XXHighEnd

Peter,

I suggest that meaning of 2x (double), 4x and so on, should be exactly as it is in professional world, does not matter what source material we have. That means :
- 2x means always 88,2 or 96 kHz depending on the source is 44,1 or 48, 88,2 or 96
- 4x means always 176,4 or 192 kHz depending on the source is 44,1 or 48, 88,2 or 96 or 176,4 or 192
- 8x similiar and 4x, and so on
this should have nothing to do with resolution, which should be always 24 bit or 32 bit depending on DAC.

Supposing we have 88,2 or 96 kHz track and quality is set to 1x, what to do ? Maybe downsample  or just display a message that track cannot be played with this setting or just ignore this setting.

What do you think ?
I suppose everybody will like this.
Jarek

I completely agreed with you, until you brought up the 96 and 1x. This does happen, momentarily mainly with DXD. So, this is 352.8 and is downsampled to 176.4.

So, I still think we should just denote the wanted output rate. That is *as* clear, and "obviously" will be set to the DAC max' rate.
But hmm ... what about if you just don't want to upsample anything.

Hahaha, interesting. Similar to I that wrote the code 3 times this afternoon before coming to the conclusion that always something is wrong.

Any good idea is welcome I guess !

My thoughts are:

I thing that concept of
2x - upsample 2x
4x - upsample 4x
is worthless, since on the time you play the track you cannot forsee for 100% what is the native resolution of this track.

Most users want to upsample or not. When they want, they want upsample to DAC's maximum resolution. Always.
My idea resolves this issue.

Jarek

Yes, exactly, if we dont want or we CANT upsample.
I like the output rate choice, but i do not find confusing the current system, as long as one know the resolution of the source (and i think that now is displayed in the left side).

If you do not want to upsaple you can keep 1x always, and nothing is upsampled - and plays as is.
If you select 2x, you upsample only if you have 44.1/48 tracks.
If you select 4x, you upsample only if you have < 176kHz, etc.
At least it could work like this...
It could work well, I think for most users.

Jarek

Ugh,

Election polls (Dutch Elections), upsampling polls....strange evening, haha

- If it is always better to upsample (are there exclusions ?)
- source rate and actual output rate should be displayed (as it is in current version)


I dont understand why we should (would) use 2x,4x,8x (16x), if there is reason for this, then it would be known with this version, I guess, if not.

2 settings are needed:

Keep original or upsample to dac max.

Maybe Jarek (or someone else) could explain why you want to use for eg. 4x or 8x
If we need to chooce an upsample rate with every album we play (like Boleary said for eg), this is not very convenient.

MHHHO


PS: Peter, a downsample option somewhere would be great, in my case that is.

Hi,

I agree in 100%.
I want to upsample to DACs max, or not to upsample at all.
Just do not know how can it be done and tried to find a handy way.
Current idea in 09z1 does not work, because - as I understand - it multiples sample rate by 2x, 4x, 8x - or I understand this wrongly ???

Not necessarily Jarek.

In my case my Juli@ and pre/processor will handle 24/192, however, because I use the parametric equilizer function of the latter to tame some minor room mode anomolies, I am restricted to LESS THAN 176.4 if I want to use that equilizer function. (There's a technical upper limit to what the pre/pro can have as input while still providing equilizer function).

Upshot of all this is that I use DOUBLE upsampling for redbook stuff rather than a QUAD, which if used would disable the equilizer in the pre/pro.

For this very reason I like Roy's idea of have an option to DOWNSAMPLE also. This would permit me to play 24/192 (and higher) material natively without first having to convert to 24/96 externally (eg. dBPowerAmp ).

Cheers,

Russ

Maybe it is nit picking, but another reason not to upsample to the max DAC rate, is that it may sound worse because the electronics can't cope well. I experienced this myself (and changed the electronics haha).
As said, nit picking, but I think for NOS DACs this can apply easily (because of the transients are not molested). It is only that those DACs don't exist why it isn't much of a problem ...

Ok, why do we upsample from hires anyway (say, from of 88.2) ?
Maybe if we have a clear answer to this, it is better to see what "settings" must be there.
IMHO we only can do this for higher resolution. But even me myself wonder how much beneficial (audible) it will be.
We also can do it for filtering reasons (and then it would be audible) but first the file would have to be not band limited, and I don't even know whether that can exist, or the other way around, whether it is official if they are. Example : The output of XX at 2x AntiImage will be band limited (there is no high frequency data in it anymore). But if I buy an 88.2, is it the same ? I really don't know. But if it is, upsampling for the reason of filtering is useless.

blahblah

The reason I wanted this, is that the DAC I am using in all setups. I have dCS and use dual AES. Dual AES works for higher frequencies only (not for 44.1). Also LYNX card does not output double AES for frequenices <176kHz. And finaly dCS does not accept on single AES more than 96kHz and it plays much better on dual AES than on sigle AES.

So, in my setup it would be more convenient for me to have always maximum sampling frequency (176400 or 192000 depending on the source material sample frequency). Otherwise I will have to switch dCS from double to single and from single to double, switch external clock serving dCS and LYNX to particular frequency and switch between 1x, 2x, 4x on XXHighEnd. Also I will have to analyze XXHighEnd what to set up, because without proper setup it will not play at all.

I understand everybody needs different, but maybe it is possible to satisfy everybody ?

Well, what say you folks that are able to up-sample a high rez file, how does that increased resolution sound compared to no up-sampling?

I'm also currently restricted to 96k by my VST host (i should switch to bidule but i dont really like it).
i'm doing NO upsampling now, but that'll change with the NOS1 dac or a filterless dac for the matter.

Ok, here is my solution : 0.9z-2 Sample Rate Conversions  (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1286.0) (not up yet).