Wave Editor trounces iTunes

[Audio_ELF]

Lars ... As I say I was just being over sensitive. My girlfriends ben pi$$i'n me off all day and I replied snappily.

 

Oops, now I sound like a love in ... Oh well.

 

Best wishes to you all

Eloise

 

[cfmsp]

 

 

Peter says:

"Right. Having said this all, I will now tell you that kdoot most probably is right in that Amarra gets its better sound from other sources than "way out mathematics"."

 

I have a question for you, or anyone with superior knowledge than I actually.

 

As I understand it, there are some DACs that provide built-in oversampling in their processing, apparently to deal with jitter.

 

I've also heard many here rattle on and on about 'bit perfect'-ness, and how this (bit-perfect) is the sine qua none (without which, nothing) of good digital audio reproduction.

 

perhaps you see where I'm going with this, wouldn't a DAC which utilizes oversampling be in violation of bit-perfectness?

 

secondly, suppose that software players such as Amarra did this same oversampling - with higher quality mathematics - albeit it, earlier in the sonic chain (i.e. in the computer, rather than the DAC). wouldn't this software-based SRC (using, e.g., the high caliber iZotope 64 bit SRC software licensed by Sonic Studio) provide a potential for improved sound?

 

said another way, if SRC in the playback chain provides an improvement in reducing jitter (or perhaps other sonic benefits), what would be wrong with Amarra (or any other player) providing this function, even if it violated the 1st rule of digital audio - thou shalt deliver thy bits perfectly to the DAC (and heaven help them once they're arrived).

 

call me curious,

 

clay

 

 

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

Clay ... Your argument certainly has merit.

 

If we are to believe reviews (and own experience) some of the best CD players at all levels over the past few years have utilized upsampling via DSP chips or other hardware. If this can me acomplished in hardware there is no reason equal upsampling can't be performed in software on computers.

 

Of course some upsampling (SRC) isn't done well and is best avoided. In this case - such as Windows XP kmixer and to lesser extent MacOS Core Audio - bit perfect audio is preferable.

 

If Meridian can get it right in their CD players and DSP speakers then it should be possible for SonicStudio to get it right in Amarra. In anycase where software is non bit perfect there should be no argument as to whether they can sound different as the bits that get to the DAC have been purposfully changed from those on the CD. Whether that makes them better or worse, or just different, is for another discussion.

 

Just thoughts

Eloise

 

[cfmsp]

 

remember the RingDAC, anyone?

 

I just remembered that my own rather dusty CD player had some rather significant upsampling going on in it's innards.

 

I'm referring to the Arcam CD23, and it's RingDAC, supposedly the algorithmically equivalent of the dCS Elgar.

 

If only the CD23 had a 'digital' input, I could compare the RingDAC in isolation against iTunes, Wave Editor and the like.

 

clay

 

[Audio_ELF]

Yes I remember the Ring DAC ... About my first high end CD player I heard was an Arcam Alpha 9 (similar hardware to FMJ CD23).

 

IIRC The RingDAC was designed by dCS (think capitals are in right place) as there multibox-solution on-a-chip.

 

Eloise

 

[One and a half]

at Audio Asylum. Search method "Wave Editor" plenty of hits

 

Here's a beauty......no trounces here.

 

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=pcaudio&n=32708&highlight="Wave+Editor"&r=

 

[PeterSt]

As I understand it, there are some DACs that provide built-in oversampling in their processing, apparently to deal with jitter.

 

I've also heard many here rattle on and on about 'bit perfect'-ness, and how this (bit-perfect) is the sine qua none (without which, nothing) of good digital audio reproduction.

 

perhaps you see where I'm going with this, wouldn't a DAC which utilizes oversampling be in violation of bit-perfectness?

 

 

This is my persisten thinking, yes. But try to understand that this is about way other properties, although in the end it comes to that. You may search in here for - square, squareish, sine, heavy oversampling - and when all these words are combined in one search it will lead to posts by me that get to the merits, well, as how I think they are.

