry to be playing devils advocate here. But right now I read the argument as follows a) there is a theorem which proves that under ideal (in the realworld not achievable) conditions a sampling frequency of x will be good enough b) we use some totally different process to do the reconstruction but still refer to the theorem and claim that it still applies. For me this sounds like comparing Apples with Bananas. Or to put it differently: Mr. Dan Lavry begins his document with the statement: The great value offered by Nyquist's theorem is the realization that we have ALL the information with 100% of the detail, and no distortions, without the burden of extra fast sampling. (sorry I didn't have time yet to read the paper to the end, will do it later). And quite opposite to this statement a quote from Wikipedia about Nyquist: In practice, neither of the two statements of the sampling theorem described above can be completely satisfied, and neither can the reconstruction formula be precisely implemented. The reconstruction process that involves scaled and delayed sinc functions can be described as ideal. It cannot be realized in practice since it implies that each sample contributes to the reconstructed signal at almost all time points, requiring summing an infinite number of terms. Instead, some type of approximation of the sinc functions, finite in length, has to be used. The error that corresponds to the sinc-function approximation is referred to as interpolation error. So as the preconditions of the theorem cannot be met (according to Wikipedia, sorry I don't have better source nor knowledge) I think it is a valid question if we can overcome the (possible) deficiencies with higher sample rates (or other means). So for me this part of the argument has its flaws (while of course I'm very happy to believe all the other proofs which include double blind tests) -- bluegaspode Did you know: *'SqueezePlayer' (www.squeezeplayer.com)* will stream all your music to your Android device. Take your music everywhere! Remote Control + Streaming to your iPad? *'Squeezebox + iPad = SqueezePad ' (www.squeezepad.com)* Want to see a Weather Forecast on your Radio/Touch/Controller ? = why not try my 'Weather Forecast Applet' (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=73827) Want to use the Headphones with your Controller ? = why not try my 'Headphone Switcher Applet' (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=67139) bluegaspode's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=31651 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
ralphpnj;694519 Wrote: I guess it would be this one?: :P I corrected that now , ooh pulp sci fi mag.. -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
bluegaspode;694522 Wrote: So as the preconditions of the theorem cannot be met (according to Wikipedia Wikipedia is written by nerds. Therefore: As long as something that can safely be ignored in practice, cannot be ignored in principle, Wikipedia will not ignore it. As an example, see the article on Evolution; it actually even mentions Intelligent Design (in the last sentence, under Social and cultural responses). -- Soulkeeper 'Bug 17797: Updating wiki.slimdevices.com' (http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=17797) Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
Soulkeeper;694524 Wrote: Wikipedia is written by nerds. Therefore: As long as something that can safely be ignored in practice, cannot be ignored in principle, Wikipedia will not ignore it. . Exactly, now play that 44.1 encoded hf sweep 22 12 kHz does it work ? the nyqvist freuency is 22.05 kHz and it begins with a 22k tone a pretty close shave to me , we that are not 14 may take it for granted as we will begin to hear the sweep at 17-13k , or just look at it in audacity Sine waves what does it really tell ? another long dead fella to the rescue Fourier he discovered that a wave can be described as a sum of sine functions , simplified. Speaking of... for the complete math nerds of wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series look at the pictures don't read, headache inducing :-/ the inverse is known to us as these nice spectrum's we use to analyze HD-tracks so called hirez files aka fft -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
You are all free to provide me with better resources than Wikipedia :) -- bluegaspode Did you know: *'SqueezePlayer' (www.squeezeplayer.com)* will stream all your music to your Android device. Take your music everywhere! Remote Control + Streaming to your iPad? *'Squeezebox + iPad = SqueezePad ' (www.squeezepad.com)* Want to see a Weather Forecast on your Radio/Touch/Controller ? = why not try my 'Weather Forecast Applet' (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=73827) Want to use the Headphones with your Controller ? = why not try my 'Headphone Switcher Applet' (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=67139) bluegaspode's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=31651 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
