If so, the equivalent claim against the other side might read, "they understand its likely they are partially deaf."
Seems like we can get into trouble if we assume too much about the other side's understanding. It may be rather different from our own.
Seems like we can get into trouble if we assume too much about the other side's understanding. It may be rather different from our own.
Last edited:
Yeah, more or less. Particularly so IMHO if we are talking about brain processing of sound. Imagination and recognition both reside there.
For me it is a personal, totally unfounded insult.
And of course all these differences can be measured.
(the filters / modulators). The **** in the dac chip and that of HQP.
So much so that it's enough just a look at the screen of the 4407B, the noise spectral distribution, and it can be told which modulator is on in HQP.
Miska is constantly giving experimental proof recording up to 384KHz with his RME ADC.
I can see in the spectrum analyzer up to infrared.. Joking.
So all this blubber is just fake news, about non existent differences. Yes they are, cleaner than daylight.
The rest is bullsh
Ciao, George
And of course all these differences can be measured.
(the filters / modulators). The **** in the dac chip and that of HQP.
So much so that it's enough just a look at the screen of the 4407B, the noise spectral distribution, and it can be told which modulator is on in HQP.
Miska is constantly giving experimental proof recording up to 384KHz with his RME ADC.
I can see in the spectrum analyzer up to infrared.. Joking.
So all this blubber is just fake news, about non existent differences. Yes they are, cleaner than daylight.
The rest is bullsh
Ciao, George
Last edited:
Filters change the time response (as can be seen from the impulse response). The noise shaping will change the wideband noise floor. That much is known and can be shown mathematically and in measurements. Whether this is audible is another question and whether is it worth all the hassle is a 3rd.
HQP
HQPlayer has a SRC conversion software version aimed at the pro audio folks, for mastering engineers, which does do ay type of conversion one would want offline. Like most good SRCs for pros (Saracon, etc) it is quite a bit more expensive.
HQPlayer has a SRC conversion software version aimed at the pro audio folks, for mastering engineers, which does do ay type of conversion one would want offline. Like most good SRCs for pros (Saracon, etc) it is quite a bit more expensive.
Over the years, Jussi has published numerous measurements of HQplayer oversampling results with different settings and with different hardware. Mostly what he is showing is the stop band attenuation at very high high frequencies. But he often has shown 1K spectrums as well. These measurements have shown better technical performance from various DACs when fed various oversampled rates from HQPlayer.
Jussi is pretty sharp guy, and is certainly not a charlatan, just sitting around listening to things and making *hit up, he is quite technically oriented in his approach.
Jussi is pretty sharp guy, and is certainly not a charlatan, just sitting around listening to things and making *hit up, he is quite technically oriented in his approach.
Last edited:
It is not...
It is not worth my time to try and convince those with no experience of their own who are so willing to criticize things they know nothing about. If you are interested, you can take the time to seek these things out, I already have the knowledge I need to make my decision, and my time is valuable enough that I need not waste it on those who seek to deride the work of others while actually being ignorant of it.
Those who would criticize anyone's work, do so with actual knowledge of it as opposed to "know it all" style speculation, otherwise shut and go home in your ignorance.
Same applies to Bruno's DAC design, there are measurements available.
It is not worth my time to try and convince those with no experience of their own who are so willing to criticize things they know nothing about. If you are interested, you can take the time to seek these things out, I already have the knowledge I need to make my decision, and my time is valuable enough that I need not waste it on those who seek to deride the work of others while actually being ignorant of it.
Those who would criticize anyone's work, do so with actual knowledge of it as opposed to "know it all" style speculation, otherwise shut and go home in your ignorance.
Same applies to Bruno's DAC design, there are measurements available.
I should have put a £10 bet on you coming back with that.
Fotunately that means I can ignore everything you write from now on as it's clear that you are not interested in any form of discussion or seeking the truth. You have nothing to add to any discussion.
Fotunately that means I can ignore everything you write from now on as it's clear that you are not interested in any form of discussion or seeking the truth. You have nothing to add to any discussion.
As far as I'm aware what we hear is what's been processed by the brain, so yes, that's what we are talking about. 😉
Actually...
