I rarely get to see/hear serious audiophile setups but this evening I
was at a party in NYC and the hosts had some pretty serious kit, I
thought you folks might help me identify some of the stuff and give me
an idea of how it ranks? Feel free to flame :) Apparently the man of
the house reviews for
The first Verdi which upsampled was the Verdi la Scala. When I was in
communication with dCS in England, they also referred to the Verdi
Encore: an upsampling Verdi with digital inputs. At the time I couldn't
see why I would want one and it cost extra, so I didn't follow it up.
--
Ciaran
--
My setup includes a DCS Verdi transport, Purcell upsampler, Elgar Plus
DAC and a Verona clock. All the units are connected to the Verona clock
and my plan is to connect the TP to the Verona clock, this seems to make
sence.
Also after talking to the Tech at Audiophile Systems, the distributor
of
read this:
http://www.wolfsonmicro.com/uploads/documents/ADC_Paper_v1.1.pdf
Clive's point is correct about ADC's running (internally) at high
sampling rates. Prior to the modern ADC chip, an analogue filter is
always used to roll-off extreme high frequencies. This is benign
because it is simple
cliveb wrote:
> Nobody uses analogue filters at 22.05kHz during A/D these days.
Because all those brickwall filters were evil, EVIL.
They completely screwed up the phase down into 10kHz. Maybe way lower.
Too evil to think about using.
--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/
___
mvalera;314923 Wrote:
> audible garbage due to the downsampling.
I think the phrase you're looking for is aliasing artefacts ;)
--
adamslim
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have
others
SB+, EAR V20, Living Voice OBX-R2s plus some other stuff
SB3, Charlize, Harb
I've never tried it, but I believe in a conversation I had with Sean he
said there was audible garbage due to the downsampling.
The downsampling is only there so you can hear... something. Officially
24/96 is NOT supported by the Squeezebox line.
Mike
--
mvalera
Michael Valera
Online Commun
Rodney_Gold;314908 Wrote:
> Well , to my knowledge it has to be a brickwall filter at 22.5khz , I
> cant see how it can be benign
Nobody uses analogue filters at 22.05kHz during A/D these days. All
ADCs sample at quite high rates precisely so the anti-aliasing filter
can run at high frequencies,
Well , to my knowledge it has to be a brickwall filter at 22.5khz , I
cant see how it can be benign , it surely has to affect frequencies in
the audible spectrum to some extent as per
ccrma.stanford.edu/courses/192a/Sampling.pdf
Anti-Alias Filters:
In order to prevent aliasing, we must remove
Rodney_Gold;314884 Wrote:
> Surely there is also a filter implemented in the AD processor , to cut
> any frequencys above 1/2 the sampling rate?
yes but as this is a (relatively benign) high-order analogue filter
that is merely removing high frequencies prior to the ADC itself, it
isn't going to
Pale Blue Ego wrote:
> Isn't the
> current SB3/SBR limitation only due to CPU or buffer memory limits?
perhaps both, Sean said CPU cycles aren't there. faster/wider takes more
memory and cpu even if the DAC can handle it. Given the tremendous
pressure on keeping prices down, its not at all clear
Surely there is also a filter implemented in the AD processor , to cut
any frequencys above 1/2 the sampling rate?
--
Rodney_Gold
Sb3/Z-sys RDP1/meridian DSP5500's
TP/X-cans v3/Senns 650's
TP/TACT 2.0/SCM 50a's
TP/Meridian DSP5000's
"The nicest thing about smacking your head against the wall i
adamslim;314776 Wrote:
> I think it's highly unlikely that it will ever support 24/96. SD
> designed the TP for audiophiles who wanted that kind of thing - I can't
> even see why they would want to put into their cheapest product.
Because most audio chips already handle 24/96, there's no reason
Rodney_Gold;314859 Wrote:
> I was under the impression that High sample rate recording is not to
> preserve inaudible sonics , its so that anti aliasing filters are much
> higher up in the freq scale and thus dont impact or lessen the impact
> at audible frequencies?
if you are talking about the
I was under the impression that High sample rate recording is not to
preserve inaudible sonics , its so that anti aliasing filters are much
higher up in the freq scale and thus dont impact or lessen the impact
at audible frequencies?
--
Rodney_Gold
Sb3/Z-sys RDP1/meridian DSP5500's
TP/X-cans v
pfarrell;314840 Wrote:
> Phil Leigh wrote:
> > There is little to be recorded at 20khz never mind 24... in the past
> > very very few tape machines (or tapes) could get flat past
> 22khz...and
> > the mics were rolling off there as well. Modern mics and digital
> > recorders can go much higher...