 

Furthermore, and this is for everyone responding to oversampling to improve sound, it is my advice to stay away from that. This is nothing for in here because "we" really don't know a sh*t about it, and the one speculation falls over the other, and within no time Amarra now is oversampling to achieve a form of sound quality. Look at the lasts posts ... it is happening.

Better go to the DIYAudio forum, search a bit for these things in there, and find that there's quite some education to follow before speculating on these things with some sense. Try it out there and find your cheeks to glow red within a half post. On this matter try to see that "bit perfect" is a kind of stupid stuff for everybody, but oversampling and all is science and the education is "signal processing".

 

Anyway I can guarantee that Amarra is not applying that to achieve better sound (if it does in the first place, which is not up to me to decide -> no MAC here, haha).

 

One last word from me to get something of a grasp : when you start thinking that upsampling (!) can be done in software to achieve better sound, first think about your 24/192 DACs you have, and that you have to throw them out first, because they will oversample 256 etc. times and all is destroyed.

So, everybody ready to throw out his DAC ?

Only people with NOS DACs have a chance here.

 

Have a nice weekend all,

Peter

 

PS: clay, allow me to say that I think that was a very good post with very good questions.

 

[BEEMB]

 

Peter,

 

Sometimes Im not quite sure whether to laugh or cry. I must try to remind myself that you are of course the only person here knowing everything there is to know about computer audio. And now it seems you have a degree in law too: "but in a lawsuit he will get away with that" ... Fantastic. A one stop shop!

 

Firstly, cease posting that I'm not reading things; not only am I reading, but I am going off for advice elsewhere, advice in response to your posts. And I am enjoying doing so.

 

Secondly, stop telling me that I don't what I am talking about. It's getting extremely tiresome. You should be careful posting such things as you may not get away with that in a lawsuit ;-) .. winky winky ... I read other foumers posts and if I agee with them I may quote them - kdoot seems level headed, I agree with his comments. Get over it.

 

Thirdly, explain why you feel the need to defend Amarra. My comments were in no way an attack on Amarra. I have read their website, as suggested, and they are playing with the audio. If some processing is happening, then the output is different from the input and therefore not bit perfect. Please explain why this comment is so hard for you to understand. With a degree in law I'm surprised you *don't get it* ...

 

"The volume control is still not right, and the other stuff does not belong in there." - what are you trying to say here ? The graphs, the iTunes comparison ... what ?? explain.

 

"I'm not understanding your post Peter ... kdoot has correctly pointed out that Amarra are processing the audio. It's not bit perfect." -- if I can't understand what you're saying - explain it. Bear in mind that your posts are not always the easiest to read - there is a language barrier here remember.

 

Await response.... But make it a happy smiley one.

 

 

 

[BEEMB]

 

"My girlfriends ben pi$$i'n me off all day and I replied snappily."

 

Women ... !!

 

 

M.

 

[BEEMB]

 

Peter,

 

Seems that kdoot isn't the new owner of Sonic Studio, but you are:

 

"Anyway I can guarantee that Amarra is not applying that to achieve better sound"

 

Guarantee ... given your recent posts to me - you might wish to avoid such words. Quite a statement. About your own software you may say this and use your asterisks to highlight it... but ... come on ...

 

M.

 

[BEEMB]

 

I love those speakers in the photo. Wow.

Not sure I could squeeze them in at home here though. :-(

 

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

I'm a woman too!

 

Eloise

 

[BEEMB]

OOPS.

xxxxx ;-)

 

Interesting; I wonder how many female users there are on here.. ?

 

Any lovely single girls in their late 20's ??

 

[BEEMB]

 

Maybe you could start an audiophile dating service. ?

 

 

[PeterSt]

Well, that's something for a start, right ? and I even mean it.

 

After all the explanations I did, I don't know how to do it otherwise. I could try dutch though ... :-))

 

if I can't understand what you're saying - explain it.

