16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[diecaster]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Are you saying you have no self control?

 

Moderate, don't psychoanalyze....

[diecaster]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Waah!  He did it first!  ?

 

I didn't do what he did. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, diecaster said:

 

Moderate, don't psychoanalyze....

You said he did it first. If you think this means it's OK, you're incorrect. My options were 1. You think it's OK or 2. No self control.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, diecaster said:

 

I didn't do what he did. 

Nobody is going to care in 2 hours. Just forget about it.

[diecaster]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You said he did it first.

 

No, I did not......I said he was the one that piped in with the insulting comments. I stuck to facts and information.....

[Ralf11]

Set your Timers!

 

and rev up the popcorn popper

 

 

People love Roon.  HQplayer is a great option.

 

But I bet you can get a bit higher SQ in other ways...

 

and, does Roon have an exclusive on the copious meta-data they have?  I suspect not, hence the comment about Apple.  (if Roon does have an exclusive, then Apple might buy them instead of competing)

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, diecaster said:

 

No, I did not......I said he was the one that piped in with the insulting comments. I stuck to facts and information.....

Let's all take a breather. Sandyk has been known to get riled up and rile up others. 

 

Just remember, nobody is keeping score and nobody will remember this tomorrow.

[Ralf11]

I see the time period has been extended...

[sandyk]

22 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I see the time period has been extended...

 

 Perhaps it's just as well that it's about 3.16AM in  The Netherlands ?

 

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

Perhaps it's just as well that it's about 3.16AM in  The Netherlands ?

 

 05:07:35 am now. Measured in 16 bits though.

[Ralf11]

how much is that in hex?

[PeterSt]

@diecaster, assuming you are not just a troll ...

Alex is right.

 

I mentioned Tidal - out of the context of Roon - for a reason, because if you understand what needs to be done to produce the best SQ, you'd see that any streaming disallows that. Notice please that this in itself is in the context of knowing the reference and if you don't know that, then 

 

Quote

Ethernet based server to endpoint streaming has resulted in the best sounding music I have ever heard coming form my 2 channel system.

 

this would be correct, but this makes you the know-it-all ? So yes, you will be correct on this for your own environment and reference, but please know it isn't the best what is possible. By far not.

Do I care that you miss out ? of course not. Do I miss out then ? also not. So what's the problem ?

 

Well, that really numerous people (countless over time) ask me whether XXHighEnd can play in the midst of a Roon set up. @sementewas coincidentally one of them. It could (the HQPlayer way), but it would preclude the existence of XXHighEnd in the first place. And please, this is not related to any DAC.

 

Btw, try to find people who use Roon + HQPlayer who compare(d) with HQPlayer on its own - who do not say that HQPlayer on its own sounds better; it always does. It's the same thing; streaming just deteriorates SQ, no matter we don't want that. Already satisfied with the streaming active ? then be happy.

 

So to be clear about what needs to be done to integrate with Roon : it can't. It can't because Roon does not allow it. Only the way HQPlayer does it, and this is not integrating - it is merely stealing the stream and process ("manipulate") it. Still know JPlay and the way it "integrates" with e.g. JRiver ? Same thing. One exception : JRiver did not even like that and JRiver prevented (prevents) JPlay from doing that. And tbh, it is a quite moot thing to do so and it is only a commercial action (of in this case JPlay) to put it forward like this.

And might we have missed it, I thus do *not* with XXHighEnd, probably because I am not the commercial guy. It's SQ I am after.

 

It is not all so easy to grasp which piece of software does what, and it is also easy to misunderstand what "stealing the stream" means. Thus, HQPlayer does it in an all positive sense because it now can process (upsample/filter) it the way it would do with local data and all is fine. JPlay however, does not process anything, but claims the SQ will be better because "it is just there". This will be true for a small percentage only, but the say 95% overhead it causes will diminish SQ instead of improve on it. That's how such software works (out); if you're there to make all as lean as possible and have the best SQ realized with that means, then you're not throwing yourself into a pool of 100x more processing (which JPlay against JRiver would be). Same with Roon but worse.

 

Was this anything against Roon ? if so, I don't recognize it. Do you like Roon for its better processing ? then use it for that reason (but never say that this processing together with HQPlayer would even be the better option, because the combination would virtually not exist). Would you like to use it with something like XXHighEnd ? sorry, it can't. It can't because Roon does not give us the option to pass on what you selected for playback. It wants to play itself. All we can do is accept the streaming and its downsides for SQ for that reason alone (hey, says me and *if* you notice it in the first place) but be able to pick up the stream from there and process it.

 

Lastly, the using of the upsampling/filtering for better SQ (which could be called "technical SQ") is a completely different means from making the OS and its environment lean for audio. Roon does not do that, HQPlayer does not do that, Btw Audirvana does this to the possible extent in the OSX environment, JRiver does not do that. XXHighEnd does so and JPlay does do as long as it is stand alone. XXHighEnd does not allow anything else but stand alone.

 

I hope this works a bit for explaining. But it is all part of the 16 bits subject because it is about how 16 bits can sound like 24 bits, might we see the subject in that realm. And coincidentally now the upsampling/filtering is crucial, because this is actually only about 16 bits source material. It is one big nest of "matter" and about how difficult it is to let 16 bits sound "the best". And "the best" is always up to you and will live in your contexts.

[PeterSt]

 

48 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

05:07:35

 

19 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

how much is that in hex?

