Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
amcluesent;216839 Wrote: 96/24 is confusing! As the GBP:USD rate is so good, I d/l Symphonie Fantastique as a FLAC from HighDefTapeTransfers.com (Meta tags were non-existant BTW). Thank you for the tip to this place! I've never seen the point of paying to d/l crappy compressed music before. Now at least I can see a reason to pa yto d/l, I'll give this place a go. Must be a moral in there for the record companies in there somewhere! -- ermine ermine's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12613 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
DCtoDaylight;216936 Wrote: The attraction of 96K Sampling (not up sampling) over 44.1K sampling, is that it moves the brick wall filter from 22.05 kHz to 48 kHz. This can have audible benefits, because the 22kHz filter usually has measurable affects in the audible pass band. Move the filter to 48k and the effects are outside of the audible portion of the pass band. Oversampling on playback allows similar movement of the re-construction filter, and has been used by all playback systems for 20 years now (recall 4x or 8x oversampling, or 176K or 352K to keep the same scale). Usually, its used to allow a low order re-construction filter (ie, the reconstruction filter does NOT have to be a brick wall design, 3-4th order is usually enough). Upsampling is a term used by some to describe what they feel is a better oversampling algorithm, but the cold fact of the matter is that there's really no difference to the two. They are both changing the data rate, but neither is really capable of recreating what has been lost by the original anti-aliasing filter. Even if you knew exactly how to compensate for the audible affects of the anti-aliasing filter in one studio's A/D, it wouldn't necessarily work for another. Hope this doesn't just confuse things more! Cheers, Dave Thanks for the response Dave. I guess I need one more point of clarification: you mention there is no difference between upsampling and oversampling, but I though there is one key difference in that upsampling is done completely in the digital domain upstream from the DAC (as is the case with my Behringer SRC2496). -- Videodrome Two-channel System: SB3, into Musiland MD-10 DAC; Outlaw 970 Pre/Pro; McCormack DNA-125 amplifier; Quad 11L speakers; Sota Sapphire ttbl. w/ Grado Ref. Platinum Cart. into Rolls Bellari VP-129 tube phono stage; Marantz 10b; Nakamichi RX505; Cables Used: DH Labs, Van den Hul, Distech, Monster, many more. Videodrome's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11727 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
Videodrome;217008 Wrote: I thought there is one key difference in that upsampling is done completely in the digital domain upstream from the DAC (as is the case with my Behringer SRC2496). Sorry no, both upsampling and oversampling are done completely in the digital domain. Where exactly it's done is hardware dependent. Older hardware tends to split the oversampling and actual Digital to Analog Conversion (DAC) into two chips, for example my Sonic Frontiers DAC uses a Pacific Microsonics HDCD filter chip to do the upsampling, and a Burr Brown DAC chip to do the actual digital to analog conversion. Newer hardware, like an SB3 or Transporter has a more complicated DAC chip which performs both functions internally. But regardless of the hardware, in both cases the oversampling is done in the digital domain, before the conversion to analog. Cheers, Dave -- DCtoDaylight DCtoDaylight's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7284 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
Pale Blue Ego;216120 Wrote: Download one or more of these. They are 24/96 FLAC files: http://01688cb.netsolhost.com/samplerdownload/ I tried these on my SB3 more out of curiosity than anything else. They play fine, but I noticed my AV Receiver was receiving PCM 44.1Khz from the SB3. My AV Receiver supports 96Khz so I am assuming that the SB3 only outputs at 44.1Khz or is there something else I have missed? Also I can't play them on my Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS in Windows with FLAC or Winamp, they play but there is no sound? The Audigy is supposed to support 24/96 isnt it? I had that output in Vista set at 24Bit, 96Khz. Thanks, Mike -- stormy stormy's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11910 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
stormy;216774 Wrote: I tried these on my SB3 more out of curiosity than anything else. They play fine, but I noticed my AV Receiver was receiving PCM 44.1Khz from the SB3. My AV Receiver supports 96Khz so I am assuming that the SB3 only outputs at 44.1Khz or is there something else I have missed? The SB3 drops every other sample and plays them as 24/48kHz. Not sure why your receiver is displaying 44.1. Look at the track info (--) on the SB3 as it plays, it should give you the bit depth and sampling rate. I'm able to play them on the PC using Foobar2000 through a Turtle Beach soundcard on Windows2000. I have no experience with Soundblaster or Vista. -- Pale Blue Ego Pale Blue Ego's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=110 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
96/24 is confusing! As the GBP:USD rate is so good, I d/l Symphonie Fantastique as a FLAC from HighDefTapeTransfers.com (Meta tags were non-existant BTW). It played fine on my SB3 and TP, reporting 96k on both; I assume the SB3 was silently dropping samples/bits (It also played fine on foobar2000). Assuming the TP was doing 96/24 'for real', my 100% subjective experience with no control sample was that this encoding did convey the physical intensity of a symphony orchestra going a full tilt in a way that I hadn't experienced with 'red book' rips. -- amcluesent amcluesent's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10286 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