mlsstl;694489 Wrote: I could clearly pick out individual voices from the 30 or more singers, whether massed, lead or background singers. What did the CD lose that a high-rez would have revealed? Clearly and accurately presenting the voices of 30 people singing together would seem a good test for the ability of a recording to maintain clarity and not lose articulation. It's hardly fair to ask people not to trust their ears and then provide arguments like this. Shame on you (just kidding!) Soulkeeper;694524 Wrote: Wikipedia is written by nerds. Therefore: As long as something that can safely be ignored in practice, cannot be ignored in principle, Wikipedia will not ignore it. As an example, see the article on Evolution; it actually even mentions Intelligent Design (in the last sentence, under Social and cultural responses). But would you say that about Wikipedia if Wikipedia had agreed with your own views? I am not against your conclusions but it's all getting a bit mob-like around here! Darren Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
Mnyb;694516 Wrote: I have always wondered in general if not many exotic designs used by many audiophiles have unforeseen technical limitations that no normal engineer expects that can explain why some things are audible that should not be ? I find that a very interesting point. Darren Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
darrenyeats;694534 Wrote: It's hardly fair to ask people not to trust their ears and then provide arguments like this. Shame on you (just kidding!) My apologies to the group. I am thoroughly chastened. Is purchasing a album from HDTracks that I already have on CD sufficient penance? -- mlsstl mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
mlsstl;694536 Wrote: My apologies to the group. I am thoroughly chastened. Is purchasing a album from HDTracks that I already have on CD sufficient penance? It must be a 40 year old rock classic ripped from SACD and get the 192k version ;) bonus point if they used thier cryogenic treated cables in the process ( that was not a joke they do that, amazing ?) -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
bluegaspode;694522 Wrote: Well sorry to be playing devils advocate here. But right now I read the argument as follows a) there is a theorem which proves that under ideal (in the realworld not achievable) conditions a sampling frequency of x will be good enough b) we use some totally different process to do the reconstruction but still refer to the theorem and claim that it still applies. For me this sounds like comparing Apples with Bananas. Or to put it differently: Mr. Dan Lavry begins his document with the statement: (sorry I didn't have time yet to read the paper to the end, will do it later). And quite opposite to this statement a quote from Wikipedia about Nyquist: So as the preconditions of the theorem cannot be met (according to Wikipedia, sorry I don't have better source nor knowledge) I think it is a valid question if we can overcome the (possible) deficiencies with higher sample rates (or other means). So for me this part of the argument has its flaws (while of course I'm very happy to believe all the other proofs which include double blind tests) It is trivial to show that the error inherent in the process is below the range of detection. A computer-generated sine wave dataset (I.e. not recorded via an ADC) can be passed through a DAC and null-compared. I've done this and the result should be no surprise to anyone. PS don't try this with a nos DAC! The human ear/brain also operates on a sampling basis (there's nothing analogue about the ear by the way) and uses a reconstruction filter just like a DAC to integrate the discrete samples into something we can understand. What some people are misunderstanding here is that it is the reconstruction filter that recovers the analogue signal, not the DAC. The DAC simply presents the filter with a set of voltages over time. It is within the filter that the sinc function becomes manifest and this is indeed an infinite series - the mathematical definition of a filter is a continuous function over time. A filter is not a step function! To be clear on this, what comes out of the filter IS a mathematically perfect sine wave... All the way up to the Nyquist frequency. This is both predicted by the theorem and demonstrable in practice. There is no known way to differentiate between a 1khz sine wave sampled at 44.1 or 192. In every conceivable way of measuring or analysing that sine wave it they will be indistinguishable. What is true for one sine wave is also of course true for any combination of sine wAves (or as we usually refer to it... Music). Or do we need to have a conversation about Fourier transforms and the practical implications of mathematical infinite series as well? Now there IS a way to break this model. Try a perfect square wave!. This has to be done using a mathetmatically generated waveform/data set because it is impossible to generate or record a perfect square wave with infinite rise/fall times. The filter will introduce non-linear ringing. This is all predict by the theorem because an infinitely fast slope requires an infinite number of samples... I'm sure you get the idea. Bottom line is this; for real world sound distribution 44.1 is fine ... Which is why there are many many fine sounding red book CD's... And why there is no published evidence that stands scrutiny to support the idea that anyone can tell the difference between the same master distributed and played back at 192 or down sampled to 44.1. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/W7)+Teddy Pardo PSU - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters,VdH Toslink,Kimber 8TC Speaker Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How low is low?
