Today I also tried some 192...@24 bits flac files on my transporter
(squeezeboxserver 7.4.1), they play fine.
Are you sure these are being downsampled?? The AK4396 is pefectly
capable of handling 192 khz samplerates.
Ronald.
--
tingtong5
---
Phil Leigh;382594 Wrote:
> The way that high-res files (higher than the native capability of your
> player that is) are streamed changed in 7.3.1 (and again in 7.3.2). I'm
> not entirely sure how this works for the TP; on the classic your files
> would be converted to 320 kbs MP3(!) via lame in 7
grahamn;382584 Wrote:
> 7.3.1
>
> At least they do play... I also have a TViX which just reboots if I
> attempt to play anything higher res than a 16 bit 44.1KHz FLAC.
The way that high-res files (higher than the native capability of your
player that is) are streamed changed in 7.3.1 (and agai
Phil Leigh;382573 Wrote:
> Well technically they aren't being played "perfectly" since they are
> being downsampled ...
> which version of SC are you running?
7.3.1
At least they do play... I also have a TViX which just reboots if I
attempt to play anything higher res than a 16 bit 44.1KHz FLA
grahamn;382557 Wrote:
> Has anyone else tried playing 192KHz 24bit files on the Transporter?
>
> I have ripped a set of FLACs from the Eagles "Hotel California" DVD
> Audio disc. SqueezeCenter recognises the files as 192KHz 24bit format
> and my Transporter plays them perfectly via coax S/PDIF
DCtoDaylight;382497 Wrote:
> To snap this thread back to it's original topic, I had to laugh a bit at
> the irony, or maybe idiocy, of what I was listening to a bit earlier...
> I'm sure Pat will chuckle a bit, if I say I was enjoying some of the
> Mellotron playing on a Moody Blues album in SAC
Has anyone else tried playing 192KHz 24bit files on the Transporter?
I have ripped a set of FLACs from the Eagles "Hotel California" DVD
Audio disc. SqueezeCenter recognises the files as 192KHz 24bit format
and my Transporter plays them perfectly via coax S/PDIF and the 96KHz
DAC in my Linn Kino
To snap this thread back to it's original topic, I had to laugh a bit at
the irony, or maybe idiocy, of what I was listening to a bit earlier...
I'm sure Pat will chuckle a bit, if I say I was enjoying some of the
Mellotron playing on a Moody Blues album in SACD
Cheers! Dave
--
DCtoDayl
I use a database server (power6) with 1Tb main storage. ;)
Blades, as you say: A single OS (AIX) with about 10-15 virtual
(variable resources') hosts.
We're reaaally OT, now...
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
agentsmith wrote:
>> A month or two ago, my daughter installed over 700 gig of ram in some
> servers.
>
> You mean hard disk storage right?
No ram, it was not just one machine, but blades in a single rack. 704 or
some number close to that of RAM. Many many terabytes of disk all RAID,
etc. a Sun F
>A month or two ago, my daughter installed over 700 gig of ram in some
servers.
You mean hard disk storage right?
--
agentsmith
System 1: Transporter, Naim 202/200/Hicap/NAPSC/Ariva
System 2: SB2 connected via TOSLINK to a Meridian F80
-
pfarrell;381492 Wrote:
> A month or two ago, my daughter installed over 700 gig of ram in some
> servers.
There you go! I'm out of date already! Based on that, I'm guessing
there are already some machines with a Terabyte in them now...
Moore's law may be in danger, but it's still on track fo
Moving way OT...
DCtoDaylight wrote:
> Life is full of such examples, remember Bill Gates saying that no one
> could possibly need more than 640k of ram?
I'm pretty sure he never said that. And there were versions of MS-DOS
that had higher limits, it was nearly 800k on the DEC Rainbow, another
8
DCtoDaylight;381461 Wrote:
> remember Bill Gates saying that no one could possibly need more than
> 640k of ram?
> Cheers! Dave
He claims he never said it.
I read it on the internet:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15180#fn*
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1997/01/1484
To topic..
Scott
seanadams;381454 Wrote:
> But seriously, I wonder what the first pieces of 44.1/16 equipment
> looked like?
Do a search for the Altair 8080, if you want to see the real start of
home computing!
I actually had a chance to hear this beast tho:
http://www.thevintageknob.org/SONY/sonyvault/PCM1/PCM
pfarrell;381446 Wrote:
> What we fail to remember these days is that the RedBook spec was
> publicly released in 1980. At that time, a 1 megahertz computer was 20
> feet long and cost a million bucks. Such a mainframe would have maybe
> 2
> megabytes of ram. Moore's law has taken us a long way si
seanadams wrote:
> ...Apple_II ?