amcluesent;216839 Wrote: 96/24 is confusing! As the GBP:USD rate is so good, I d/l Symphonie Fantastique as a FLAC from HighDefTapeTransfers.com (Meta tags were non-existant BTW). It played fine on my SB3 and TP, reporting 96k on both; I assume the SB3 was silently dropping samples/bits (It also played fine on foobar2000). Assuming the TP was doing 96/24 'for real', my 100% subjective experience with no control sample was that this encoding did convey the physical intensity of a symphony orchestra going a full tilt in a way that I hadn't experienced with 'red book' rips. But was there a really big difference between the SB and tp playback? I ask because in my experience 96 v 44.1 is neither here nor there, whereas 16 v 24 can be heard quite easily. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... ...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of the attraction to 96K upsampling to reduce the brick wall effect of filtering at or near 44.1 kHz? And thus by doing so, better / smoother filtering occurs? With less aliasing, quantization noise, etc.? Now, unlike the most of you, I'm NOT a computer guy. Nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I may be missing the boat here. I can tell you, however, I recently added a SRC Behringer 2496 to the digital stream before my DAC and, at 24/96 upsampling, I like what I hear. Also, what's the mathematical magic to upsampling to 88kHz vs. 96kHz. Are bits really that OCD? -- Videodrome Two-channel System: SB3, into Musiland MD-10 DAC; Outlaw 970 Pre/Pro; McCormack DNA-125 amplifier; Quad 11L speakers; Sota Sapphire ttbl. w/ Grado Ref. Platinum Cart. into Rolls Bellari VP-129 tube phono stage; Marantz 10b; Nakamichi RX505; Cables Used: DH Labs, Van den Hul, Distech, Monster, many more. Videodrome's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11727 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
Videodrome;216862 Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of the attraction to 96K upsampling to reduce the brick wall effect of filtering at or near 44.1 kHz? And thus by doing so, better / smoother filtering occurs? With less aliasing, quantization noise, etc.? Now, unlike the most of you, I'm NOT a computer guy. Nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I may be missing the boat here. I can tell you, however, I recently added a SRC Behringer 2496 to the digital stream before my DAC and, at 24/96 upsampling, I like what I hear. Also, what's the mathematical magic to upsampling to 88kHz vs. 96kHz. Are bits really that OCD? realtime44.1 to 96 is computationaly more tricky and requires decisions whereas 44.1 to 88.2 is simply doubling... All of it rather pointless IMHO when the DAC will do it internally anyway (usually to 384, 768 or even higher) YMMV -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... ...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
But was there a really big difference between the SB and tp playback? I never A-Bed them, I was just wondering if the SB3 would work at all. IIRC Sean has posted that 96k on the SB3 was a hack he regretted doing at all. SB3 and TP analogue outs sound way different IMHO, like going from 320k MP3 to FLAC. -- amcluesent amcluesent's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10286 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
Videodrome;216862 Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of the attraction to 96K upsampling to reduce the brick wall effect of filtering at or near 44.1 kHz? The attraction of 96K Sampling (not up sampling) over 44.1K sampling, is that it moves the brick wall filter from 22.05 kHz to 48 kHz. This can have audible benefits, because the 22kHz filter usually has measurable affects in the audible pass band. Move the filter to 48k and the effects are outside of the audible portion of the pass band. Oversampling on playback allows similar movement of the re-construction filter, and has been used by all playback systems for 20 years now (recall 4x or 8x oversampling, or 176K or 352K to keep the same scale). Usually, its used to allow a low order re-construction filter (ie, the reconstruction filter does NOT have to be a brick wall design, 3-4th order is usually enough). Upsampling is a term used by some to describe what they feel is a better oversampling algorithm, but the cold fact of the matter is that there's really no difference to the two. They are both changing the data rate, but neither is really capable of recreating what has been lost by the original anti-aliasing filter. Even if you knew exactly how to compensate for the audible affects of the anti-aliasing filter in one studio's A/D, it wouldn't necessarily work for another. Hope this doesn't just confuse things more! Cheers, Dave -- DCtoDaylight DCtoDaylight's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7284 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
It might have been the SB3 whose CPU bogged down with the higher compression rates. Using a compression level of 0 or 1 was the solution. The Transporter has a faster CPU and bigger buffer, so it should be unaffected by the higher FLAC compression levels. -- Pale Blue Ego Pale Blue Ego's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=110 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
Pale Blue Ego;216529 Wrote: The Transporter has a faster CPU and bigger buffer, so it should be unaffected by the higher FLAC compression levels. It does have a faster CPU, 325 Mhz (?) but it's mostly to power the second screen. I do not believe it has a bigger buffer though, or if it does the wiki should be updated: http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?HardwareComparison 25 Mb buffer. You have to go to great lengths to get it to choke. You must use FLAC level = 8, ReplayGain and the full-spectrum visualizer at the same time. See http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=4463 -- Mark Lanctot 'Sean Adams' Response-O-Matic checklist, patent pending!' (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=200910postcount=2) Mark Lanctot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