 

05:07:35

 

That was wrong. Here :

 

05:07:23

 

 

[esldude]

And all this recent posting is about 16 bits how????

 

Pretty severe thread drift. 

[diecaster]

Peter,

 

Streaming doesn't disallow the best sound quality. That is just you wanting to say your solution is the best. That's okay though. I don't expect you to be unbiased.

 

There is no reason to believe that your PC based on a server motherboard with its server CPUs is any "quieter" on USB out than an ultraRendu with a high quality super clean linear power supply. In fact, I would argue the opposite is likely true.

[diecaster]

Wait, I just read this on Peter's web site in regards to the processors used in his "audio PC":

 

"The processors, of the Xeon Scalable type, in their types each have a very distinct nature of sound. And although not all have been tested, for example the 10 (/20 core Hyperthreaded) processor applies a crazy emphasis to the mid, while the 14/28 and 16/32 apply even more crazy emphasis to the highs."

 

I am sorry, but this is just over the top. How are CPUs supposed to apply "crazy emphasis" in certain frequency ranges?

[sandyk]

22 minutes ago, diecaster said:

Wait, I just read this on Peter's web site in regards to the processors used in his "audio PC":

 

"The processors, of the Xeon Scalable type, in their types each have a very distinct nature of sound. And although not all have been tested, for example the 10 (/20 core Hyperthreaded) processor applies a crazy emphasis to the mid, while the 14/28 and 16/32 apply even more crazy emphasis to the highs."

 

I am sorry, but this is just over the top. How are CPUs supposed to apply "crazy emphasis" in certain frequency ranges?

 

 Even a Voltage regulator used to power an OS  SSD with +5V derived from the +12V SMPS rail can impart added HF definition to an AV file if low ESR filter capacitors are used at it's Input and Output.

[diecaster]

That would seem to suggest that this "audio PC's" CPUs are adding noise to the USB output and making the audio less true to what it should be. That, by definition, is NOT higher fidelity.

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, diecaster said:

That would seem to suggest that this "audio PC's" CPUs are adding noise to the USB output and making the audio less true to what it should be. That, by definition, is NOT higher fidelity.

 Who are you replying to ?

 

 Are you also suggesting that this would then make the output less than " Bit Perfect" ?

[Ralf11]

58 minutes ago, esldude said:

 

Pretty severe thread drift. 

 

 

Gadzooks!  I've never heard of such a thing on the internet!!

[diecaster]

43 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Who are you replying to ?

 

 Are you also suggesting that this would then make the output less than " Bit Perfect" ?

 

Not you. 

 

Where did I suggest the output was anything other than bit perfect. It's pretty well established that USB is "bit perfect" unless it is really crappy USB. No, the only the way the CPUs of the "audio PC" could affect the output of the DAC downstream would be if they caused noise (power, ground, or clock phase) that affected the DACs processing of the digital information. That would be the antithesis of high fidelity.

[semente]

9 hours ago, PeterSt said:

This time it doesn't even make it to the filtering subject, because it first is about streaming and what that implies for bad sound. For that matter, XXHighEnd does not stream (does not allow for it) and instead buffers everything fully (and plays it off line). And might you ask further : no, Roon does not allow for this as it doesn't provide an API for that. So let's remember, when XXHighEnd plays music, it has shut off the Internet and a 1000 things more. All for the better SQ.

 

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

Btw, try to find people who use Roon + HQPlayer who compare(d) with HQPlayer on its own - who do not say that HQPlayer on its own sounds better; it always does. It's the same thing; streaming just deteriorates SQ, no matter we don't want that. Already satisfied with the streaming active ? then be happy.

 

That makes sense.

 

So I guess I wasn't too far off in saying that Roon is not as good as the top players when handling local files. I hadn't even thought about streaming because it's something that I'm not interested in. My computer is not connected to the internet, and neither is the e-network.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

And all this recent posting is about 16 bits how????

 

IMO Yes :

 

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

I hope this works a bit for explaining. But it is all part of the 16 bits subject because it is about how 16 bits can sound like 24 bits, might we see the subject in that realm. And coincidentally now the upsampling/filtering is crucial, because this is actually only about 16 bits source material. It is one big nest of "matter" and about how difficult it is to let 16 bits sound "the best". And "the best" is always up to you and will live in your contexts.

 

... Unless you were responding to the 16 bits time in Hex. 

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, diecaster said:

That would seem to suggest that this "audio PC's" CPUs are adding noise to the USB output and making the audio less true to what it should be. That, by definition, is NOT higher fidelity.

 

Strange how you are capable of twisting things the other way around. So Yes, your suggestion is correct.

Now what ?

Each PC does that. The trick of the "audio PC" is that it makes less of it.

 

Of course now it is your turn to claim that PC's don't add noise anywhere, and that they all sound the same.

Of course you will add that any PC which adds noise has not been properly designed.

Of course.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, diecaster said:

Streaming doesn't disallow the best sound quality. That is just you wanting to say your solution is the best. That's okay though. I don't expect you to be unbiased.

 

Let's not forget what this thread is about.

Let's also not forget that there's one person only who works on the 16/44.1 cause and that he does this quite very 100% explicitly because there's infinitely more around of that than anything else.

 

Is my solution the best now ? I don't know. But it is to be expected once I am the only one working on it, explicitly.

But you are right, maybe I failed on it.

 

Anyway, let's not miss the subject : 16 bits is so-called "not it". I claim : it 100% is. But it takes a few things. It really doesn't go by itself.