TPA - USB Transport - Page 64 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Commercial Sector > Manufacturers > Twisted Pear

Twisted Pear Superior quality electronic kits

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22nd January 2013, 06:06 PM   #631
diyAudio Member
 
BrianDonegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: TPA HQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by labjr View Post
There doesn't have to be material to use sampling rates above 192 Khz. Software upsampling to higher rates can make other material sound better.
This is a debatable point. Check out the graphs on pages 10 and 11: http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm1794.pdf

These are "just numbers," but higher THD and lower S/N Ratio at higher sampling rates.

I am not stating a conclusion, just food for thought.
__________________
Twisted Pear Audio
 
Old 22nd January 2013, 06:19 PM   #632
labjr is offline labjr  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MA
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianDonegan View Post
This is a debatable point. Check out the graphs on pages 10 and 11: http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm1794.pdf

These are "just numbers," but higher THD and lower S/N Ratio at higher sampling rates.

I am not stating a conclusion, just food for thought.
Debatable or not, as many options as possible should be available. Sampling rates are increasing. DSD is becoming popular. Seems like DXD is starting to approach the point of diminishing returns. DSD 256 is the point where the quantization noise moves out of the audio band. So higher the better as far as I can tell.
 
Old 22nd January 2013, 06:23 PM   #633
diyAudio Member
 
BrianDonegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: TPA HQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by labjr View Post
Debatable or not, as many options as possible should be available. Sampling rates are increasing. DSD is becoming popular. Seems like DXD is starting to approach the point of diminishing returns. DSD 256 is the point where the quantization noise moves out of the audio band. So higher the better as far as I can tell.
I agree, but PCM != DSD. I only point out that higher is not always better.
__________________
Twisted Pear Audio
 
Old 22nd January 2013, 06:30 PM   #634
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by labjr View Post
There doesn't have to be material to use sampling rates above 192 Khz. Software upsampling to higher rates can make other material sound better.
Having spent time in real project studios I can tell you this only applies when the media is initially digitized. Upsampling after the fact gets you nothing. You simply cannot put back what was never there.
__________________
Best Regards,
Carl Huff
 
Old 22nd January 2013, 07:27 PM   #635
diyAudio Member
 
BrianDonegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: TPA HQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl_Huff View Post
Having spent time in real project studios I can tell you this only applies when the media is initially digitized. Upsampling after the fact gets you nothing. You simply cannot put back what was never there.
I think the reported increase in performance is more to do with the DAC filters employed for higher-bitrate material, not that there is more detail in the data.
__________________
Twisted Pear Audio
 
Old 22nd January 2013, 08:03 PM   #636
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Default Yes...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianDonegan View Post
I think the reported increase in performance is more to do with the DAC filters employed for higher-bitrate material, not that there is more detail in the data.
As Brian mentions, possible improvements in sonic performance by oversampling in software are the result of the digital filters used by the OS algorythm. For instance, take a 16/44.1 file, and oversample it to 24/352.8 in software and send the oversampled data to the B-III. Now, the B-III will still apply additional oversampling, but any of the oversampling done by the B-III will result in no additional audible artifacts, so what one hears, will be the results of the filtering/oversampling done in the computer. The advantage of this approach is that one can easily try many different types of digital filters, and decide what they think sounds best, rather than being limited by the filters incorporated in the ESS chip. This approach opens up all manner of apodizing and minimum phase approaches, all different filter slopes, etc.
Will it sound better... that is for the user to decide, but it certainly does allow for a lot of options and it is much easier to apply those options in the computer. Some software players, like HQplayer, XXHighend, and Audirvana already have a pretty good selection of different filtering approaches to choose from, and these options are only going to grow in the future.
 
Old 22nd January 2013, 09:57 PM   #637
labjr is offline labjr  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MA
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianDonegan View Post
I agree, but PCM != DSD. I only point out that higher is not always better.
I think higher is better when it's done right. But like I've said before, I think there is a point of diminishing returns. But that point is debatable. Logically it would seem to be 352/384 for PCM and DSD256.

However, Robert Watts of Chord Electronics says 768 kHz recordings sound better than 384 kHz and not because of frequency response. He says the brain can detect differences of microseconds in transients. Thus he thinks the number is somewhere around 1 Mhz.
 
Old 22nd January 2013, 09:59 PM   #638
diyAudio Member
 
BrianDonegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: TPA HQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by labjr View Post
However, Robert Watts of Chord Electronics says 768 kHz recordings sound better than 384 kHz and not because of frequency response. He says the brain can detect differences of microseconds in transients. Thus he thinks the number is somewhere around 1 Mhz.
Speakers (generally) cannot, however
__________________
Twisted Pear Audio
 
Old 23rd January 2013, 12:53 PM   #639
diyAudio Member
 
Russ White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Send a message via Yahoo to Russ White
Also one must remember that the DAC actually measures worse in terms of both noise and distortion as the sample rate goes up... Dustin actually mentioned this himself.

I too am actually not very interested in stuff above 192Khz. Partly because there is so little of it to begin with, and a lot of that is actually not as good as more widely available material.

So in my book support for > 192Khz is still something I am interested in but is not a huge priority.

The new board is coming along well. I am so glad XMOS is still in business and designing better and better parts. This new chip is *far* better in many ways to the old one.
__________________
Less pulp more juice Twisted Pear Audio.
 
Old 23rd January 2013, 03:17 PM   #640
Just DIY!
diyAudio Member
 
pinnocchio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Montreal
Quote:
Originally Posted by labjr View Post
I think higher is better when it's done right. But like I've said before, I think there is a point of diminishing returns. But that point is debatable. Logically it would seem to be 352/384 for PCM and DSD256.

However, Robert Watts of Chord Electronics says 768 kHz recordings sound better than 384 kHz and not because of frequency response. He says the brain can detect differences of microseconds in transients. Thus he thinks the number is somewhere around 1 Mhz.
Maybe you're right and I'm not debating but too many people see or hear things that are in their heads... Trust me there's many examples.

I bet you take that the same song have it well converted over from 24/768 to 24/192 make them hear then take the same song again without them knowing and tell them that it is the 768 version and all of a sudden there's more magic or the other way around and now it is not as good but the same 768 file twice!

Just saying
Do
__________________
PREAMPs : AMB α10 + JC-80 clone | Balanced DCB1 | LDR3x | AMPs: AMB β24 | Aleph 5 | VSSA | ML-2 | Fetzilla | Telos 390 Clone | My_Ref FE
DACs : TPA Buffalo II + OPC's NTD1 I/V | TPA OPUS + IVY III Speakers : Jim Holtz Statements | Astasia SD | Tubasson Mark 2
 

Closed Thread


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
TPA metronome and Ivy modules woodturner-fran Swap Meet 7 29th January 2010 09:11 PM
TPA COD parts nikongod Swap Meet 6 8th January 2010 04:07 PM
A SD/USB/Ethernet transport jkeny Digital Line Level 8 25th September 2009 12:20 PM
Tpa 3122 help kkchunghk Class D 2 28th August 2009 08:44 AM
Maybe have a CD transport source USB to drive a USB DAC? wa2ise Digital Source 0 6th February 2007 12:22 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:41 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