Thanks to all for the interest. I think Phil is correct on my problem. My Goldwave 96/24 file may not have a proper header. I built it by taking a 44/16 wav CD song ripped with dbPowerAmp, and then used Goldwave to resample it to 96/24. The new file would not play on Transporter. I later to the same 96/24 file and converted it to FLAC with dbpoweramp, and the FLAC file played fine. Then I took the FLAC file and rebuilt the 96/24 WAV with dbpoweramp, and now it plays fine as well. So I bet I just need to figure out the header differences and I'll be in business. My ultimate goal is to use some upsampling software I wrote to take 44/16 WAV and upsample to 96/24. I use some methods with my upsampling algorithms that I believe smooth out the sound and make it sound more analog-vinyl like. I already do that now upsampling to 192/24 then burning to DVD-A for playback. It sounds fantastic, but I'm getting tired of DVD burning and want to leave the music on my hard drives. So I will re-write the code to do 96/24 as well. Thanks again. -- dudeymon dudeymon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12453 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
dudeymon;216368 Wrote: Thanks to all for the interest. I think Phil is correct on my problem. My Goldwave 96/24 file may not have a proper header. I built it by taking a 44/16 wav CD song ripped with dbPowerAmp, and then used Goldwave to resample it to 96/24. The new file would not play on Transporter. I later to the same 96/24 file and converted it to FLAC with dbpoweramp, and the FLAC file played fine. Then I took the FLAC file and rebuilt the 96/24 WAV with dbpoweramp, and now it plays fine as well. So I bet I just need to figure out the header differences and I'll be in business. My ultimate goal is to use some upsampling software I wrote to take 44/16 WAV and upsample to 96/24. I use some methods with my upsampling algorithms that I believe smooth out the sound and make it sound more analog-vinyl like. I already do that now upsampling to 192/24 then burning to DVD-A for playback. It sounds fantastic, but I'm getting tired of DVD burning and want to leave the music on my hard drives. So I will re-write the code to do 96/24 as well. Thanks again. If you really want it to sound like vinyl, I suggest you restrict the frequency response and dynamic range, add some low level low and high frequency noise and the odd random click plus random speed variations - that should get you pretty close. :o) Seriously, upsampling is not going to add anything - especially to 96 or 192 which aren't even simple multiples of 44.1. I really don't understand why anyone wants to do this. DAC's upsample internally anyway - at least modern ones do. Just my 2 cents worth. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... ...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
Phil Leigh;216378 Wrote: If you really want it to sound like vinyl, I suggest you restrict the frequency response and dynamic range, add some low level low and high frequency noise and the odd random click plus random speed variations - that should get you pretty close. :o) Seriously, upsampling is not going to add anything - especially to 96 or 192 which aren't even simple multiples of 44.1. I really don't understand why anyone wants to do this. DAC's upsample internally anyway - at least modern ones do. Just my 2 cents worth. I'm OK with your opinion. I just think I can do upsampling better than most of the DACs do, that's all. I'm not using linear extrapolation or numeric transformations, but instead trying to emulate what I think a top flight turntable/cartridge would present in a continuous waveform. As far not adding anything, I think you are wrong. I can clearly hear more subtle details in the music with my upsampling. Even simple dithering techniques have been shown to bring out finer details in music that could not be easily discerned before the dithering was applied. This fact has been generally accepted for several years. I don't want to start another evil-war thread here, so please don't flame me if you think strongly otherwise. -- dudeymon dudeymon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12453 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
dudeymon;216391 Wrote: I'm OK with your opinion. I just think I can do upsampling better than most of the DACs do, that's all. I'm not using linear extrapolation or numeric transformations, but instead trying to emulate what I think a top flight turntable/cartridge would present in a continuous waveform. As far not adding anything, I think you are wrong. I can clearly hear more subtle details in the music with my upsampling. Even simple dithering techniques have been shown to bring out finer details in music that could not be easily discerned before the dithering was applied. This fact has been generally accepted for several years. I don't want to start another evil-war thread here, so please don't flame me if you think strongly otherwise. I don't feel strongly - hence the smiley! I never want flame wars. But...dithering and upsampling are rather different techniques... Dithering has some basis in science (sort of). Also - I'm sure you would agree that there is NO way that upsampling can add accurate information - all it can do is interpolate, which is simply a guess and NOT real data! -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... ...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
Phil Leigh;216394 Wrote: Also - I'm sure you would agree that there is NO way that upsampling can add accurate information - all it can do is interpolate, which is simply a guess and NOT real data! You're right - there is no way of adding back accurate information. It's always a guess. But, if I can make a pretty good guess - based on a thorough analysis of the samples I do have before and after the gap, I can potentially provide additional information that, while not accurate, may be better than no additional information at all. At least, that's my goal. -- dudeymon dudeymon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12453 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