Nope, I was think of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDP-10 and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tops-20
that we, compuserv and others used. It was later that Compuserv figured
that home computer hobbyists might pay to use the systems at night, when
they were unused
pfarrell;381446 Wrote:
>
> What we fail to remember these days is that the RedBook spec was
> publicly released in 1980. At that time, a 1 megahertz computer was 20
> feet long and cost a million bucks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II ?
But seriously, I wonder what the first pieces of 44
DCtoDaylight wrote:
> The only caveat that I would throw into this, is to return the fact
> that the Nyquist/Shannon limit is only mathematically correct for an
> infinite number of samples. Without an infinite, or at least very long
> series of samples, you cannot precisely define the amplitude o
pfarrell;381174 Wrote:
> This is not to argue that 44.1kHz is the perfect sample rate. But if
> you
> think it needs to be higher, then you have to argue that there is
> useful
> information above 22kHz. I believe, without justification, that there
> may be something between 20kHz and 40kHz, not
Alfafa;380394 Wrote:
> I just don't understand why build a transporter with a 192kHz D/A and
> then only clock it at 96kHz max. I don't understand that
>
This thread is getting long so I might have missed any replies to this.
192/24 requires a doubling of the data-rate compared to 96/24, not
teros;381196 Wrote:
> Sorry. Nope, I mean the "Practical Implications" section of this one:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(information_theory)
>
>
> In short, I agree with you wholeheartedly that 44.1 captures all the
> salient information of a band-limited (20-20khz) signal. No do
Phil Leigh;381160 Wrote:
> The link doesn't work ... is it this one?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
>
> If so - yes I have read it.
Sorry. Nope, I mean the "Practical Implications" section of this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(information_theory)
In short, I
Phil Leigh wrote:
> what "intersample effects"? Do you think there is information
> (different sample values) missing. There isn't. If there were, the
> Shannon et al are completely wrong.
Agreed, @teros is tilting at windmills. More precisely, there is nothing
"intersample" in proper sampling, t
teros;380875 Wrote:
> Oh, I think that I grasp sampling theory pretty well.
>
> Did you read the cited article?
>
The link doesn't work ... is it this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
If so - yes I have read it.
teros;380875 Wrote:
>
> Do you believe that a signal that is
Phil Leigh;380810 Wrote:
> I'm not sure how you've got to this place in your thinking, but if you
> think that higher sampling rates are required for accurate recovery of
> audio in the 0-20kHz range then you haven't grasped Information Theory
> yet...
>
Oh, I think that I grasp sampling theor
teros;380781 Wrote:
>
> I believe that the differences are enough to pass a "blind test," but
> barely so
>
That wouldn't be a bad idea. If you manage to arrange one please report
(I mean that sincerely).
Darren
--
darrenyeats
SB3 / Inguz -> Krell KAV-300i (pre bypass) -> PMC AB-1
Dell lapt
teros;380781 Wrote:
> Very interesting and informative thread - thanks!
>
> Of the dozen our so relevant Wikipedia entries, I have found this one
> most useful in describing the tradeoffs of high sampling rates:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(information_theory)
>
> By thinking of
Very interesting and informative thread - thanks!
Of the dozen our so relevant Wikipedia entries, I have found this one
most useful in describing the tradeoffs of high sampling rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(information_theory)
By thinking of the issue in terms of distortion - no
pfarrell;380661 Wrote:
> Alfafa wrote:
> > Good studio taperecorders(ex. highend studer/revox machines) can go
> > 20hz-35khz +/- 1 db if you use the proper tape.
>
> Not according to the published specs:
> http://www.theaudioarchive.com/TAA_Tape_Studer_A820.htm
>
> # Frequency Response (+/- 1
pfarrell;380661 Wrote:
> Alfafa wrote:
> > Good studio taperecorders(ex. highend studer/revox machines) can go
> > 20hz-35khz +/- 1 db if you use the proper tape.
>
> Not according to the published specs:
> http://www.theaudioarchive.com/TAA_Tape_Studer_A820.htm
>
> # Frequency Response (+/- 1
Alfafa wrote:
> Good studio taperecorders(ex. highend studer/revox machines) can go
> 20hz-35khz +/- 1 db if you use the proper tape.
Not according to the published specs:
http://www.theaudioarchive.com/TAA_Tape_Studer_A820.htm
# Frequency Response (+/- 1 dB)
* 30 ips - 60 - 20,000 Hz
*
tricka;380304 Wrote:
>
> Indeed the Transporter is open to criticism in this area and why most
> modders focus on tidying up the output stage eg a tube buffer
> (Modwright) or JFET.
>
Only if you're of the opinion that tubes are inherently better. If you
look at the measurements the TP appears
pfarrell;380240 Wrote:
>
> Old, what do you mean old? :-)
>
> SACDs are old. When there was interest in SACD, ADATs were in common
> use. As were RedBook PCM systems.
