JohnSwenson;573339 Wrote:
The switching supply that comes with the SB3 is abysmal. It emits large
amounts of EMI and sends copious amounts back into the AC mains. Both
the emitted and AC born noise can wreak havoc with stereo systems.
There is some that does make it into the SB and this
Hi guys.
For now I gave up on doing SRC on wav and pcm.
I also tried flac pcm + SRC.
Non of them I managed to get working so far.
Meanwhile I have converted my entire collection to flac.
This led to below working solution:
This is an adaptation from here:
1) You do need a volume control since otherwise the upsampling will clip
some samples (on certain tracks).
2) Did you try polyphase filter from previous sox release?
--
michael123
michael123's Profile:
iPhone;573319 Wrote:
... Classical and Jazz one has a much better chance. And even a bigger
chance if the 44/16 and 96/24 are not of the same master and the 96/24
is really well engineered. IMO, that is where 96/24 shines. ...
I have the same sort of questions as the original poster. My
Henry66;561879 Wrote:
How do you like your Nova and have you compared the Nova's DAC to your
Squeezebox's DAC?
What speakers are you driving with the Nova?
Sorry I didn't see your question until now. I'm driving Genelec HT208s.
I haven't really made the comparison but I'm happy with how it
Yes--I am looking for specific tracks/recordings where the poster found
the hi-res encoding sounded better than the CD-quality encoding. The
encodings/files would have to have originated from the same hi-res
master or what would be the point? I have lots of CDs that have been
remastered
ncarver;573420 Wrote:
Yes--I am looking for specific tracks/recordings where the poster found
the hi-res encoding sounded better than the CD-quality encoding. The
encodings/files would have to have originated from the same hi-res
master or what would be the point? I have lots of CDs that
Suppose the SAME recording is available for download at 16/44.1 and at
24/88.2 -- that is, a new recording produced at 24/88.2 and
down-sampled to 16/44.1 for a CD or a download.
Question 1: Can I hear a difference? Nature of difference?
Question 2: Assuming that the answer to #1 was Yes, is
iPhone;573423 Wrote:
The point I was making was that some (not all) HiRes files are of
different or better engineered then the 44/16 red book which is the
real reason to get the 96/24 in my mind. I can tell you without any
reservation that it will sound better. This also translates to the
The UniFive ones were certainly not compatible with my AM radios...
The Logitech ones were fine in that respect.
--
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/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W -
This is really easy - just visit the Linn download site - you can see
what the rez of the master is and you can choose to download hi +
normal rez versions.
http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-formats.aspx
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't
Thanks Phil!
Looks they offer a nice sampler
http://www.linnrecords.com/recording-the-super-audio-collection-volume-4.aspx
--
R Johnson
R Johnson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=36462
View
So your real question was is it worth it not if one can hear a
difference?
That is a different question with a different answer. I say only if
your system can take advantage of the additional resolution. And if one
doesn't have a Touch or Transporter to play them in native 96/24, I am
of the
I chucked my Unifive PS because I thought it was defective (knowing what
I know now, might just have been very dirty) and replaced it with a
linear PS I built. All my other SB3s have Logitech PS.
I also don't see anything from the Switcher reaching the analog outs. I
used AudioDiffMaker to
iPhone;573433 Wrote:
So your real question was is it worth it not if one can hear a
difference?
That is a different question with a different answer. I say only if
your system can take advantage of the additional resolution. And if one
doesn't have a Touch or Transporter to play them in
Don´t expect to much. Afaik these latest Linns are mixed that loud it
shouldn´t really matter if 24 or 16 bits. The kHz thingy may be a
different beast.
If you buy one please try to resample the one you think sounds best
with something like sox to 16/44.1
And when you hear it like night and day
I'm not expecting too much. Frankly I don't expect to be able to discern
much difference. I was disappointed that a spectrum graph of the one
24/88.2 album that I bought had a sharp roll-off from 19 to 22 KHz.
(See the 24/192 Touch thread.)
The Linn folks provide lots of information and
Very interesting! You may run a Replaygain scan or try to evaluate the
loudness of the different versions. I bet the 24bit version is louder.
Of cause from a technical standpoint you can argue to prevent clipping.
While switching between both normaly the louder one is voted as better.
--
I realize I was unclear about the hassle factor. I have a Touch being
run through an external DAC in the better system but also have a Duet
in the living room system. So buying lots of tracks that won't play
natively on the Duet I would consider a bit of a hassle.
I appreciate the suggestion
A preliminary note on the Linn Sampler downloads. I've only investigated
some tracks. The FLAC file sizes are 260 vs 980 MB - the high resolution
being nearly 4 times as large as CD quality.
16/44.1 --- VLC plays those tracks nicely. But Audacity does not appear
to interpret the 16/44.1 download
ncarver;573460 Wrote:
... I appreciate the suggestion to try the Linn site (and sampler), but
again, any *specific tracks/recordings* where people hear improvements
from the hi-res versions on their systems? I am trying to avoid buying
a large group of recordings looking for differences.
I was browsing the Linn site for Studio Master classical downloads.
Lots of choices! Though few well recognized names.
I presume the pricing varies for different albums, but there were quite
a few priced at:
$24.00 for 24/88.2 or 24/96;
$13.00 for 16/44.1;
$11.00 for 320 Kbps 44.1 MP3.
If
R Johnson;573490 Wrote:
If that's typical, an easy choice -- I'll stick with 16/44.1 ...
Yes, there would have to be a significant sound difference, it would
have to be music I really cared about, and a great performance to pay
$28 for one album's worth of files. That seems like rather a
While you are patiently waiting, try out the free 9 second test clips at
Linn. http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-downloads-testfiles.aspx Excerpts
are taken from Cantata Tremori al braccio, RV 799 Recitativo: Ah nò, mia
cara Elvira track 7 from Vivaldi L'Amore per Elvira by La Serenissima.
I'll
R Johnson;573425 Wrote:
Suppose the SAME recording is available for download at 16/44.1 and at
24/88.2 -- that is, a new recording produced at 24/88.2 and
down-sampled to 16/44.1 for a CD or a download.
Question 1: Can I hear a difference? Nature of difference?
Question 2: Assuming
25 matches
Mail list logo
