|
Title: Hi-rez material Post by: manisandher on November 11, 2009, 03:58:27 pm Peter, I'm really interested in your thoughts regarding the a post I placed on another thread:
... (thus, we feed both a 176400 Arc upsampled from 44100 and a native 176400 to the completely filterless DAC, and the upsampled sounds way better) Now, how can it be that this native 88200 / 176400 through that NOS/Filterless DAC does NOT sound as good ? This can only be because it already contains some "filtering" in the material, which filtering is NOT there in 44100 material. It almost looks like the decimation process went via 44100 and is then upsampled by the wrong filtering means... ... If I am right on this, all currently produced hires material is lost forever already. Peter, have you tried the Reference Recordings 176.4 material? It is the best hi-rez material I have come across (SQ-wise, not music-wise!). This may be because I am using the same ADC/DAC that is used to record it. It may also be because of the following, from one of the designers of the ADC/DAC: "If it's going to be 176.4 or 192kHz, then we will not decimate that signal; we use a proprietary filter [non-oversampled] optimized to that sample rate." When I have my system set up again (hopefully in next few weeks), I will record from LP at 44.1 and 176.4KHz rates and then compare Arc Prediction upsampled to non-upsampling. Mani. Title: Re: Hi-rez material Post by: PeterSt on November 12, 2009, 09:46:06 am I am sorry Mani, I didn't get around to yet. Will try tonight !
Title: Re: Hi-rez material Post by: PeterSt on November 12, 2009, 10:06:02 am Mani,
I can't check it it at the moment, but although I have RR material (which is THE BEST anyway), I don't think I have 176.4/192 material from them. So, since I must buy it anyway, what do you suggest ? (but please give me something with cymbals and drums on it). Obviously, for best comparions, it should be something which is available on 16/44.1 as well. Notice that normally I would be able to judge without (A/B) comparison, but with RR material this is tough because it is so good in the first place (well, my opinion). I hope you can help me with this, thanks. Peter Title: Re: Hi-rez material Post by: CoenP on November 12, 2009, 11:18:50 am No need to buy and wait:
There is complementary (=free) 176.4KHz RR material on the Computeraudiophile website. There is a piano and a grand orchestra piece. http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Complimentary-241764-HRx-Downloads-Courtesy-Reference-Recordings Look also for the LL recordings free hires material. regards, Coen Title: Re: Hi-rez material Post by: PeterSt on November 12, 2009, 12:09:56 pm Thank you very much Coen. I will try those at least !
Peter Title: Re: Hi-rez material Post by: manisandher on November 12, 2009, 03:50:57 pm Hi Peter,
Sorry, I've been busy running a workshop all day... But at least it was in beautiful Paris! I'll be back in the UK later today and will have a listen to all my HRx files over the weekend to see if there are any more 'dynamic' tracks that I can identify. Nice post on CA, BTW. In English, we have an expression, "Double Dutch", used when you really don't understand a word of what someone is saying. I can't help feeling that you are considered the Master of DD on CA! But thanks to you, I think I'm becoming more fluent in this language myself :prankster: Mani. Title: Re: Hi-rez material Post by: PeterSt on November 12, 2009, 05:57:04 pm :rofl:
Well, Double Dutch or not, I guess I couldn't stand much that your good ideas (well, even advises) were not understood and worse. PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Dutch_(language_game) This is what my parents applied to me when they didn't want me to understand things. That's also Double Dutch I think. :) Title: Re: Hi-rez material Post by: PeterSt on November 12, 2009, 07:50:12 pm Quote I'll be back in the UK later today and will have a listen to all my HRx files over the weekend to see if there are any more 'dynamic' tracks that I can identify. I hope you can try hard, because the two tracks available from download at CA, well, ... *completely* liveless and flat. The first (Gottschalk) I switched off at 2:36 and at the second at 1 minute I had enough of it. Notice that all is relative of course, but these both tracks were the worst I heard in some two months time (and this is not because every other recording is better, but because something is really wrong with hires and I got used to something else in the mean time :yes: and never play hires material anymore). Also note that either way (Arc Upsampling 16/44.1 to 24/176.4 or these native 24/176.4 tracks) the DAC is running in the exact same mode. I don't want this to be like this ... it is just stupid it is so ! There is NO comparison. Peter |