>
> My point was not that ADAT are currently popular, they are obsolete.
> But
> most music was recorded on analog tape, which
Thank you for your post Alfalfa
You are of course entitled to your view and accordingly I value it even
if I respectfully cannot agree with most of what you say. Dynamic
compression occurs but far less than you would think, particularly on
non pop recordings eg Jazz , Classical.
The 2L comparativ
pfarrell;380253 Wrote:
> JezA wrote:[color=blue]
> Go argue with someone who is impressed by your bluster.
>
> http://www.pfarrell.com/
Pat, my point was that there are "loads of high-resolution masters out
there". Most will be on hard-discs. A relatively small number have been
issued as SACDs.
JezA wrote:
> I also said "there are lots of SACDS out there already".
>
> That is also, without any doubt, a fact! I have dozens! There are
> thousands more available. Do you want a list?
Of course not. Far too many of these SACDs were made from analog or ADAT
masters. Way back when folks cared
Have anybody mentioned that there is difference between recording and
playback ?
as I have come to understand it AD is more critical than DA. Brickwall
filtering when recording and and all processing one wants to do, so
high sample rate would be beneficial for any end user product made of
it ?
Ev
tricka;380174 Wrote:
> Bit rate (20 0r 24) has a far greater effect on perceived musical
> reproduction than sample rate, all things being equal. I cannot really
> hear any difference between 24/88 and 24/44 where I have down sampled
> the same music file.
>
> I was chatting about this with the
pfarrell;380202 Wrote:
>
> Your claims are not based on fact.
>
> --
> Pat Farrell
> http://www.pfarrell.com/
My claim was that "loads of high resolution masters exist".
That is without any doubt a fact!
I also said "there are lots of SACDS out there already".
That is also, without any do
Alfafa wrote:
>> There are a large number of SACDs that were mastered from ADAT tapes.
>> There is nothing high res about them.
>
> That would be old recordings then as ADAT's has nearly disappeared from
> studios. 10 years ago they were for a time very popular for a short
> amount of time because
pfarrell;380202 Wrote:
> JezA wrote:
> > But there are a lot of SACDs out there already, and loads of high
> > resolution masters exists
>
> There are a large number of SACDs that were mastered from ADAT tapes.
> There is nothing high res about them.
>
That would be old recordings then as ADAT
JezA wrote:
> But there are a lot of SACDs out there already, and loads of high
> resolution masters exists
There are a large number of SACDs that were mastered from ADAT tapes.
There is nothing high res about them.
Very few studios bought the insanely expensive Sony DSD systems, which
were compl
But there are a lot of SACDs out there already, and loads of high
resolution masters exists, so there is huge potential for high
resolution music being made available - just needs enough people to ask
for it. Right now apple and all the mp3 low bitrate peddlers want to
sell as few bits as possible
Bit rate (20 0r 24) has a far greater effect on perceived musical
reproduction than sample rate, all things being equal. I cannot really
hear any difference between 24/88 and 24/44 where I have down sampled
the same music file.
I was chatting about this with the Linn Records sound engineer (David
Now that this thread is well and truly OT - I've noticed "backwards slow
motion" with propellers as well, but interestingly only in reflections
in standing water (?)
You can also see discontinuity/strobing if you wave your hand in front
of a CRT monitor or TV.
--
Mark Lanctot
Current: SB2, Tr
JezA;379689 Wrote:
> darren, a torch or flashlight is a dc powered light. Pretty sure if you
> wave it about in the dark it won't flicker.
It wouldn't be the first time I misremembered. My wife has opinions
about that. :)
Darren
--
darrenyeats
SB3 / Inguz -> Krell KAV-300i (pre bypass) -> PMC
darren, a torch or flashlight is a dc powered light. Pretty sure if you
wave it about in the dark it won't flicker.
--
JezA
JezA's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21219
View this thread: http://for
JezA;379619 Wrote:
> darren, the bulb is switching at 50Hz or 60Hz depending where you are in
> the world, as are CRTS, hence the flicker. If you turn the bulb off and
> swing it, no flicker.
>
I can't remember where I saw this, it was some science museum or the
like using a DC powered light. A
darren, the bulb is switching at 50Hz or 60Hz depending where you are in
the world, as are CRTS, hence the flicker. If you turn the bulb off and
swing it, no flicker.
The frequency at which a flickering source is perceived as continuous
is called the flicker fusion frequency and starts to kick i
The eyes see a fixed number of frames per second. The appearance of
continuity is an illusion, hence the wagon wheel effect. This is very
obvious when you swing an artificial light in the dark, you can
actually see the jumps.
I used to work in an office with a lot of CRT monitors and sometimes
wh
bhaagensen;379273 Wrote:
>
> Are you saying that sound is not continous? Please explain.
