Offline Upsampling

[Jud]

Hi Jud,

 

iTunes (and Finder too) demands non standard id3 tags implementations. It solving via check Settings window > Metadata tab > Compatibility metatadata with iTunes switch

 

Best regards,

Yuri

 

Hi Yuri,

 

If I don't use iTunes at all, do I still need to check that option?

 

Regarding output directory, other software has two levels of choices. The first level is whether to put the files in the same folder as the originals, or another folder (with a directory browser to choose this other folder). The second level, if the first choice is to put the files in the same folder as the originals, is whether to delete the originals after conversion is done.

[Jud]

Hi Jud,

 

The option to use the relative directory is not practical when you have large numbers of albums to process, because you would have to move considerable numbers of files manually.

 

Thanks

 

I think an option to put the converted files in the same directory they came from might be helpful here.

[Jud]

Jud: If you are upsampling redbook to DSD (64, 128, 256?) are you then still doing anything with iZotope in Audirvana or have you substituted Yuri's upsampler for the upsampling in Audirvana? I can't remember whether you also use HQPlayer but would the same apply, i.e. it is best to do all the upsampling in one step and the choice comes down to lower active computing load/higher storage requirements by going offline versus higher processing/lower storage when doing it in real time?

 

Also, what about the filters applied in Audirvana and HQ Player, I'm not seeing similar filter choices in AUConverter (but I may have missed it).

 

 

Howdy.

 

Speaking generally, I have three ways of listening:

 

- Casual listening (e.g., shuffle play through the entire collection, background music for parties) is with Audirvana+, using the filtering parameters I came up with partially by ear and partially by looking at 'scope drawings of the filter's effects in iZotope RX3.

 

- When I want to listen a bit more closely to a particular album/artist/songs, I do so with XXHighEnd or HQPlayer, since their filters have been designed by people who know something.

 

- When I want to do my most critical listening, I first convert to DSD128 (the highest resolution my DAC accepts) with Audiophile Inventory, because it uses offline filtering, which allows a level of power and sophistication beyond what my 2009 MacBook Pro is able to run with HQPlayer's or XXHighEnd's inline filtering. I then play back using Audirvana+, which allows me to take advantage of that software's provisions for direct mode and keeping various computer functions quiet during playback. (If I had a true NOS DAC, XXHighEnd would also be an option along the same lines, but since XXHighEnd does not work with DSD it would mean letting the DAC chip do the sigma-delta modulation. This doesn't sound bad at all, but for the most critical listening I want the conversions done in software.)

[Jud]

Hi Sdolezalek,

 

In my opinion, need only linear phase filter. «Brickwall» as possibly.

 

Ringing is not such big problem for musical signal, I think. In music a few sharp fronts like square wave.

 

More important cut ultrasound. There can be significant noises caught during recording from analog sources. Or products of DSD to PCM conversion with wide band.

 

Best regards,

Yuri

 

Hi Yuri,

 

As you know, I compared the linear phase filter to the minimum phase filter you also offer in AuI, and prefer the linear phase filter. Still, I would be very interested to hear any further development attempts you make with the minimum phase filter, as well as perhaps a windowing filter designed to be linear phase but minimize ringing. I am curious to know how well these could be implemented with offline filtering.

 

With my ears, in my system, I have so far preferred linear phase filtering, and even if I would not change my opinion on that, other people with different ears and systems might well have different preferences.

 

Of course you are the developer and the decision is yours, but I cannot help being a little curious.

[Jud]

Does the demo version allow for all formats and filters even though it warns that the higher resolutions are only available for Pro? Thanks

 

A side note is that browser protection/ anti-virus throw up a bunch of warnings downloading and installing it.

 

Don't remember regarding resolutions, someone else has to answer or you can see for yourself.

 

Re warnings, I've had no problems. By the way, may I interest you in breast enlargement?

[Jud]

First off, thank you for the trial version. The tool was easy to use.

 

This is just one person's feedback on one system. I tried a CD rip up to 24/384 and DSD256 with default settings.

 

The DSD256 file did not play back.

 

The DSD128 sounded fine except not as good as the original. Especially on guitar and vocals the space and sparkle was lowered/deadened.

 

The 24/384 file added a level of noise, although slight, that made it not as good as the original.

 

This was on a discrete ladder DAC, so I guess the experience will be DAC dependent.

 

Cheers

 

1 - What DAC?

 

2 - Did you measure playback loudness to determine it was equal in each case? (AudioTools dB graphing app for iPhone can do this.)

[Jud]

Hi Yuri,

 

Thanks for the detailed reply.

 

The DAC is an MSB Analog using a Renderer (LAN input) module. (Direct to I2S using the DAC's femto clock) No CD player was used.

 

Files are ripped using EAC or DBPoweramp in secure and AccurateRip verified mode. Bit perfect playback of the DAC and source was tested beforehand.

 

A Windows 8.1 pro laptop was used to run your program.

 

Playback is done through MinimServer / BubbleUPnP on a NAS. Optical LAN is in place.

 

I used a dB meter to check volumes, and there was a slight volume difference between DSD and PCM files, but that was not the cause.

 

Here is some info on the internal DAC filtering: 32xFIR with 6000 taps. They state the noise floor as <145dB.

 

MSB Digital Filters

 

I will try 16bit, but in the past I have compared 24 and 16bit versions of rips with no perceived impact due to the zeroes padding.

 

DSD256 playback was tested using purchased files to make sure it was not an issue with the DAC. I have noticed in the past that material recorded in DSD originally always sounds better than PCM to DSD conversions on this DAC.

 

Cheers

 

Hi tranz,

 

I'm very curious about this stuff and figure you are too, so if you are agreeable, I would like to try to do the volume equalization available in the paid version of AuI and also try out Yuri's minimum phase filter to see if they make any difference for you. Please PM me and we can determine what track(s) you want to use for testing.

 

To do the volume equalization, I would like to know with a fair amount of precision (to ~1/10dB if possible) what the volume difference is between the files you converted with the demo version of AuI and those converted in-DAC. If the dB meter you used moves too quickly to tell this, you might try out AudioTools or something similar with a dB graphing function that allows you to preserve graphs of loudness levels to compare at leisure.

[Jud]

As a ladder DAC, does the MSB analog DAC sigma-delta modulate PCM input? Another way of asking pretty much the same thing is, how does this DAC internally handle PCM vs. DSD input?

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Whitigir said:

Now, I wonder as I have free trial of aui-converter.  Why the expensive pricing where as Xivero is much cheaper.  Neither of the 2 have options to select different filters and noise shaping mode or whatever

 

There are options for different filtering in AuI. There's a wideband option.  I haven't used it in a while, so I don't know whether it's still there, but there was a minimum phase option.  There's a volume control for DSD conversion (IOW, controlling the level of the resulting DSD file). There's a facility for ripping damaged CDs.  And of course there's the quality of the conversion filtering itself, which Archimago liked in his measurements as I recall.