0.9u-6 early thoughts

[PeterSt]

Did I miss something? Peter, is it possible to play 16/44.1 (without checking double/upsample) when your DAC is expecting 24/88.2 or 24/96? What would the benefit of that be?

I think what we all miss is the lack of knowlegde on eachothers' DACs. LydMekk may talk in terms I indeed still don't understand, but you do just the same. The point is, this is not you. It is your expectation from my DAC. Here goes :

If I set my DAC to 88.2, it plays the file twice as fast. Ha ... WRONG. Again ... if I set my SOUNDCARD to 88.2, it plays the file twice as fast.

Done. Hahaha.
So *I* can't even start let my DAC have expectations.
I know from others that they explicitly have to set the soundcard to the samplerate implied by XX. I don't know what happens otherwise with them, but with me ? all automated here.

So it is just hard to communicate over these things.

[PeterSt]

I am lost here.
Are you guys going away from bit perfect with your pre-processing data?
Is that is what is going on. Your posts are very confusing!!!

Nah ... Andrey ... I guess you didn't read up through the topic ?

When the DAC expects a word length of 32 bits, but the file is 24, those last 8 bits must be added. This can be done in real time, but this also can be done in a "pre-processing" stage. All plays from memory, remember ?
This 32 bit thing is just one example. The "processing" is needed, but it would be as bit perfect -> when reading back into 96/24 the 8 bits are chopped off again.
Don't confuse this with the digital volume, or inverted absolute phase. That obviously can't be bit perfect as such. And that too needs the "processing".

[manisandher]

Sorry, I don't have much time right to reply right now...

... poored a special whiskey, and checked to be certain

I'm not sure how many whiskeys you had before you checked the code, but could you double check?... actually make that quad check

Mani.

[Leo]

some input to the upsampling discussion

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/2/29646.html

this guy gets attacked directly on AA so there must be something good in his approach

so far I have found that Islay whiskies agree best with quad upsampling. The jury is still out on the best whisky for double upsampling

[PeterSt]

this guy gets attacked directly on AA so there must be something good in his approach

Yeah, that's the general idea.

I had been following that thread a bit already, and his basis is OK I think, but halfly put through, and for the other half applied wrongly. If I may play God here :

It certainly is not easy to look through the real merits of this, and the good example is given by soundchekk overthere (of course being the same as soundcheck overhere), who's response is allright for content, but not appropriate to the subject. The fun is, that *I* know exactly what soundcheck has been through hence talks about, him being the DTH 4 ME and me being the soundchekk (maybe 18 months ago over at bd-design);
People over and over come with great sounding tracks where special "technology" has been applied to, and the only thing I do is rejecting it because of colouring or whatever it is that's wrong with it, reading the file into Wavelab, and point out how dead wrong it is. Hahaha, over and over again.
Somehow this is about the art/skill of being able to hear that things have been manipulated indeed. Of course it needs some experience in looking at the digital wave form, but by now I can easily see at a glance what is wrong with it (if it is). Just think of the example of left and right channel occurring a few ms shifted from eachother. Now, would that create spatiousness or what !? of course it does. But it's manipulated.

What I actually start to learn (not sure though !) from that AA thread, is that it could very well be that no software player is applying what XX now does : using the bits where they should be used. Mind you, this is just the most normal, but you have to know quite a few things. Just relate this to :

a. The fact that Doubel/Upsampling as how it has been in XX until a few versions back, was just not real. Remember, it applied the higher sample rate only, and I actually never heard someone say that it did half of the trick only (not with other players as well).
b. The suggestion of people that a device like the Burwen Bobcat improves the sound.

I said it elsewhere, the "upsampling" must be in balance. Double the frequency, then double the bit depth. Use more than double the bit depth, and it will be wrong ! Or the other way around : double the frequency without doubling the bit depth (doubling is 1 additional bit) and it sure is wrong again (you'll get harmonic distortion from that).

This all must be seen to the respect of the plots from Mani, showing things way wrong (if really so, but let's assume it), and *that* actually not causing real harm. Again, this is about the nos principle.

In the end, what does it tell ? as said before : that a 1 zillion things are wrong anyway, and we hardly hear them. But wait till they're all eliminated ...
And that's why I keep on saying that XX is still in the beginnings of sound improvement. Just give it time ...