Well, my sub journey continues. I have now settled on placing my sub at the same distance as my main speakers (centre of driver basis). Because the sub gives better massage sub-sonic performance when it's near to me, coffee table style, I've been trying to integrate it there. However, there or anywhere in front of the plane of the speakers, something sounds just wrong. I think it's the phase of the bass wavefronts being mismatched at this frequency or that. Even if I play with the phase control on the sub, this helps certain frequencies to be in phase, but other bass frequencies are not. The crossover is set to lowest frequency. This is an all ATC set up and it sounds like the crossover is designed to integrate well...assuming the drivers are roughly in the same plane. Certainly I've heard the exact same equipment positioned similarly in a bigger room and I got the rightness, bass reinforcement and massage factors at the same time. In my smaller room I get only the first two. This may be physicscould be factors of construction or being physically nearer the mains skewing my hearing/feeling balance (think about headphones playing loud...a high sonic SPL doesn't equate to body shaking amounts of air movement because the drivers are nearer, much nearer in this example, to your ears). Not everything is better in the current position because a big room mode lives in the crossover region. However, I have Helmholtz Resonators managing that. Overall, it is better. Maybe I will play with the gain a bit. Any advice or suggestions? Darren Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93382 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] ZMIX Converter Test(60 generations of AD/DA bounce)
you got it mynb -- TheOctavist VortexboxSBT(stock)Forssell MDAC-2Klein and Hummell 0300D Sota Sapphire/Lyra KleosBespoke Valve Phono StageMastersound Due VentiLink Audio K100 TheOctavist's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=52700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93881 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
Phil Leigh;694539 Wrote: Now there IS a way to break this model. Try a perfect square wave!. This has to be done using a mathetmatically generated waveform/data set because it is impossible to generate or record a perfect square wave with infinite rise/fall times in the analogue domain. The filter will introduce non-linear ringing. This is all predict by the theorem because an infinitely fast slope requires an infinite number of samples... I'm sure you get the idea. Just trying to educate myself here... Does this mean that there could be audible distortion introduced due to ringing in a recording that has clipped samples? Taken to an extreme, clipping could start to approximate a square wave. BTW, I'm finding this discussion to be very interesting...I'm learning a lot. -- maggior Rich - Setup: 2 SB3s, 4 Booms, 1 Duet, 1 Receiver, 1 Touch, iPeng on iPod Touch, SqueezeCommander on Xoom. SuSE 11.0 Server running SqueezeBoxServer 7.5.5 and SqueezeSlave. Current library stats: 37,509 songs, 2,934 albums, 515 artists. http://www.last.fm/user/maggior maggior's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9080 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] ZMIX Converter Test(60 generations of AD/DA bounce)
This could be an interesting DAC test, wonder how NOS DAC's and DAC's with unorthodox filters would fare ? -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93881 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
mlsstl;694536 Wrote: My apologies to the group. I am thoroughly chastened. Is purchasing a album from HDTracks that I already have on CD sufficient penance? That more than covers it! Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
they dont make any difference, so no. :-) -- TheOctavist VortexboxSBT(stock)Forssell MDAC-2Klein and Hummell 0300D Sota Sapphire/Lyra KleosBespoke Valve Phono StageMastersound Due VentiLink Audio K100 TheOctavist's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=52700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
Hmm thinking about it there can not really be any invalid combinations of samples ? Whatever gets coded inside the 16/44.1 code space or whatever must be recoverable you might not want to listen to it and the square wave is approximate as you can't have infinite slope and it do ring . But afaik the ringing are above 20kHz . -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
eduardoo;694433 Wrote: Since then, I have been diligently reading through this thread (now up to page 50 or so), and I see that they were then mentioning finetuning of priorities. Given that I just downloaded my TT3.0 a few days ago and I would probably need quite some time to go through the hundred pages of threads, can someone tell me if those priority tweaks are still required/applicable? If so, can you please point me to the right resource for instructions (I'm a little confused by the numerous replies)? Also, I see that there is a Dynabot mod out there that people have applied in tandem with TT2.0. Should that be applied to 3.0 as well? I don't think we want to go down that dung-strewn path again, so by all means read it all and try what you want and form your own opinion. My favorite and most-used setup is all the TT3.0 defaults EXCEPT with a 5k buffer and Logitech priorities. My second favorite, and what I believe to be the most accurate setup of those presented here (as best as I can test), is the TT3.0 default and everything Klaus, except with a 4k buffer for here. [There has never been a decent explanation here as to why the ALSA buffer size can make such a diff.] I listen to internet radio quite a lot, and so far I have *never* heard the Logitech priorities screw up the audio, whereas I have a few times with stock TT3.0 priorities...so that's another advantage of them for me, besides that I like the sound better (less thin). I am always using an external DAC, and I am astonished what it does to IR via the SBT compared to the IR I get directly via my Denon AVR (this sounds truly dreadful, all other radio incl. AM/FM/Sirius does too). -- cfraser cfraser's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=48869 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
