XXHighEnd

So I've noticed that I and one other in this forum, Joachim, use 8x instead of 16x upsampling. As Joachim recently posted, 8x sounds tonally better and, for me, there is a greater texture or presence to the sound. Am wondering if there are other folks who, with the NOS1 or 1a, use sample rate other than 16x? My theory on why 8x sounds best here is that I use significant room treatments in my man-cave and I believe Joachim does too. I believe the room treatments eliminate most of the high frequency hash in the room which is similar to using 16x upsampling. However, the sound with 16x lacks weight and tone in a "treated room." As you know I am no expert, just going by what sounds best here. Just wondering what others might think about this.

Hi Robert,

my room is not treated, but my listening SPL is well below 70dB(A) most of the time.
I'm using the "custom filter" setting 352800/High.
Made a short comparision between 16xAP/8xAp using Peter's "Seagull" record again, and in my opinion there is more ambience with 8xAP.

Joachim

Joachim, interesting you do not have room treatments. I thought you did based on prior comments you made, but maybe that was someone else. Addressing points of first and second reflection really improved things here. Also I notice your choice of tuning feet under your NOS1a, I use Daruma 3-II's. I guess we are the only ones using 8x upsampling instead of 16x? Funny I usually listen at an average SPL between 75 and 77 (A). I used to think that 16x upsampling sounded better at higher volumes but not anymore.

Hi,

Just tried with 8x instead of 16x.
> NOS1 (not NOS1a)
> NOS1 Driver 1.0.3
> NOS1 Driver "Stereo Full"
> NOS1 switch #5 up
> "IS Phasure NOS1" OFF (no red light on it)

The Intona High Speed USB Isolator is connected.

First impressions... I am not sure but here I go:
- Bass sounds a little more prominent. Not tighter, but more relaxed.
- Percussions and some details are somewhat less accute.
- There is a certain roundness and at this early stage it could have the "ambiance" adjective to it.

So a little warmer and rounder.

I do not have room treatment. My room is more on the "echo" than "absorbent".

Comparison is made with identical adjustments.

Could this be another way to adjust or address something, no matter if I mention 32/384 or 32/768 ?

Peter, I suppose that at 32/768, the distorsion figures are lesser ?

Alain
PS: I will switch from time to time, but I was curious.

These are very early impressions.

Alain, yes. But other "accuracy" measures may be less/different and we can not measure them. Say like USB cables.
Still, what we can measure should be prevalent. So I would always hunt for the 32/768 (24/768) to sound the best over the lower rate. If that doesn't happen, something else should be out of order. Understand ? (and for sure no need to agree !).


Now please continue ...
:) :)
Peter

Hi Peter,

Don't tell me you suffer from insomnia yourself too ?

That phrase that I did not finish... Was started for what I already wrote, but I restarted and I forgot to check what is left... Misleading eh...

I do agree by the way. It sure makes sense, but it can be hard to identify what is going on...

There are details I can hear that surprises me, but now I have to admit that I need to be more focused instead of being lazy. I would like to put more precise words to reflect my impressions, but still I know that you are the "leader" (in the positive sense) and I try to apply it in my learning curve.

There are songs I use for very specific sounds or instruments. I like percussions, so I have a song with percussions that I really like. I use that when I wish to hear some realism.

Sometimes I will listen to another instrument that I can't even identify, but it will be either more or less prominent. My "beacons" are more or less loose but help me in my steps towards better SQ. I am still impressed with all that XXHE can allow. I can have headaches too !

Kind regards,

Alain
PS: Melatonin + valerian to help sleeping :)

Ok, I will try to explain "little"... When I was reading audio magazines, someone was trying to explain what expressions about the importance of changes were meaning. Beyond a certain point, each incremental, even the subtlest of change may be very important and would be quite expensive. Some differences will be a lot more important than others, but still it will only be very tiny. So it is not always obvious to quantify what one means by things like "Night and Day" or "subtle improvement" - any description that carries our enthusiasm, our surprise - anything to bring an image to an impression.

And this is my challenge. Trying to define if what I hear can be hearable again tomorrow, the day after, next week... If it is important or not, etc...

Alain

Hi ALain,

a lot of us are now with the USB driver 1.04, but I don't know if that works with the NOS1.

On my system 1.04 favours the SQ compared to 1.03.

Joachim

I'm still using driver version 1.03, hopefully that will change sometime today.  :) Here 16x upsampling is just too airy. Wish I knew why....

Brian - too airy ?
Can that exist ?

What are the downsides of that ??


Sorry for a stupid question, but I'd say that it never can be too airy. Unless you mean something else than what I have in my mind with "air".

Peter

Joachim: In what way does 1.04 favours over 1.03?

Peter: Is there a technical reason for that?

Stanley

Stanley,

This has been "discussed" before. No, there is no reason for it that I know. And, I also don't know whether it is true or not. Ok, of course it is because people tell so, but I never noticed it. Bbbbut ... I also never tested it explicitly.

Regards,
Peter

Hi Stanley,

see here. Michael wrote about it first, and I hear the same improvement :)

http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3237.msg35828#msg35828

Joachim

Maybe airy is the wrong word. At 16x upsampling the "feeling" here is that the sound is  too delicate. It lacks weight or what, to me, feels like presence. It's as though some vital information gets lost and I hear voices coming from heads instead of entire body's. Of course there is a bit of a trade off. At very high volumes the sound at 16x is a bit smoother but it still sounds lacking in the same way. Sorry I don't know how to describe this better. But the overall tone sounds more realistic here at 8x upsampling.

Brian, I understand now.

Possibly you are not familiar with the phenomenon "airy" or maybe better "with air". This is how all is going to float with "see through" and more I too can not describe. But it looks like something very different from what you describe.

Thanks,
Peter

HI,

airy

Pertaining to treble which sounds light, delicate, open, and seemingly unrestricted in upper extension. A quality of reproducing systems having very smooth and very extended HF response.
Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary#HsWHE382iDAjrhbb.99

Thanks guys, what I'm talking about has more to do with the mid range, so airy was definitely the wrong word. :)