This is something that's been bugging me for a while. Quite often,
example of western movie wagon wheels going backwards are used to
explain aliasing. Now, I have never heard a good explanation as to why
we
While it is true that nerve impulses are pulses, I'm fairly sure it is
the case that the firing rate varies with the intensity of the
stimulation, and so it is the firing rate varues continuously, rather
than the amplitude. Still 'analogue' though, but FM rather than AM.
--
JezA
---
bhaagensen;379273 Wrote:
> It requires an infinite summation. See:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker%E2%80%93Shannon_interpolation_formula.
It requires in a given time a minimum number of discrete, equally
spaced samples. The number of samples for perfect
interpolation/recovery is dete
bhaagensen;379196 Wrote:
> OK, that is a bit far fetched. But maybe not so in the real world? The
> point is that while many discussions refer to the Nyquist limit, I
> think that it would be more useful to know the deviation between
> Nyquist-reconstructed wave and the one generated by represent
Phil Leigh;379253 Wrote:
>
> Perfect reproduction at any frequency doesn't require an infinite
> series of samples.
>
It requires an infinite summation. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker%E2%80%93Shannon_interpolation_formula
>
> Just as well, since when we listen with our ears to
darrenyeats;379145 Wrote:
> Nyquist-Shannon says if there is information "missing" between the
> samples that information must be above the frequency threshold. Maybe
> that answers your question in tandem with Phil's post.
> Darren
Exactly. There is no missing information 0Hz-22kHz. I know its
bhaagensen;379196 Wrote:
> OK, that is a bit far fetched. But maybe not so in the real world? The
> point is that while many discussions refer to the Nyquist limit, I
> think that it would be more useful to know the deviation between
> Nyquist-reconstructed wave and the one generated by represent
DCtoDaylight;379189 Wrote:
> No, what I think bhaagensen is driving at, is that the Nyquist limit is
> a mathematical limit theory, and that prefect reproduction up to that
> limit frequency requires an infinitely long series of samples.
> Obviously we aren't listening to continuous tones, so pe
No, what I think bhaagensen is driving at, is that the Nyquist limit is
a mathematical limit theory, and that prefect reproduction up to that
limit frequency requires an infinitely long series of samples.
Obviously we aren't listening to continuous tones, so perfect
reproduction isn't possible!
bhaagensen;379117 Wrote:
> It is not even computable.
>
Nyquist-Shannon says if there is information "missing" between the
samples that information must be above the frequency threshold. Maybe
that answers your question in tandem with Phil's post.
Darren
--
darrenyeats
SB3 / Inguz -> Krell K
Phil Leigh;379085 Wrote:
> Below Nyquist there are no "gaps" between the samples that are "missing
> information" and which would be magically filled-in with a higher
> sampling rate.
One thing I never understood.
While that is theoretically true, it is also true that for various
reasons no re
Alfafa;378993 Wrote:
> Hi Bjørn
>
> The higher samplerate would reproduce the original with a higher
> resolution. I can't say that I can hear because I haven't heard 96kHz
> and 192kHz side by side
>
Phil is right.
I think that sometimes there is some confusion in terminology.
Technically r
Alfafa;378993 Wrote:
> Hi Bjørn
>
> The higher samplerate would reproduce the original with a higher
> resolution.
No it wouldn't. It would allow the Nyquist frequency to be moved up so
that higher frequencies can be captured. It does not allow greater
resolution of anything below the Nyquist
Ok. I think I will borrow it and see what I think. I actually also saw
some proaudio people writing that rates over 96kHz is stupid, so I will
now even
more seriously look at the transporter :-)
there is a paper here written by Dan
Lavry:http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.
Alfafa;378993 Wrote:
>
> How can you state as a hard fact that it would never be audible? The
> higher samplerate would reproduce the original with a higher
> resolution. I can't say that I can hear because I haven't heard 96kHz
> and 192kHz side by side
>
> In theory I would think that a digit
bhaagensen;37 Wrote:
> Afaik this is a general hardware limitation which firmware will never
> get around.
>
> But WHY do you really want anything above 96? It is never going to be
> audible anyway.
>
> I'm sure we will be able to play those super formats by downsamling
> just as the SB3
Alfafa;378850 Wrote:
> Is this limited by firmware or by the clocks used in the transporter?
>
>
Afaik this is a general hardware limitation which firmware will never
get around.
But WHY do you really want anything above 96? It is never going to be
audible anyway. Sure it would be sort of co
Hi
I am posting here in audiophiles as there is no dedicated section for
the transporter.
I am wondering after reading the specs for the AKM AK4396. It says that
it supports 192kHz samplerate, but the specs for transporter states that
it "only" supports max 96kHz. Is this limited by firmware or
69 matches
Mail list logo