eduardoo;694433 Wrote: Since then, I have been diligently reading through this thread (now up to page 50 or so), and I see that they were then mentioning finetuning of priorities. Given that I just downloaded my TT3.0 a few days ago and I would probably need quite some time to go through the hundred pages of threads, can someone tell me if those priority tweaks are still required/applicable? If so, can you please point me to the right resource for instructions (I'm a little confused by the numerous replies)? Also, I see that there is a Dynabot mod out there that people have applied in tandem with TT2.0. Should that be applied to 3.0 as well? Sorry for being a little too anxious to get the answer, but your help is appreciated. Thanks. To the extent that any priority settings provide any benefits, these are probably dependent on your system, your expectations re: sound quality, and the kind of music you listen to. So, there really is no short cut. Try a few, and stick with one you like best. Happy listening! Guido F. -- guidof MUSIC ROOM: Marantz TT 15S1 Turntable, Virtuoso Wood Cartridge-Conrad Johnson Motif preamp Oppo BDP-83 Universal Player-Cambridge Azur 840C DAC Vortexbox Appliance-WiFi Bridge-Squeezebox Touch-Toslink-Cambridge Azur 840C DAC-Adcom GFP-750 preamp-Music Reference RM-200 Mk II amp - Martin Logan SL3s DSpeaker Antimode 8033-REL T1 Sub BEDROOM: Squeezebox Touch (analog out)-Little Dot Mk III amp-AKG K701 headphones SECOND BEDROOM: Squeezebox Touch-Grado SR125 headphones guidof's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40448 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
We do have to distinguish properly between CD at 44.1k sampling with 16bits and 44.1k - 24 bits. The 24 bits do have an effect. They allow a significantly greater dynamic range, assuming the mastering engineer does't get into loudness wars compression. It may be for some people that they compare 96/24 with CD and it is the 24bit resolution not the sampling frequency differences that are being heard. Also if its old music, my late 60s and 70s youth, any new releases will be from analogue tape remastered. This remastering may (and I know several cases of did) produce entirely different mix from early CD versions. IMHO not always better. Phil Leigh would have more input on these recording and mastering issues. Today with the freedom to use anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters that are low order and relatively benign, due to very high frequency oversampling techniques, I believe we have an almost untainted record / replay chain. Dave -- DaveWr DaveWr's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9331 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
The article linked in the OP covers bit depth too. The incorrect '96dB' figure ignores the spectral power density of a signal. 16 bit audio can go considerably deeper than 96dB, and deeper yet with proper use of dither. Handled correctly, the dynamic range of 16 bit audio reaches 120dB in practice [10], more than twenty times deeper than the 96dB claim. That's greater than the difference between a mosquito somewhere in the same room and a jackhammer a foot away or the difference between a deserted 'soundproof' room and a sound loud enough to cause hearing damage in seconds. 16 bits is enough to store all we can hear, and will always be enough. -- Soulkeeper 'Bug 17797: Updating wiki.slimdevices.com' (http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=17797) Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
Phil Leigh;694539 Wrote: I What some people are misunderstanding here is that it is the reconstruction filter that recovers the analogue signal, not the DAC. The DAC simply presents the filter with a set of voltages over time. It is within the filter that the sinc function becomes manifest and this is indeed an infinite series - the mathematical definition of a filter is a continuous function over time. A filter is not a step function! To be clear on this, what comes out of the filter IS a mathematically perfect sine wave... I read through the paper posted before in the meantime (http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf ) Is there any more (hopefully easy to understand) information about how these reconstruction filters work in practice? The paper comes close around page 18, where it is shown how at least the right half of a sinc function can be produced by some circuit. I'm missing the left part of the sinc function because based on the explanation it is need as well to recreate the original wave-form. I obviously never cared about how DA converters work, based on the paper I now think of thousands of of sinc-producing circuits which all add up to the final waveform. Probably this is not how it works in practice but this a missing link for me now to agree that Nyquist theorem and good circuits is all that we need. -- bluegaspode Did you know: *'SqueezePlayer' (www.squeezeplayer.com)* will stream all your music to your Android device. Take your music everywhere! Remote Control + Streaming to your iPad? *'Squeezebox + iPad = SqueezePad ' (www.squeezepad.com)* Want to see a Weather Forecast on your Radio/Touch/Controller ? = why not try my 'Weather Forecast Applet' (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=73827) Want to use the Headphones with your Controller ? = why not try my 'Headphone Switcher Applet' (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=67139) bluegaspode's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=31651 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How low is low?
