blessingx;206138 Wrote:
Heuer, mind if I ask what do you mean 'by every other sample'?
Non-24/96?
Sounds like a quick and dirty downsample to 24/48.
--
sxr71
sxr71's Profile:
sxr71;420155 Wrote:
Sounds like a quick and dirty downsample to 24/48.
Those older posts are no longer accurate as 24/96 material is now
properly downsampled in SqueezeCenter for the SB3 by a Sox application.
MS
--
MadScientist
seanadams;402127 Wrote:
If you find a reduction of hum when connecting SBR to earth ground,
this indicates a problem with the amplifier. If the amplifier is not
using the shield of its RCA connectors as a reference for the signal
ground, that is a serious defect! Earth ground from the
MadScientist;420164 Wrote:
Those older posts are no longer accurate as 24/96 material is now
properly downsampled in SqueezeCenter for the SB3 by a Sox application.
MS
Very true... and possibly as a result, very few people are even
claiming to be able to hear any difference between real
mswlogo;420252 Wrote:
files shoiuld not get that huge if they are just zeros as I would expect
compression to remove most of it.
If a DAC does some processing like dither and you tell it, it's 24bit
when it's really 16bits of data it will skip it or do an improper job.
If you run with
files shoiuld not get that huge if they are just zeros as I would expect
compression to remove most of it.
If a DAC does some processing like dither and you tell it, it's 24bit
when it's really 16bits of data it will skip it or do an improper job.
If you run with fixed volume and all your
Phil Leigh;420279 Wrote:
Even with fixed volume, its still 24-bit out of the SB...
If it's 16bit in with fixed volume it's essentially 16bit out.
Least Significant Bits will be 0, and that's what you are basically
telling the DAC, to ignore the 0's.
If SB didn't allow 16bit bit-perfect
seanadams;420350 Wrote:
ZIP might, but audio compression works differently. FLAC for eample has
a run-length block type but that is to deal with identical samples, i.e.
digital silence. There's no case to handle this kind of pattern and I
don't see why you'd want one - if you think that
mswlogo;420356 Wrote:
Sorry Sean the files will come out about the same. It does recognize
essentially zero net new content. A huffman code scheme would do it.
I did flac to flac to assure it's using the same version of flac.
I did flac to 24bit wav to flac (same compression level default
Mnyb;420361 Wrote:
This must be a good strategy for saving space. Before the loudness war,
there could be CD's that didn't use all 16bit's all the time ? If this
so called subblocks (how many ms of sound is this ?) gets coded
according to their actual bit depth, this must be a part of
seanadams;420359 Wrote:
Interesting... although I'm still not clear as to why it works. FLAC
uses rice coding on a sample-by-sample basis, not a general
byte-at-a-time huffman/dictionary/window scheme (which would be useless
for audio). Makes me wonder if it's handled as a special case...
mswlogo;420364 Wrote:
That's cool. Did I earn a 2nd look by you at the ac power overflow
thingy in the transporter :) i.e.
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=49157
Yes, I saw your post - a real bugger that one, I thought we'd seen the
last of it...
--
seanadams
12 matches
Mail list logo
