Digital, but not by the numbers - Page 36 - diyAudio
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, 09:44 AM   #351
erin is offline erin  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: http://www.makeitpossible.com/
Quote:
Originally Posted by fas42 View Post
Indeed we have.
OK, well I do remember doing an upsampling conversion like this years ago.
I am confident this would be better than converting on-the-fly with the playback software. I'll try it again sometime soon.

What is the deal with this MP3 you are talking about?
what did you convert the file to?
__________________
Listening is best done using a pair of ears.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2012, 09:48 AM   #352
erin is offline erin  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: http://www.makeitpossible.com/
But, even if it sounds better I'll be buggered if I'm converting all my files...
__________________
Listening is best done using a pair of ears.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2012, 09:53 AM   #353
fas42 is offline fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin View Post
OK, well I do remember doing an upsampling conversion like this years ago.
I am confident this would be better than converting on-the-fly with the playback software. I'll try it again sometime soon.

What is the deal with this MP3 you are talking about?
what did you convert the file to?
I think it started as a 128k bit rate, from a download. Then exported as 16/44.1, was much better, then converted to 16/88.2, better again, got up to 24/352.8. Even tried next higher again, but all the players choked on that !!

Frank
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2012, 09:57 AM   #354
sandyK is offline sandyK  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sydney
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin View Post
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.
Likewise !
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2012, 09:59 AM   #355
fas42 is offline fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin View Post
But, even if it sounds better I'll be buggered if I'm converting all my files...
Yeah, the file storage alone will kill you!

However, this is all about proving a point. That is, it's all about what goes on in the processing, in the PC and the DAC, having a real lot to do with with what the final sound is like. So, if there's something real going on here, then sharper, better hardware can make even pretty crappy digital files sound pretty damn good ...

Frank
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2012, 10:21 AM   #356
erin is offline erin  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: http://www.makeitpossible.com/
Ah ha. Now I see where you are coming from. I certainly believe that if the CPU is doing duties other than playing music that there is a negative sonic impact.
__________________
Listening is best done using a pair of ears.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2012, 10:21 AM   #357
erin is offline erin  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: http://www.makeitpossible.com/
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandyK View Post
Likewise !
__________________
Listening is best done using a pair of ears.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th December 2012, 08:19 AM   #358
regal is offline regal  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MD
"digital" is getting to the point where it is "analog". Dirty secret is it always has been, digital only exists in books, even our computers are nothing more than billions of analog signals switched on or off with transistors.

With the high rez DSD the computer is doing the "digital" to "analog" conversion. Won't be long and all we will need is an analog stage, thats how fast the "digital" signal is getting.

There was a rudimentary design where a guy fed a straight DSD signal to a tube stage no DAC and said he got decent sound. The new NAD-51 is basically doing this, but all the processing it does in "digital" can be moved to our computers I think Signalyst can do this. The speeds probably aren't fast enough for top end output yet, but look how fast SATAIII is, won't be long someone will plug in an analog stage to a computer and the DAC will be extinct.

Then there will always be the other camp where signal speed is the enemy (see building the ultimate NOS TDA1541 thread).

But no matter what you do unless you like spinning disc's there will always be some hashy high speed device connected to your audio chain.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th December 2012, 08:34 AM   #359
qusp is offline qusp  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
qusp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
umm another dirty secret, the computer is ALWAYS doing other things than playing music when playing music.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th December 2012, 09:09 AM   #360
Julf is offline Julf  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by regal View Post
"digital" is getting to the point where it is "analog". Dirty secret is it always has been, digital only exists in books, even our computers are nothing more than billions of analog signals switched on or off with transistors.
OK, I know this is elementary stuff that we all know, but...

Nothing new or "dirty" about it. The switching, storage etc, is "analog" on the fundamental physical level, but the beauty of digital is that the "analog" signal is recreated and resynchronized so that errors don't get propagated (and don't matter).

In a digital signal, the only thing that matter is the *logical* (as opposed to physical) data. As long as the error/noise/distortion is small enough not to cause a "0" or "1" to be misinterpreted, all that matters is delivering them with the correct timing to the DAC.

Quote:
With the high rez DSD the computer is doing the "digital" to "analog" conversion.
Not sure what you are saying here. DSD is pulse-density encoding. It is just another way of encoding, that trades bit depth for bit timing.

Quote:
There was a rudimentary design where a guy fed a straight DSD signal to a tube stage no DAC and said he got decent sound.
And my first DAC, 35 years ago, was a R-2R PCM converter that consisted of nothing more than a handful of resistors connected to the outputs of a parallel port. Industrial embedded applications are full of pulse width modulation control systems that do the DAC conversion simply by proper timing of a (digital) output pin, just like your "DSD signal straight to a tube stage". The missing part in your example is the low-pass filter required for a successful pulse density conversion - a tube amp is probably good for that purpose.

Quote:
all the processing it does in "digital" can be moved to our computers I think Signalyst can do this.
The only processing that needs to happen is the low-pass filtering - and some products leave that to your amp and speakers.

Quote:
The speeds probably aren't fast enough for top end output yet, but look how fast SATAIII is, won't be long someone will plug in an analog stage to a computer and the DAC will be extinct.
Even basic SATA I is more than fast enough.

And nothing new under the sun... There was the MUTRAN program/language that ran on an IBM 1620 in the 60's that produced music by precisely timed program loops that caused enough RF noise that you could pick it up on an AM radio placed close to the mainframe computer. Was that perhaps the first wireless computer audio? No DAC to be seen anywhere.
  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 07:42 AM.


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