darrenyeats;694542 Wrote: Well, my sub journey continues. I have now settled on placing my sub at the same distance as my main speakers (centre of driver Not everything is better in the current position because a big room mode lives in the crossover region. However, I have Helmholtz Resonators managing that. Overall, it is better. Maybe I will play with the gain a bit. Any advice or suggestions? Even random ramblings like mine are welcome. Darren Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk Personally, I found integrating a sub with main speakers is a rather frustrating journey. In the end, and in my room/system, the best result has come from NOT trying for massage. Instead, I systematically tried a variety of gain settings at the minimum crossover (30Hz), then again at a slightly higher crossover. I focused not so much on listening for bass, but rather for correct timbres and credible soundstage. I found the DSpeaker (see sig) processor to be helpful in correcting for room modes. When I finally got piano music to sound close to that coming from a real piano, I stopped. In my room, the best sub location is on the centerline, about two feet farther away than the main speakers. Keep trying! Patience has it's rewards! Guido F. -- guidof MUSIC ROOM: Marantz TT 15S1 Turntable, Virtuoso Wood Cartridge-Conrad Johnson Motif preamp Oppo BDP-83 Universal Player-Cambridge Azur 840C DAC Vortexbox Appliance-WiFi Bridge-Squeezebox Touch-Toslink-Cambridge Azur 840C DAC-Adcom GFP-750 preamp-Music Reference RM-200 Mk II amp - Martin Logan SL3s DSpeaker Antimode 8033-REL T1 Sub BEDROOM: Squeezebox Touch (analog out)-Little Dot Mk III amp-AKG K701 headphones SECOND BEDROOM: Squeezebox Touch-Grado SR125 headphones guidof's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=40448 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93382 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192 downsampling when decoding at server side
I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that I am one of those people that can tell the difference between flac decode on server or Touch. I have tested it with DBT and it is there. Its not huge, many other things make a bigger difference. I have not been able to tell any difference between the source file on the server being flac or wav. I did do a trial with streaming flac with different compression levels, that one was pretty inconclusive. There was maybe a hint that the higher compression levels are slightly worse, but I wouldn't stake anything on it. As to the exact mechanism, I don't know, I have a guess, but no easy way to test it. The standard explanation that its processor load I'm pretty sure is false, my guess is that its differences in processor cache hit rates. The lower the cache hit rate the more the main memory has to be accessed. Every memory access puts a large electrical load on the system which shows up as noise on the PS and groundplane. I have done some tests with a simple ground plane analyzer and DO see differences in noise level and spectrum with different things going on in the Touch. I'm in the process of building a much more sensitive device and will be sure to do some tests with streaming type once I get it up and running. I run my system wired to the Touch with everything sent PCM, I have not had any downside to streaming PCM, and it does have a slight improvement in sound for me. If doing so caused any issues (not playing things, dropouts, cliks, pops, etc) I would have no qualms about streaming flac. John S. -- JohnSwenson JohnSwenson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5974 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93970 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
maggior;694553 Wrote: Just trying to educate myself here... Does this mean that there could be audible distortion introduced due to ringing in a recording that has clipped waveforms? Taken to an extreme, clipping could start to approximate a square wave. BTW, I'm finding this discussion to be very interesting...I'm learning a lot. Clipping itself is an extreme distortion, at medium power levels due the high frequency content of these waveforms, this can easily destroy loudspeaker tweeters. The clipping waveform will usually have some of this high frequency removed by the anti-alias filter that is the first part of the ADC (analogue to digital convertor). Although it will be now more benign, it is still a distortion. The ringing issue from square waves is no longer any issue, due to the way ADCs are designed. they don't have a very sharp (often 7th order) 'brickwall' filter at 20khz anymore. This was always the source of some low level errors, also repeated in the playback DAC chain. 10 years ago it was trendy to have multiple filter choices in your DAC chain of your CD player, and they did sound slightly different. As with all things digital speeds have gone up, and the digital guys made it easier to get more linear ADC / DAC systems by using only a few bits but at very high oversampled rates to achieve better results to standard multibit DACs. Dave -- DaveWr DaveWr's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9331 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
bluegaspode;694580 Wrote: Is there any more (hopefully easy to understand) information about how these reconstruction filters work in practice? I found 'this' (http://skywired.net/blog/2011/05/introducing-the-delta-sigma-modulator/), which looks promising. I'll start reading it myself, now. -- Soulkeeper 'Bug 17797: Updating wiki.slimdevices.com' (http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=17797) Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
Soulkeeper;694585 Wrote: I found 'this' (http://skywired.net/blog/2011/05/introducing-the-delta-sigma-modulator/), which looks promising. I'll start reading it myself, now. Those systems are 1 bit A/D and D/A systems. This is the technology used by Sony in their DSD techniques as used in SACDs. Dave -- DaveWr DaveWr's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9331 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
