Of course, but I did hope in a quicker solution just changing the settings in Volumio.
I don't use GUI based software for an audio source. So I don't know Volumio from experience. Everything I know about common software is resampling. Normally the Volumio should make sure that only the bit depth is changed on the fly. But only the developer knows. Because you can also bring in supposed (?) Improvers. I would test it with Sox and resample a file "cleanly" beforehand. See: SoX (-b 24 or -b 32 ...). Then make an audio comparison of how Volumio sounds with the original file.
That leads to the (off-topic) question "NOS-DAC and oversampling or before upsampling ... or..."
That leads to the (off-topic) question "NOS-DAC and oversampling or before upsampling ... or..."
My own commandline RAM-player. Linux realtime-commandline-OS. Remote controlled by a WIN 10 Tablet with own coded Windows-Software.
Hi Soren,
please can you shed some light on the schedule for releasing the other DACs of the Audiophile Line.
Thank you
Matt
@Andrea
Only hinted, because the topic leads very far off-topic: Many years ago, when word got around that the PC could possibly be a better source than the CD player, I did what "Cics" did (today good story): cMP² | Main / HomePage
I was able to understand a lot of it theoretically and audibly. That's how I've learned over time - about the PC as a source. When it comes to software and hardware. You can partially measure this with various tools. Even if not in the same way as with a classic source. Also the control of the software and the question of whether one uses libraries as usual to read out files or just reads out the files, the libraries closes again during playback and only the RAW portion of the files is loaded into the RAM and played ... That then works with a minimal engine. You can check how / whether the load has an audible effect. Even the hard of hearing can at least hear a difference. The high-resolution original files have since been added. So that should be paid attention to.
But that's like the question of whether an extremely motorized and loud Swedish truck can offer the same performance as an F1 Ferrari.
I don't know if this inconvenient minimal RAM player is still running on Windows: Minimalist Audio Player: Cue Sheet Support And StealthAudioPlayer
Only hinted, because the topic leads very far off-topic: Many years ago, when word got around that the PC could possibly be a better source than the CD player, I did what "Cics" did (today good story): cMP² | Main / HomePage
I was able to understand a lot of it theoretically and audibly. That's how I've learned over time - about the PC as a source. When it comes to software and hardware. You can partially measure this with various tools. Even if not in the same way as with a classic source. Also the control of the software and the question of whether one uses libraries as usual to read out files or just reads out the files, the libraries closes again during playback and only the RAW portion of the files is loaded into the RAM and played ... That then works with a minimal engine. You can check how / whether the load has an audible effect. Even the hard of hearing can at least hear a difference. The high-resolution original files have since been added. So that should be paid attention to.
But that's like the question of whether an extremely motorized and loud Swedish truck can offer the same performance as an F1 Ferrari.
I don't know if this inconvenient minimal RAM player is still running on Windows: Minimalist Audio Player: Cue Sheet Support And StealthAudioPlayer
For your reference:
- that is all speculation on your side
- You should find a more appropriate forum for your speculations
- You just speculate, I know
- In my opinion, it is quite rude of you to come to this thread and crap all over it with your jitter fetishism
- you're behaving like another audiofool egghead on DIYaudio spouting nonsense
- you’re doing is portraying yourself as a charlatan, unable to move beyond unsubstantiated claims, making yourself look less credible with every request for more information
- never offering anything factual or with a solid technical explanation
The above are all posts without the minimal technical argument and obviously full of insults.
And even for your reference they are all in reply to my posts where I used a technical approach.
Not only, I was insulted also when I reported statements from other members about the source dependent issue of the DAM.
How would you name these?
Try Moode. Download the image from moodeaudio.org, configure it to use i2s (or USB), select the DAM1021/1121 option if using i2s and it works out-of-the-box on 16-bit.
This leads back to the underlying problem: the source dependence.
If we assume a bit perfect source (and it's so) the harware and the software of the source don't matter with a true FIFO that isolates the DAC from the source.
You can use whatever you want without any audible effect.
Thanks for the hint, I will do that, but now I have not the time (the source is placed in its cabinet so I have to open it to acces the SD card on the RPI).
OK so no - you call these "fanatic claims". I call them on topical technical questions or posting style critique. I think I recognise one of mine which btw. I still stand by. That would be bullet no 4. The others seem to call for more facts or explanations - is that fanatical or insulting as you see it? Facts that you have never provided so in my book, they are OK. You could have chosen to respond to them and explain for the less knowing.
But to start a discussing RAM based player is truly off topic here - even for your specific problem at hand - 16 or 32 bit in an external interface.
//
But to start a discussing RAM based player is truly off topic here - even for your specific problem at hand - 16 or 32 bit in an external interface.
//
Yes. I hope. Provided the source passes "bit perfect". But up to now(!) I didn't find anything of that, what you are describing.
I have explained several times although I cannot translate in a math formula.
Most of you have empirically confirmed my theory.
You claim that the DAC is source dependent (and next days I will try mine to confirm or not).
Again, we can assume the source is bit perfect, so where the issue come from?
What is carried from the source to the DAC?
- data (bit perfect)
- timing
Therefore only timing remains.
Good - if you didn't get any followup questions on your answers I suppose the ones which asked the questions are satisfied. Your test will prove nothing of what we have been discussing here lately. It will show something else - what, I really cant help you with. Do you know yourself? Timing - could that be wander?
//
//