dudeymon;216395 Wrote: You're right - there is no way of adding back accurate information. It's always a guess. But, if I can make a pretty good guess - based on a thorough analysis of the samples I do have before and after the gap, I can potentially provide additional information that, while not accurate, may be better than no additional information at all. At least, that's my goal. I see. Interesting. I agree that IF (and it is a big if) you could acurately calculate the interim values that would be a good thing. However, my experience is that the sampling frequency )above 44.1khz) is not really important to perceived quality - but the bit depth is. If you could interpolate intelligently from 16 bit to 24 bit that would be great - even at 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... ...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
dudeymon, why don't you try a 24/88.2 upconverted file on your transporter? You might get a cleaner conversion by sticking with a strict 2x multiple on the sample rate. Just a thought. Also, I would use FLACs instead of WAVs, for savings of space, bandwidth, and the ability to tag. -- Pale Blue Ego Pale Blue Ego's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=110 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
Pale Blue Ego;216405 Wrote: dudeymon, why don't you try a 24/88.2 upconverted file on your transporter? You might get a cleaner conversion by sticking with a strict 2x multiple on the sample rate. Just a thought. Also, I would use FLACs instead of WAVs, for savings of space, bandwidth, and the ability to tag.I've thought about 88.2/24, and will try it and compare to 96/24. I'll let you know what I find. My algorithm upsamples to 441K/32b. Then I work down to whatever sampling frequency I want. So the 88.1 vs 96 won't matter much to my code I don't think. But we'll see. Regarding FLAC, I've heard others say that the transporter has some problems decoding FLAC with compression levels over 4 or 5. I have no experience either way. Anybody had a problem with FLAC at 96/24? Thanks for the input. -- dudeymon dudeymon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12453 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
Download one or more of these. They are 24/96 FLAC files: http://01688cb.netsolhost.com/samplerdownload/ -- Pale Blue Ego Pale Blue Ego's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=110 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
Thanks - PBE - will download and see what happens. -- dudeymon dudeymon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12453 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
The FLAC file plays fine. Thanks. But shouldn't it play an uncompressed WAV 96/24 as well. I wonder if the lack of compression is overloading the wireless? Have you ever played uncompressed WAV files at 96/24? Thanks. -- dudeymon dudeymon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12453 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
dudeymon;216036 Wrote: I moved my 96K file to a new folder got it to show up in slimserver. But when I try to play the file, it never starts - the browser window just resets over over trying to play it. Again, the file plays fine in Windows. The WAV header is corrupt (or rather, non-standard). There are 2 standards for WAV headers. Only one of them is supported by the SB AFAIK. It's nothing to do with the wireless. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... ...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
I realise this isn't what you were asking, but are these files upsampled (in Goldwave) from 44.1/16 CD rips? -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... ...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped Aktiv 5.1 system and some very expensive cables ;o) Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
I can play 24-bit WAVs on my SB3, but I have a wired connection. Try converting the WAVs to FLAC to save bandwidth. -- Pale Blue Ego Pale Blue Ego's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=110 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
I play uncompressed 96k/24 bit files on my Transporter without problems, using a wired ethernet. When you say they won't play on your wireless network, can you provide a bit more information? If you display the buffer level on the Transporter, does is stay very low? How does this compare to the level when playing 44.1K CD files? Ideally it should stay fairly high, no matter what your source material, but perhaps your wireless network is marginal... -- DCtoDaylight DCtoDaylight's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7284 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
Hi All - Just got my transporter today and starting to use. I have a question about playing 96K/24b WAV files. I have a few resampled files done by Goldwave that play fine using Windows media player and are clearly 96K/24b in the file properties, but I can't get Slimserver to recognize the file for me to play on the Transporter. Does anybody have any sample WAV 96K/24b files they could send me or point me to that do work that I can test with? My guess is that I am doing something wrong or the file is not properly formated by Goldwave. Thanks. Dudeymon -- dudeymon dudeymon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12453 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] New User - Please help with 96K playback
I moved my 96K file to a new folder got it to show up in slimserver. But when I try to play the file, it never starts - the browser window just resets over over trying to play it. Again, the file plays fine in Windows. -- dudeymon dudeymon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12453 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=36986 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