AFAIU, delta-sigma DACs are used for PCM decoding. It's the most widespread type of audio DAC, at least according to some of what I've read. Unfortunately the article I linked to went into more detail about ADC than DAC. -- Soulkeeper 'Bug 17797: Updating wiki.slimdevices.com' (http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=17797) Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
Soulkeeper;694588 Wrote: AFAIU, delta-sigma DACs are used for PCM decoding. It's the most widespread type of audio DAC, at least according to some of what I've read. Unfortunately the article I linked to went into more detail about ADC than DAC. After a quick scan of the DSD article on Wikipedia, I get the idea that DSD stores audio in a delta-sigma modulated format, while delta-sigma DACs convert a PCM signal to a delta-sigma modulated signal as part of the DA conversion. You are exactly right - virtually all modern DACs are multibit delta-sigma DACs. These bring another filter that does affect sound quality - the interpolation filter. This is used to manufacture samples that don't exist in the original sampling. This is usually where designers claim all their specialities. For example, Linn in their DS products don't use the DAC interpolation, but their own design of interpolation and noise shaping digital filters. Whether this is different / better is probably a mute point. I think it is very much a low level effect. -- DaveWr DaveWr's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9331 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
cfraser;694561 Wrote: I don't think we want to go down that dung-strewn path again, so by all means read it all and try what you want and form your own opinion. My favorite and most-used setup is all the TT3.0 defaults EXCEPT with a 5k buffer and Logitech priorities. My second favorite, and what I believe to be the most accurate setup of those presented here (as best as I can test), is the TT3.0 default and everything Klaus, except with a 4k buffer for here. [There has never been a decent explanation here as to why the ALSA buffer size can make such a diff.] I listen to internet radio quite a lot, and so far I have *never* heard the Logitech priorities screw up the audio, whereas I have a few times with stock TT3.0 priorities...so that's another advantage of them for me, besides that I like the sound better (less thin). I am always using an external DAC, and I am astonished what it does to IR via the SBT compared to the IR I get directly via my Denon AVR (this sounds truly dreadful, all other radio from it incl. AM/FM/Sirius does too). I recommend using 2.0 or wait for Klaus to release 4.0 -- also leave the audio buffer mod disabled (with 2.0) -- sckramer CiAudio VDC-SB - Touch (TT 2.0 mods, removed toslink, disconnected screen, buf:2) PSaudio DLIII DAC (Cullen 4 mods) - PSaudio Trio C-100 Amp (Cullen 3 mods) Energy Veritas 2.2i speakers (mundorf silver oil capacitors, inductor, and resistor mods) Martin Logan Depth i (x2) (xover at 35Hz, +2db boost at 20-25Hz) Cardas power cables - PSaudio Duet - Cardas clear light interconnect -- black cat XV-ULTRA digital cable - Audioquest slate biwire spkr cables sckramer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20311 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
bluegaspode;694580 Wrote: I obviously never cared about how DA converters work, based on the paper I now think of thousands of of sinc-producing circuits which all add up to the final waveform. Probably this is not how it works in practice but this a missing link for me now to agree that Nyquist theorem and good circuits is all that we need. We have to do away with a huge misunderstanding here, I believe. This article is NOT about how a DAC should work, which technology is best and what kind of limitations practical recording and playing equipment may have. All of this has nothing, really NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. It just doesn't matter how good or bad the DAC or the ADC or the speaker or the microphone is. All of this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the storage format for the music. All that Nyquist/Shannon says is: if you have a frequency X, which is the maximum frequency you are interested in (here: the highest frequency you could probably ever hear), then if you use a sampling frequency of 2*X to store your sampled data, then ALL information contained in the signals below X will be in included in the information you store. There is NO additional information you get by using a higher sampling frequency. Nothing. All you get is additional information about frequencies ABOVE X but not below, the information on the frequencies below X is already there and it's complete. What we have to understand here, is that this has nothing to do with any imperfections in the recording or playback process, these will of course be there, but if your recording is crap, i won't get better just because you STORE more of it and at a higher sample rate. And if your DAC is distorting, then it will not get any better just because you throw higher frequencies at it - to the contrary, the article implies it's getting actually WORSE because of effects letting distortions from the higher frequencies leak into the lower frequency spectrum. To be clear: this is NOT missing information that was just not recorded due to the low sample rate, it's DISTORTED information due to the bad reproduction process in the DAC. What the article does NOT say is that it doesn't make sense to use different sample rates or sample sizes for processing. It can make sense to use something different while processing your data, for example because of limitations of the technology you use. A good example is the 24 bit sample size used in the Squeezebox internally. This makes perfect sense because what the Squeezebox does is it does digital processing to change the volume. If you stick to 16 bit data, you would get rounding errors and information losses due to this processing that you can avoid if you go to 24 bit in processing. But it does NOT mean, that anything gets better if the data you throw at it is already 24 bit. To use a somewhat different analogy: When a bank calculates interest, it will use 4 additional digits behind the cent (so 1$ is 1.00 for them). Why? Because if you get, for example, 1% of interest for your dollar per year