 

So this is on the kdoot matter. I explained it all, with the most basic knowlegde I could find that you sure will understand. I won't repeat that you don't read (so I just did not hehe), but maybe you can try to read it again ?

 

Thirdly, explain why you feel the need to defend Amarra.

 

Matt, that too I said clearly. And explicitly. I'm a fan of honesty and reality. If you "state" that Amarra is not bit perfect, I will defend that, and thinking it is, while your reasons for thinking it is not are, well, plain wrong. Sorry !!

 

"Anyway I can guarantee that Amarra is not applying that to achieve better sound"

 

Remember, you left out the context here, and the context is "upsampling". I can guarantee that because you'd immediately notice : not bit perfect, 16/44100 DACs won't go, etc.

I really can't help it that this needs explanation to you (and others btw).

So, want to bet ?

 

given your recent posts to me - you might wish to avoid such words. Quite a statement.

 

No Matt. When I say something like that, I am 100% sure. If not, I'll add that.

I think this is the exact difference between you and me. You seem not to care much at "stating", well, wrong things. If after all this writing this still is not clear, well, declare *me* lost, ok ? haha

 

And now it seems you have a degree in law too: "but in a lawsuit he will get away with that"

 

Quite honestly I don't need degrees to get where I want. In this case this is just a matter of experiencing a few (lawsuits) and knowing all the ins and outs at the end.

 

As I understand it, it is not the most easy for people to combine and read the real merits from things. I read in your words that Amarra not being bit perfect come from nowhere, or nothing that is reliable. It may start at not knowing what "bit perfect" actually is, I don't know. But if someone (doesn't need to be you at all) out of the blue shouts that Amarra is not bit perfect, I'll go against that.

 

I don't know what to say further, except for again pointing to the credit you certainly get from me, opposed to ... (well, I hope you have read that).

 

Let's put this to rest with a good feeling on your side. Let's wait until the real data gets out. It's not difficult for me to say sorry ...

 

Peter

 

[PeterSt]

Allright, I may have found a solution to this;

 

Let's assume you see it all the same as I do. This takes a few small adjustments on either side of out thinking. You're first :

 

M.:

Amarra is bit perfect, but of course only when the digital volume control is not used.

 

P:

Of course. And as soon as Amarra starts to sound better than anything else, it will be applying DSP stuff, and then it's not bit perfect anymore, despite the volume still being at max. No voodoo with better math, nothing.

 

Now, just "admit" that you were meaning it like this, and we're all done.

Of course now I should not be accused of some suggestive statements because I actually really don't know; I didn't listen, and I certainly didn't check for bit perfectness at that virtual listening session.

 

Yahoo !

Peter

 

[PeterSt]

Once it appears true about that DSP stuff (not earlier !), we can make another bet : you'll get those beautiful DSP functions only for $1495. The demo version hasn't got them.

 

(now laugh)

 

[audioengr]

"As I understand it, there are some DACs that provide built-in oversampling in their processing, apparently to deal with jitter."

 

Actually Asynchronous Sample-Rate Conversion (ASRC) is what typically reduces jitter, not oversampling. Oversampling is synchronous to the incoming clock, so there is no inherent jitter reduction, however there can be multiple PLLs that do reduce jitter in a D/A chip. Oversampling is used in some D/A architectures and also for digital filtering.

 

"I've also heard many here rattle on and on about 'bit perfect'-ness, and how this (bit-perfect) is the sine qua none (without which, nothing) of good digital audio reproduction. perhaps you see where I'm going with this, wouldn't a DAC which utilizes oversampling be in violation of bit-perfectness?"

 

A DAC that does ASRC is not bit-perfect by definition. Oversampling also adds samples where there are none, so technically, this is not bit-perfect either IMO.

 

Mostly the concern is that the software does not change the data before it even gets to the hardware.

 

Steve N.

 

 

 

[Lizard_King]

Analog sound warmer and fuller, more like music as opposed to sound Digital which seems like Hi-Fi.