Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Line Level

Digital Line Level DACs, Digital Crossovers, Equalizers, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 13th December 2012, 08:37 AM   #341
fas42 is offline fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 9
The differences have always been trivially obvious to me, even when listening over mediocre PC speakers. The same track, resampled to higher and higher resolutions always steadily improved, and this is specifically in the region of high frequency accuracy. The fine shimmer of a ride cymbal is an easy marker -- it starts off sounding like some vague hissing noise at lo res, and at the other end of the spectrum becomes a proper instrument ...

Frank
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2012, 08:40 AM   #342
Julf is offline Julf  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by fas42 View Post
The differences have always been trivially obvious to me, even when listening over mediocre PC speakers.
Curious to hear what you think is the cause of the improvement, considering the PC speakers probably don't go above 15 kHz...
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2012, 08:49 AM   #343
fas42 is offline fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julf View Post
Curious to hear what you think is the cause of the improvement, considering the PC speakers probably don't go above 15 kHz...
Agree about the frequency thing, to me it's all about the ability of the usually nondescript S-D D/A to do its job properly, in the face of heavy interference from surrounding electronics. With a lo res version of the track, so much on the fly processing has to be done, on the PC side and then in the chip itself, that the quality of the D/A conversion suffers. With a high res signal being fed in, minimal extra processing is required and quality improves.

I've done this exercise several times, and provided the chip and speaker electronics were thoroughly "warmed up" it was easy to pick the variation.

Frank
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2012, 08:58 AM   #344
erin is offline erin  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: http://www.makeitpossible.com/
I can always pick a difference with regard to a 44.1khz track played back at different sample rates. And with regard to higher frequencies, I tend to agree that they sound better at higher rates. But where I disagree is that overall the sound is "better".
I find that up-sampling is a trade-off. I have found that ( when listening to the same track) I perceive bass / mid tonality and dynamics to sound better at 44.1 or 48khz.
In other words, with up-sampling highs sound better, but everything else sounds worse!

But I do find that a native 96khz recording played back at 96khz can sound perfectly fine.
__________________
Listening is best done using a pair of ears.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2012, 09:10 AM   #345
fas42 is offline fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin View Post
But where I disagree is that overall the sound is "better".
I find that up-sampling is a trade-off. I have found that ( when listening to the same track) I perceive bass / mid tonality and dynamics to sound better at 44.1 or 48khz.
In other words, with up-sampling highs sound better, but everything else sounds worse!

But I do find that a native 96khz recording played back at 96khz can sound perfectly fine.
Very interesting. At least someone else has noted that upsampling makes a difference, and that the highs, which is usually where the problems are, are improved. That the dynamics, etc, are lessened I find very surprising, doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps different ears, different equipment, different resampling software -- I use Audacity to do the job.

Have you tried downsampling that native 96kHz to 44.1, then back up again to 96, and comparing original to new?

Frank
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2012, 09:19 AM   #346
erin is offline erin  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: http://www.makeitpossible.com/
It does not make much sense but this is what I heard.

well, I think we have actually been talking about different things.
I think when you say upsampling you are talking about converting a file to a different sample rate, then saving the file, then playing it back.

I have been talking about using the player, either foobar or cPlay to playback a file in real time, at a different sample rate.

I think your way might add dithering, I think my way does not.
Can we discuss?
__________________
Listening is best done using a pair of ears.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2012, 09:25 AM   #347
freax is offline freax  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
freax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NSW
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin View Post
Listener fatigue is the unknown factor, in listening tests.
This is why I prefer AB (two points of comparison) tests rather than ABCDEFG tests. Anyone can become muddled when listening to too many tracks, or equipment. But it is usually easy to declare a preference when comparing only one thing to another.


And this is why I am taking a whole week to analyze and verify mods done to my tda1543 russian dac.
__________________

Last edited by freax; 13th December 2012 at 09:28 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2012, 09:28 AM   #348
erin is offline erin  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: http://www.makeitpossible.com/
On second thought cPlay uses selectable SOX or SRC to upsample.
And now I remember that I did prefer one over the other, but that both of them created a weird sound that irritated me, and so now I just play back at either 44.1 or 48khz. Even though this has a downside, I find this one the less irritating than the other.

Neither way is correct... back to the drawing board....
__________________
Listening is best done using a pair of ears.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2012, 09:30 AM   #349
freax is offline freax  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
freax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NSW
Quote:
Originally Posted by fas42 View Post
Very interesting. At least someone else has noted that upsampling makes a difference, and that the highs, which is usually where the problems are, are improved. That the dynamics, etc, are lessened I find very surprising, doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps different ears, different equipment, different resampling software -- I use Audacity to do the job.

Have you tried downsampling that native 96kHz to 44.1, then back up again to 96, and comparing original to new?

Frank
Ive also noticed a difference when using my sony's dac and 48kHz instead of 44.1kHz

And yes, the highs are less harsh and I prefer this sound on the sony's mystery dac when its being run at 48kHz, but I always assumed that there was some kind of DSP screwing around with the sound to make some kind of profile for it at different modes.

But since building the tda1543 with a cs8412 I haven't noticed much if any change between 44.1 and 48kHz, it might need more time for me to listen in.
__________________

Last edited by freax; 13th December 2012 at 09:33 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2012, 09:40 AM   #350
fas42 is offline fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin View Post
well, I think we have actually been talking about different things.
I think when you say upsampling you are talking about converting a file to a different sample rate, then saving the file, then playing it back.

I have been talking about using the player, either foobar or cPlay to playback a file in real time, at a different sample rate.

I think your way might add dithering, I think my way does not.
Can we discuss?
Indeed we have. The crucial thing is that any conversion is done offline, otherwise the processing of the player software also joins the party, in terms of creating electrical interference.

No dithering occurs with the resampling, it's all about interpolation, working out the inbetween values. This is what happens anyway, one way or the other, when playback occurs ... my exercise was for that to happen during another time period ...

I went through a bizarre example where a 20k bytes MP3 file ended up the size of around 500Meg. And blow me down, that monstrous end result was far superior to the original, compressed version, on playback.

Frank
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tubes Numbers kmscouts Tubes / Valves 3 30th September 2012 04:19 AM
Confused by the numbers alexmoose Tubes / Valves 52 7th August 2006 03:06 AM
Still can't get reasonable numbers mashaffer Multi-Way 13 10th July 2006 04:55 PM
Where did these EL84 numbers come from? Sherman Tubes / Valves 2 13th June 2005 06:53 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:48 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2