and that interest is paid monthly, the monthly interest you get would amount to 0.00 0833 ct. If you round that, you just get 0 so you would never get any interest which would be plain wrong because to calculate things right, they will have to pay you 1 ct per year. HOWEVER, they will never actually PAY you 0.0833 ct because there is no such thing. and your Dollar doesn't get any different just because you write it as 1.00 $, it's still exactly the same thing as 1$ and actually everything behind the last cent digit has no meaning at all (or it would already be a rounding error). Likewise, nobody says that there will be no way to invent some fancy technology that does a more accurate recording of the analog audio signal at 2 MHz sample rate and this can be superior to a 16 bit 44.1 kHz microphone. HOWEVER: If you then take the digital output of that hypothetical processor and down-convert it to 44.1 kHz samplerate audio, then for all frequencies below 22.05 kHz, there will be NO, not even the slightest loss of information. So it doesn't make sense to STORE and TRANSMIT the data at higher frequencies. There are a few good arguments for 48 kHz, most notably that since it's common to use 96kHz or 192 kHz equipment in processing (remember: it can STILL make a lot of sense to do PROCESSING at higher frequencies, especially in the digital domain) you get pretty much simplified up/downsampling logic. I can't argue about 24 vs. 16 bit, that does indeed depend on the actual dynamic range you can record and reproduce and I don't know where technology is here, purely from an information theory standpoint, 24 bit word size DOES contain more information than 16 bit word size, that's different from the sample rate thing. Now there is a third thing, and that's the trust your ears thing. 1. Yes, you should, because in the end it's all that matters 2. Normal people do that but as of my
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
sckramer;694591 Wrote: .also --unsolder the toslink!-- this made a very big difference relative to everything in this scope of things can you elaborate how you did this. May be a pic -- lake_eleven lake_eleven's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=48979 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192 downsampling when decoding at server side
Cache miss rates would be the same or lower with flac. In the end you are processing the same amount of data and it's a lot and it's size is determined by the DECODED file size, the ENCODED file size is lower with flac and you actually have to process all of it, even if wav is just a raw pcm stream. So if your rationale holds, wav must be worse than flac. -- pippin --- see iPeng, the Squeezebox iPhone remote and *New: iPeng for iPad*, at penguinlovesmusic.com pippin's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13777 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93970 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
cfraser;694561 Wrote: I don't think we want to go down that dung-strewn path again, so by all means read it all and try what you want and form your own opinion. My favorite and most-used setup is all the TT3.0 defaults EXCEPT with a 5k buffer and Logitech priorities. My second favorite, and what I believe to be the most accurate setup of those presented here (as best as I can test), is the TT3.0 default and everything Klaus, except with a 4k buffer for here. [There has never been a decent explanation here as to why the ALSA buffer size can make such a diff.] I listen to internet radio quite a lot, and so far I have *never* heard the Logitech priorities screw up the audio, whereas I have a few times with stock TT3.0 priorities...so that's another advantage of them for me, besides that I like the sound better (less thin). I am always using an external DAC, and I am astonished what it does to IR via the SBT compared to the IR I get directly via my Denon AVR (this sounds truly dreadful, all other radio from it incl. AM/FM/Sirius does too). Thanks, guys... and please allow me a very dumb question. Can you give me some brief instructions or point me to the right thread as to how this priority tweak is done? I was lost amidst the hundreds of threads about it (mostly about tweaks of the values) and can't locate where the instructions began (i.e. commands or modifying the files) Thanks. -- eduardoo eduardoo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=25850 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192 downsampling when decoding at server side
...and connected to an outboard DAC of good quality, not much left of any plausible mechanism for this to happen all other mechanism not related to anything electrical or audio are still overwhelmingly more plausible. Leaves electrical noise , not even jitter ( as almost everything any of us own have lower jitter levels than is commonly agreed to be humanly audible by a factor 100 or more ) tiny differences in jitter in a product that does not have fantastic but ok values science fiction if anyone detects those ? And noise levels why would they differ significantly ? -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93970 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
Thanks pippin . It is not about specific techniques let's assume that it is sota the best 192k stuff is used during mastering and playback I to so tries to make this point if we just leave bithdept depth aside for a while . Ponder for a moment that no analog signal recorded had any content above 24 kHz Then a 48k signal and a 192k signal would contain exactly the same signal it would reconstruct to exactly the same wave form you would not even forensically be able to tell them apart . What is said is that a digital signal has the necessary data to completely describe any signal at fs/2. this includes the time domain there is a fallacy to believe that the content between samples are lost that there is an inaccuracy of +_ 1/fs this is false. So arguments for higher fs necessary implies that it should be any merit of playing back ultrasonics . There may be 1000's of reason for a studio or DAW software to operate at any level . As pippin and many others say to get that high quality 44.1 or 48 signal any kind of higher fs recording and processing can be involved but that's not really the point , on the contrary employing such methods will probably yield a perfect such signal for all intents and purposes and actually prove the point that fs at 44.1 encodes all info in the frequency domain we can hear. But all beside the point -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