Yes, you are welcome to stay ignorant, that is your choice. I report here what my actual experiences are, your "reporting" is based on your lack of any experience with the matter at hand, it is based on your 'belief" alone, that is what is known as ignorance. It is not my duty to prove anything to you, and I will gain nothing from doing so. I already have the knowledge on this topic which matters to me, and convincing you, or anyone else makes no difference to my enjoyment of music-I posted here to share my experience, if you choose to ignore it, no loss to me.
For example, I find, on balance, that traditional dynamic driver in a box style loudspeakers are the best approach to sound reproduction. I have listened to many other approaches, and I have found them all lacking in comparison. But that does not mean I go around calling people who propose that open baffle speakers are best "delusional", as perhaps I have no direct experience with the speaker they are referring to. I make no claims as to having heard every single open baffle system out there, and as such i have no business acting like a "know it all".
Yes, you are welcome to stay ignorant, that is your choice. I report here what my actual experiences are, your "reporting" is based on your lack of any experience with the matter at hand, it is based on your 'belief" alone, that is what is known as ignorance. It is not my duty to prove anything to you, and I will gain nothing from doing so. I already have the knowledge on this topic which matters to me, and convincing you, or anyone else makes no difference to my enjoyment of music-I posted here to share my experience, if you choose to ignore it, no loss to me.
For example, I find, on balance, that traditional dynamic driver in a box style loudspeakers are the best approach to sound reproduction. I have listened to many other approaches, and I have found them all lacking in comparison. But that does not mean I go around calling people who propose that open baffle speakers are best "delusional", as perhaps I have no direct experience with the speaker they are referring to. I make no claims as to having heard every single open baffle system out there, and as such i have no business acting like a "know it all".
Last edited:
Either you just issued a blanket insult to all people disagreeing with you, or you have a very special paranormal capability of remote detection people abilities and knowledge. Given your hearing abilities, I would not be surprised to be the latter.
To clarify....
I was referring to specific experience of listening to HQPlayer based oversampling. Sorry for any confusion that post may have elicited.
I was referring to specific experience of listening to HQPlayer based oversampling. Sorry for any confusion that post may have elicited.
such as
R2R with NOS vs. SDM or
R2R with NOS vs DSD or???
My understanding is that it is very hard (impossible?) to do R2R at 44.1 with acceptable linearity. Is this not so?
SDM requires OS to work acceptably.
DSD recorded at DSD 256 can achieve excellent results with NOS and the right DAC architecture, but of course truly native DSD 256 recording is very limited, to basically live recording with no editing, and while this can be a fine approach, it does not solve the problem all the music one might love being available, mostly in only 44.1 PCM.
I remember the earlier days of OS DACs with say, the Ti 4192 ASRC. It reduced jitter with a good local clock, but it sounded fairly wretched to me. For awhile, I believed that ASRC was just a "bad" thing to do to music. Later on, smarter folks convinced me that ASRC itself was not necessarily "bad", and that it just depended on how mathematically well it is done, and that with enough processing power and more precise algorithms, ASRC can sound fine without artifacts.
R2R with NOS vs. SDM or
R2R with NOS vs DSD or???
My understanding is that it is very hard (impossible?) to do R2R at 44.1 with acceptable linearity. Is this not so?
SDM requires OS to work acceptably.
DSD recorded at DSD 256 can achieve excellent results with NOS and the right DAC architecture, but of course truly native DSD 256 recording is very limited, to basically live recording with no editing, and while this can be a fine approach, it does not solve the problem all the music one might love being available, mostly in only 44.1 PCM.
I remember the earlier days of OS DACs with say, the Ti 4192 ASRC. It reduced jitter with a good local clock, but it sounded fairly wretched to me. For awhile, I believed that ASRC was just a "bad" thing to do to music. Later on, smarter folks convinced me that ASRC itself was not necessarily "bad", and that it just depended on how mathematically well it is done, and that with enough processing power and more precise algorithms, ASRC can sound fine without artifacts.
Last edited:
SRC4192 is audibly transparent and thus sounds excellent. Benchmark still uses its core (which is in the SRC4392) in the DAC3. I'm afraid you are full of it.
SRC4392 can sound pretty good if powered correctly. However, DAC-3 sound quality is easily beaten by the much less expensive Topping D90, the later having replaced DAC-3 in my main system. Of course, DAC-3 came out roughly a decade before D90 so it shouldn't be too surprising that technology eventually improves.