This in untrue in my experience. Some of pop albums are actually upsampled files as you said, but less than 10% of all HiRez files on Qobuz. And if the source master is the same, 44.1K is downsampled version of original HiRez master.
What kind of HiRez service are you using?
And, Foobar downsampling is not as good as professional downsampling SRC at mastering studio. (Compare foo bar with Sonic)
SRC Comparisons
SRC Comparisons
I agree, but I have one question.
Your reference converter is ESS? I have ESS and Walfson, and I find that the difference between 44.1K and HiRez is much more obvious with ESS. I have an impression that the converter is making more difference than the ears.
I was completely unaware of qobuz. I'll pay the extra to not support MQA- I have a buddy who is an advocate, and sends me things like Robert Harley's writeup in the 9/19 absolute sound. It's labeled "High Res Democratization"- the premise (apart from the marketing lipservice) is that somehow MQA, another proprietary format with no advantage over flac that is licensed at both software and hardware level, is a good thing for the masses.
Yeah... no. Qobuz seems the perfect alternative to paying into the MQA Scam.
Yeah... no. Qobuz seems the perfect alternative to paying into the MQA Scam.
Yeah, I feel very sorry someone mentions MQA which I was advocating here before.
MQA does not sound as good as Qobuz.
But let me excuse, Qobuz was not available in US until recently.
Yeah, I feel very sorry someone mentions MQA which I was advocating here before.
No need for sadness, we're all on the same team! MQA is purpose-built to mislead people about what they're getting and why, no reason to feel bad about it- and finding qobuz (which will allow me native 96/24 into my digital XO) makes this badman very happy indeed, thank you for sharing it as an option!
Please explain what mechanism in the earbrain can sort out the steepness of the rising part of a sinus and the steepness of a "transient" and, for the transient, increase it's ability to detect a steeper flank then for a sinus. Pretty please.
//
It's not hard to imagine that our sinus recognition has different properties than a natural sound. Perhaps it's oriented around skin detection acting differently than aural? It's certainly true that we perceive sonic events with more than our ears.
Not advocating for the position, just that mechanisms for sensory perception are more broad, interrelated and complicated than we tend to give them credit for.
For me personally, I have heard better "peak quality" from high res recordings than from CDP (and Vinyl has produced better perceived sound than I've heard from CD as well). I could be fooling myself, entirely possible. I don't mind if that's the case so long as my ear brain keeps feeding me the happy song.
Assuming that you indeed hear those differences, their dependence on DAC type might mean it is related to intersample overshoots or passband-ripple-related pre-echoes. Does the ESS have a larger passband ripple or less headroom than the Walfson? Are the filters linear phase, minimum phase or something in between?
I have a little complicated digital signal chain and don't use DAC internal filter at 44.1K sampling rate except when testing something. FIR filter at 44.1K is colored to my ears whatever it is, especially on chip filter. I do understand NOS DAC in this regard, and most importantly, this is the reason why I want to avoid 44.1K source. At higher sampling rate, the filter is much less colored, and I can’t really find any meaningful difference between filter types, can you?
Last edited:
OK, I didn't know you have changed your reference. I’m curious why some claim that he can’t hear the difference between sampling rate, and I wonder if it has a correlation to “DAC chip” itself. I’m sure that it has a correlation to “DAC unit”, though...
my 2 cents.
I play Tidal with Roon interface. The digital transport is Auralic. I am using minidsp 4x10HD (96khz max.) for lxmini. Both Auralic and Roon can do upsampling to the max. khz which the DAC can accept. In this case, I found the SQ is better when playing without upsampling.
However, I am also playing Iancanda 9038 DAC for my fullrage speaker. Also playing with Auralic as Roon Endpoint to Ian 9038. The 9038 DAC can accept much high upsampling rate and DSD files. In this case, I found the SQ is better when playng with upsampling.
So each DAC chip can perform differently when eating different sampling rate in my setup.
I think AK4499 maybe delicious, and tempted to try!
I play Tidal with Roon interface. The digital transport is Auralic. I am using minidsp 4x10HD (96khz max.) for lxmini. Both Auralic and Roon can do upsampling to the max. khz which the DAC can accept. In this case, I found the SQ is better when playing without upsampling.
However, I am also playing Iancanda 9038 DAC for my fullrage speaker. Also playing with Auralic as Roon Endpoint to Ian 9038. The 9038 DAC can accept much high upsampling rate and DSD files. In this case, I found the SQ is better when playng with upsampling.
So each DAC chip can perform differently when eating different sampling rate in my setup.
I think AK4499 maybe delicious, and tempted to try!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.