pippin;694598 Wrote: All of this has nothing, really NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. It just doesn't matter how good or bad the DAC or the ADC or the speaker or the microphone is. All of this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the storage format for the music. You are missing my point. It's fundamental that I am asking about how DACs work, because otherwise the Nyquist theorem is of no value in our practical world. To make my argument clear lets go back to circles: I think there is some theory that claims that all data you need to draw a perfect circle is to have it's center point and radius (that would be 2 samples). Without asking how the circle will be drawn later, it is WRONG to just conclude that it doesn't help to record more samples (like 100 points on the perimeter of the circle). Let's say the hardware that is used to draw the circle, is only able to work with a rough estimation of PI (2 instead of 3.14...). The circle that this device would be drawing would be a very bad approximation of the original circle and every graphophile lover of circles would complain. Now in such a scenario you will draw BETTER circles with 100 samples of points on the perimeter and even better circles with 1000 samples of points on the perimeter. So as long as a DAC (or the reproduction filter) isn't working with good enough sinc waveforms the Nyquist theory remains just a nice theory. Maybe you all know so much more about DACs than me, that you are not questioning the sinc functions in your DAC anymore. But I am :) ... and maybe also many audiophiles that read that article, so don't stop at claiming 'Nyquist is enough, there is no more to talk about'. If you want to prove that in nowadays world higher samplerates don't help you cannot stop at Nyquist but you need to go all the way to the loudspeaker. You are exactly right - virtually all modern DACs are multibit delta-sigma DACs. These bring another filter that does affect sound quality - the interpolation filter. This is used to manufacture samples that don't exist in the original sampling. Uhh ohhh. And why is this better than just using on of the original samples if I had the double sample rate? Or are we in DAC snake oil territory already when it comes to creating interpolation filters that invent some new samples? -- bluegaspode Did you know: *'SqueezePlayer' (www.squeezeplayer.com)* will stream all your music to your Android device. Take your music everywhere! Remote Control + Streaming to your iPad? *'Squeezebox + iPad = SqueezePad ' (www.squeezepad.com)* Want to see a Weather Forecast on your Radio/Touch/Controller ? = why not try my 'Weather Forecast Applet' (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=73827) Want to use the Headphones with your Controller ? = why not try my 'Headphone Switcher Applet' (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=67139) bluegaspode's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=31651 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] 192kHz considered harmful
bluegaspode;694626 Wrote: Let's say the hardware that is used to draw the circle, is only able to work with a rough estimation of PI (2 instead of 3.14...). The circle that this device would be drawing would be a very bad approximation of the original circle and every graphophile lover of circles would complain. Now in such a scenario you will draw BETTER circles with 100 samples of points on the perimeter and even better circles with 1000 samples of points on the perimeter. Sorry, but that's nonsense. We are talking about digital information processing here. If your hardware that does the drawing of the circle only can use rough approximations, you need to convert your perfect circle (center plus radius) to whatever strange approximation your machine needs to draw a good circle. All you need for that is a computer that understands pi and how to do a perfect circle from the center point and the radius (and of course your machine's limitation). The information (center point and radius) is still complete. There is nothing else you will ever need to describe it. Even worse. What you are postulating assumes that a WORSE representation of the circle could actually lead to better results through a process that involves that the CREATOR of the limited approximation actually has a better understanding of the limitations of your reproduction machine than that machine itself (because it's creating a worse approximation of the circle to assist the latter's reproduction process). Actually a pretty accurate description of a lot of stuff being done in audio but still by no means sensible. So as long as a DAC (or the reproduction filter) isn't working with good enough sinc waveforms the Nyquist theory remains just a nice theory. No, that, too, is wrong. The theory is correct. Just because your filter is bad doesn't mean that any different data will serve it better. Worse. Now you need to do an end-to-end optimization just to avoid using perfect information. Doesn't make sense and will certainly not work. Maybe you all know so much more about DACs than me, that you are not questioning the sinc functions in your DAC anymore. No, we have understood Shannon and so we know it's two completely separate problems. Again (that's what I wrote above): if your DAC needs something else than 44.1/16, it can CREATE IT FROM THAT. There is no issue with upsampling 44.1/16 to 12.3GHz@486 bits if that's what your DAC needs. There will not be any information loss. But you gain exactly nothing from transmitting and storing data in that format. -- pippin --- see iPeng, the Squeezebox iPhone remote and *New: iPeng for iPad*, at penguinlovesmusic.com pippin's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13777 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93990 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