Nonreality;314779 Wrote:
> Are you saying that these reviews are making suckers part with their
> money faster? You have to be kidding. I would think that anyone that
> was considering getting one is probably looking in a different
> direction. Oh and I do know some will buy them regardless.
It
I solved my "problem" with an attenuator made with 2 resistors. I didn't
know that this does not affect the sound. Thank you all for your
thoughts.
--
Amauta
SlimServer 6.3.1 on Celeron 1400MHz/256MB Clarkconnect headless pc. 2x
SB2.
Phil Leigh wrote:
> There is little to be recorded at 20khz never mind 24... in the past
> very very few tape machines (or tapes) could get flat past 22khz...and
> the mics were rolling off there as well. Modern mics and digital
> recorders can go much higher...
I'm not sure what you mean by "mode
cliveb;314821 Wrote:
> My point wasn't whether stuff up above 20kHz is audible. Rather it is
> that if you downsample without pre-filtering, then anything that was
> present in the original at a frequency above the Nyquist rate for the
> new sample rate will be aliased down into the audible range
Phil Leigh;314785 Wrote:
> Modern mics and digital recorders can go much higher...but there's just
> harmonics from cymbals, brass and stuff up there...and we won't hear it
> anyway.
>
> 48/24 sounds great on the Linn masters. To me they sound no different
> to the 88.2 version.
My point wasn't
slimkid;314810 Wrote:
> Well, I ... kind of.
>
> When I was playing with 24/96, it happened that sometimes SB would play
> 96 fine and sometimes it would have loud clicks and cracks (similar to
> what you hear from CD player when CD is damaged or from up sampling DAC
> when fed with the sample r
Phil Leigh;314807 Wrote:
> I have yet to hear of anyone who can aurally distinguish between the
> "discard every other sample" method used by the SB and using (say)
> Audacity to downsample with a "proper" algorithm.
> Anyone disagree?
Well, I ... kind of.
When I was playing with 24/96, it happ
I have yet to hear of anyone who can aurally distinguish between the
"discard every other sample" method used by the SB and using (say)
Audacity to downsample with a "proper" algorithm.
Anyone disagree?
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't wha
Ha! What an excellent bit of lateral thinking! Why didn't I think of
that?
Many thanks.
--
pieronip
pieronip's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7653
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.co
Given that disc space is cheap, I would opt for keeping the hi-res files
outside your main music library, and using Foobar to perform a once only
downsample as a copy of the original file which you put in your music
library. That way you keep the load on the server to a minimum, with no
on-the-fly
Hi
Apologies (and let me know) if this is the wrong area for this
question.
I understand the the SB3 does not really handle 24/96 properly but just
drops every second sample at the SB3 to get a somewhat butchered 48 KHz
stream.
I also understand (I think) that for better fidelity one can do pro
cliveb;314781 Wrote:
> Others have already pointed out the various limitations in sample rate
> support on the SBR.
>
> But the subtext of the original post is rather more interesting. What's
> being said here is that a system with dCS gear (ie. state of the art)
> does NOT expose the fact that
There is/was a version of the DAC-AH which had an op-amp output stage.
You can achieve a useful increase in fidelity and a significant
reduction in output level by removing the op-amps amd related power
decoupling components and taking the output directly from the I/V
resistor via high quality ca
Phil Leigh;314660 Wrote:
> PC's use heavy duty switching supplies that are NOT designed for audio
> niceness. They are designed to be cheap and powerful. It is possible
> that your mains filtering is having trouble dealing with this (or it
> could be airborne EMI that your filters wont touch anyw
tobyjug;314736 Wrote:
> Does anyone know if Logitech will be releasing a receiver with up to
> 96khz on the digital output. I have some Linn files that are 24/96 and
> the SB3 is downsampling them to 24/48 which going through the dCS
> Purcell (upsampling to 192) and Delius sound extreamly good.
nuhi;314567 Wrote:
> I am interested how much did they sell because of this much publicity.
>
> Audible tests of any cable, be it even analog, showed that there is no
> difference but still people buy them and this one won't be any
> different, you are just making them a favor.
Are you saying th
tobyjug;314736 Wrote:
> I know the transporter outputs at 96 but it would be a waste of money
> when I have the dCS kit any I haven't got any where near that kind of
> money.
Wow - the TP is too expensive compared to your dCS kit? You steal it?
;)
The Receiver is very similar to the SB3; I thi
33 matches
Mail list logo
