Unless there is some compelling reason to test at 176.4, it seems that we should convert to 88.2. In addition to easing transport-link compatibility, I would think that 88.2 would provoke less sound variation stemming from the DAC's rate sensitive analog elements (settling, clock and supply noise, etc.). It seems that 88.2 should make it more likely that subjective differences are mostly due to the digital filter characteristics, than would 176.4.
Hi Ken,
The question regarding 176.4 or 88.2 was just with the idea in mind to hit two birds with one stone, making three files available.
The original 44.1 version, the high Fs upsampled version and the downsampled 44.1 version.
But we can just as well leave the high Fs version and concentrate on the two 44.1 versions as before.
In that case I would suggest to let PGGB upsample to 176.4 and back to to 44.1, because in this case the most processing has to be done in the upsampling process.
Agreed ?
Hans
The question regarding 176.4 or 88.2 was just with the idea in mind to hit two birds with one stone, making three files available.
The original 44.1 version, the high Fs upsampled version and the downsampled 44.1 version.
But we can just as well leave the high Fs version and concentrate on the two 44.1 versions as before.
In that case I would suggest to let PGGB upsample to 176.4 and back to to 44.1, because in this case the most processing has to be done in the upsampling process.
Agreed ?
Hans
I like the testing options which 3 versions of a given file would provide us. I would like for us to have a library with the; 1) high rate up-sampled version, 2) the 44.1 down sampled version, 3) and the original 44.1 version.
Agreed, about PGGB. They would then only need produce an up-sampled version, and a down sampled version of a given file for us.
Last edited:
Hi Thom,
We will do the same as before with two 44.1 versions, one original and one processed.
But as a bonus a 88.2 version will also be supplied to compare to both 44.1 versions.
It is important that you stay with us with so little contenders.
Hans
In addition to specifying those sample rates, should we also specify the bit-depth of the returned files (16, 24, 32)? In addition, I plan to ask the author of PGGB to make any other relevant settings on the conversion process (noise-shaping, etc.) which he feels best demonstrate the sound of his product, unless you think we should specify any of those ourselves for our test comparison purposes.
Last edited:
I will listen to files as well this arvo... work's been a killer lately.
Did some preliminary listening late last night with OPPO205 and headphones - I could hear the differences....(I'm pretty sure 205 upsamples internally, though).
Will try May in NOS now...
Edit: Thanks guys, I will not look at that give-away information
Did some preliminary listening late last night with OPPO205 and headphones - I could hear the differences....(I'm pretty sure 205 upsamples internally, though).
Will try May in NOS now...
Edit: Thanks guys, I will not look at that give-away information
I listened to 2 and 17.
#2 Fileds of Gold:
Better dynamic range!
I can hear the hiss clearly. The guitar strings sound more natural and resonate more. They seem like the real deal - like...I can see the fingers & the strings. They resonate in front of me in space. I am under impression that I can stand up and walk to the strings, touch them, see them. The singer's voice is easily distinguished from the rest of the music.
#17 Fileds of Gold:
Compressed dynamic range, less of a left-right and up-down extension (space). Didn't like it (at all...)
I used May Dac in NOS.
It'd be nice to know if I actually prefered the-up-and-then down-sampled track...
#2 Fileds of Gold:
Better dynamic range!
I can hear the hiss clearly. The guitar strings sound more natural and resonate more. They seem like the real deal - like...I can see the fingers & the strings. They resonate in front of me in space. I am under impression that I can stand up and walk to the strings, touch them, see them. The singer's voice is easily distinguished from the rest of the music.
#17 Fileds of Gold:
Compressed dynamic range, less of a left-right and up-down extension (space). Didn't like it (at all...)
I used May Dac in NOS.
It'd be nice to know if I actually prefered the-up-and-then down-sampled track...
Last edited:
O.K. guys, thx for performing the test.
This was just a first try-out, the serious test is yet to come with the much longer FIR filter.
The thing that will be changed for the test to come is the removed Metadata.
I also would like everybody to reply to me with a P.M. with his selection, preventing to influence each other, which might have been the case here looking at the results.
But a first impression is that Audacity's processing might cripple the sound in some noticeable way.
Below is the outcome of the 5 respondents, with only one wrong selection.
Hans
.
This was just a first try-out, the serious test is yet to come with the much longer FIR filter.
The thing that will be changed for the test to come is the removed Metadata.
I also would like everybody to reply to me with a P.M. with his selection, preventing to influence each other, which might have been the case here looking at the results.
But a first impression is that Audacity's processing might cripple the sound in some noticeable way.
Below is the outcome of the 5 respondents, with only one wrong selection.
Hans
.
Attachments
I am using a headphone amplifier (the FiiO Btr3k that uses a pair of AKM chips) connected to an adapter to a 3 pin XLR (stereo) cut into a preamp feeding an analog volume control to the rest. The files are played through an Audirvana player. This is what I was using at the moment.
In any event I got 2 out of 3 wrong. The only one correct was the Bach. However after knowing which files were correct (?) I listened for commonalities between the three. All three were spatially more real sounding with greater vocal inflections being more prominent. What was distracting (and possibly the reason for getting the two wrong) was a bit more aggression and imbalance toward the top end on the other two tracks. This may not be the case with others on variant systems.
Yet all three selections seem as older works. Many more modern digital recordings, in 2018 and beyond, seem substantively superior on HD Tidal to those selections. Bear in mind that HD Tidal only plays back Redbook and questionable MQA.
Gerrit