[Leo]

Thank you Peter,

thinking that we have this ability to listen through all the things that still need to be improved and allready get so much fun and happiness from the music that we play. And with all the non-solved issues around clearly have this ability to make the distinction when improvements have been made (at least quite a few people seem to be able to do that)

have a nice day,

Leo

[LydMekk]

Did I miss something? Peter, is it possible to play 16/44.1 (without checking double/upsample) when your DAC is expecting 24/88.2 or 24/96? What would the benefit of that be?

I think what we all miss is the lack of knowlegde on eachothers' DACs. LydMekk may talk in terms I indeed still don't understand, but you do just the same. The point is, this is not you. It is your expectation from my DAC. Here goes :

If I set my DAC to 88.2, it plays the file twice as fast. Ha ... WRONG. Again ... if I set my SOUNDCARD to 88.2, it plays the file twice as fast.

Done. Hahaha.
So *I* can't even start let my DAC have expectations.
I know from others that they explicitly have to set the soundcard to the samplerate implied by XX. I don't know what happens otherwise with them, but with me ? all automated here.

So it is just hard to communicate over these things.

Yep folks. To try to explain a little clearer: It's the difference between what's my soundcard is putting out (f.ex. 88.2) and what XX is trying to play back (f.ex. 44Khz with or without double etc.).

Problems occur (as mentioned) when I locks the soundcard at f.ex. 96Khz when playing back 44Khz material either normal or with double or upsampling. Then something ugly happens up in the tweeter-region.

And in my case it's also better to lock the soundcard at 88Khz instead of letting XX handle the auto-upgrade to 88 when selecting double or upsamp. It plain sounds better. Don't know why.

Clearer?

[PeterSt]

So to be sure : You let XX Double / Upsample, *also* set the soundcard explicitly to 88K2, and then it sounds better than without the latter, right ?

Maybe your soundcard resamples back otherwise ? is that checkable ?

In my case I could simulate similar : when I set the Fireface to 88K2 it would pull on the data; when I set it to "nothing" (for Mani, I don't use DDS) it will be "pushed" to 88K2. This looks like being different for sure, and whether it changes the sound ... must check that.
Keep in mind, this is the soundcard, and not the DAC behind it and it will follow whatever the soundcard tells (which can be e.g. 79.070 with the Fireface (1Hz steps)).

[manisandher]

I have a question for Mani and LydMekk - are you saying you play 24/96 material with 'DAC is 16 bits 44.1KHz'? And/or are you saying you are playing 16/44.1 material and are checking double but leaving at 'DAC is 16 bits 44.1KHz'?

Just to be clear, these are my settings:

24/96 FLAC: 'DAC is 32 bits 192KHz'
Double/Quad Upsampled: 'DAC is 32 bits 192KHz'
Non-upsampled: 'DAC is 16 bits 44.1KHz'

'DAC is 16 bits 44.1KHz' does not allow the playback of 24/96 FLAC or double/quad upsampled 16/44.1 files.

Mani.

[LydMekk]

Same as Mani.

Have only played 16/44 material though, normal .WAV files, no FLAC or other formats.
Standard CDs ripped by EAC, slow mode (type 2.3X read speed), not hysterical or what EAC calls it.

[dinamanu]

New AK4397 32 bit, 196kHz DAC. Phase-perfect digital filter, fully differential analog out without the need for coupling caps, digital level control (32 bits, remeber). Direct interface to 32-bit path outputs from DSP's.

[manisandher]

Hi Peter,

Firstly, thanks for your kind words earlier in this thread. I really appreciate that. I just hope something worthwhile will come of any new insights you've had...

The kind of "problem" is, that it needs some experience at knowing what to listen to. Knowing what the potential differences can be. And the most important of all : you need a reference.

I know from myself that the far most important on these kind of things is the, say, absolute memory which allows you to relate things, or better, make them relative to the reference (from that moment) I talked about in the quote.

For me, this is priceless advice. The problem, of course, is in finding a reliable reference... and then being able to compare 'apples with apples' once you have it (what with so many different factors at play).

Can't wait for 0.9u-7...

Mani.

[manisandher]

(for Mani, I don't use DDS)

Me neither...

[PeterSt]

The problem, of course, is in finding a reliable reference... and then being able to compare 'apples with apples' once you have it (what with so many different factors at play).

My experience :

Once you can discern technical aspects, like the tout bass, and you are able to keep it in memory once you heard it from your system, it can be layed aside for later. As I said "from your system" is important, because your system can (no, will) unveil those separated technicalities, and all have one best setting : your reference for that part.
All you need to do now is unite those separate best references into one system.
Recognizing what causes what is obviously very helpful in achieving this.