Jump to content

beerandmusic

  • Content Count

    5156
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by beerandmusic

  1. Now that makes sense to me....I am more about accuracy then even the sound (grin)....if it is accurate, but sounds like crap, I am ok with that...as long as it is accurate...seriously. So if the bottom line is that if all the hardware is the same, that you will have a more accurate depiction of the wav file by upsampling everything to quad dsd than if you were to just upsample to 192k. I actually believed until that statement that the analog signal would be the same due to wave shaping, and just assumed since more modifications were done on the higher resolution, that it would lik
  2. I said assuming hardware is the same. I said what is measurable on the output that could make one sound better than the other. Ideally you would have a perfect analog signal as represented by the original wav file. hmmm...don't think i understand enough to ask the right questions. I will give it a rest, and try to gather my thoughts. I thought before talking to you that I had a logical concept in my mind that a 44.1k wav file would sound similar, whether it was output from a schiit mb dac or if it was output from a dsd dac where it was upsampled to quad dsd, but apparen
  3. You lost me....can we back up to this statement:: First image of DAC operating at 192 kHz from 44.1k source is around 192 kHz and spans form 169.95 kHz to 214.05, same repeats around 384 kHz, etc. I believe you inferred that that is the measurable audible differences comparing a schiit mb dac output of a 44.1K source as compared to an RME ADI-2 dac playing the same file upsampled to quad dsd. What is this "difference" you are talking about that falls in the 20hz-50khz audio band?
  4. I am looking forward to heaven too (wink)...or maybe you curl up to a loved one, and then everything is bliss...you definitely are riding some type of mojo, and when i find out what it is, i will be right there with you....reminds me of my favorite restaurant....I know they put some "magic juice" in their drinks, because every time I go there, i leave with a smile...no other drink anywhere does this to me.....i wish i knew what the hell they were using...i think they have "liquid love" that they sprinkle in there.
  5. I never understand "FAS LOGIC" ..there has to be a starting point before there can be a debate?
  6. but all of those are still above 50KHZ? For my ears, i don't think i would even care about anything above 20khz? Am i missing something? i know you started off saying you can't comment on "others ears", so let me rephrase... Is there any measurable differences on the output that "could" be audible between the 20hz-40khz range
  7. I don't believe that... There may be a lot more computer engineers than audio engineers so a lot more combined effort has been put into it...audio engineering is a niche comparatively speaking and most engineering is a collaborative effort over many years. Also digital audio engineering is still in it's infancy (again, relatively speaking).
  8. was said in jest....figured someone would get a kick out of it....you must admit other technologies seem to have come a lot further....think of where we were without the internet or mass storage not that many years ago....and we can put a man in space, or cause nuclear holocaust....but we can't figure out how to isolate noise from usb audio with anything but subjectivity....amazing.
  9. THanks..again, assuming 44.1K hz source and assuming hardware is same, so throwing out last 2 paragraphs (for my purposes...others may be interested in that part though)....so concentrating on 1st paragraph only..... creates significant series of image distortions across the output spectrum. Usually at least to around 1 MHz, but the series can extend even close to 5 MHz. Likely first image is down only some 20 - 30 dB or so. These are fully correlated distortions with same and inverse frequency spectrum. And difference tones between positive and negative frequencies falling into au
  10. both sounded good..i didn't notice any audible difference at initial testing...but will leave it checked..i think I understand the concept. which is why i agree it could only help...thanks. (for most part i play from ssd).
  11. I do not wish to go deep into the weeds, nor do i wish to push one technology over another. I am unbiased, I have your software and could care less which direction I ultimately go....I just want to know for my purposes, if one clearly exceeds the other or if it is similar results with marginal subjective differences. When you say for measurement, certainly, can you expand on the differences that could make an audible difference on the output? again, keeping in mind the original recording is 44.1K.
  12. Thanks for your response...much appreciated. Most of it is gobbly-gook to a layman like myself, so please work with me. For my personal interest, Let's "start" with this. assume source is 44.1Khz (standard wav file) assume all hardware except DAC is the same and that you have an optimized "quiet" usb. Do you believe there would any noticeable improvement whether you play that file upsampled to quad DSD using an RME ADI-2 DAC as compared to playing the same file in it's native format using a schiit gungnir mb2 (I only suggest different dacs because you state:: At 192
  13. I mostly quoted him for the part where it says:: DSD has significantly higher quantization noise than PCM, and the noise is much closer to audible frequencies, requiring significantly more sophisticated digital filters, as well as noise-shaping and upsampling algorithms. I rarely will give any credence to subjective opinions without my first hand experience....but above sounds "factual"?
  14. haha....maybe MISKA will step in and correct him...then i would believe it...i trust everything MISKA says (smile)...imho, Miska is the most respected person on this site, with Jabbr a close second. I believe i remember at one point that miska while debating dsd over pcm suggested that one of the main benefits is you can use a cheaper dac....correct me if I am wrong? Miska, if you are there, is there any benefit of Quad rate dsd over 192K PCM if the original recording is 44.1K PCM? (assume same hardware or if it makes more sense consider all same hardware except dac e.
  15. TO quote mojo-audio:: DSD has significantly higher quantization noise than PCM, and the noise is much closer to audible frequencies, requiring significantly more sophisticated digital filters, as well as noise-shaping and upsampling algorithms. The algorithms native DSD DACs use often result in an overly smoothed over sound without the same immediacy, articulation, and harmonic coherency R-2R ladder DACs are known for. Granted he does suggest using hqplayer to do quad dsd if you are going to do DSD at all, but he also suggest playing music in it's native format.
  16. that's why i said to ask MISKA...i didn't say anything about filters...I know they are used for the reconstruction, that is all i know, and won't pretend i understand more. I only suggest the higher rate DSD will require filters unneeded for lower rate PCM...both require filtering, but I "believe" even MISKA will suggest more advanced filtering is needed for higher rate DSD than lower rate PCM.
  17. I edited post above and added MISKA would be the best to answer before you did (smile). I agree, but even you answered it yourself...you have to design filters to clean up the mess....why create the mess in the first place, when it doesn't give you any more than 192K PCM...again, he could probably answer, and if he was honest, he would likely say that it is subjective (at best) whether it sounds better than 192K PCM without the additional upsampling and filtering.
  18. i just edited answer above, and as you know I just echo others input... i am not a dac engineer, but from what I understand, the only purpose of upsampling is:: to quote PKANE:: The point of upsampling is to move the reconstruction/anti-aliasing filter well above audible frequencies, where it can be more gentle and not affect the audible spectrum. A high-quality filter at 22khz is hard to make in hardware without distorting phase and without cutting into frequencies below 20khz. A gentle filter at 88khz is much easier, and it can distort there all it wants without affecting th
  19. I re-read and i guess the analog 2 is only for the yggi....how much do you want for your gungnir mb w/unison? And is it a newer gungnir that came with unison or an older one you had upgraded?
  20. which part.... a) no audible music above 192k b) 192K easier to keep clean i am guessing part b since most people acknowledge that 44.1K encompasses the audible spectrum. inre b, i am not saying that higher upsampling rates can't be done with neglible audible differences, but it does take extra work that is unnecessary.
  21. Back to the original question, i believe the guy that connects a noisy laptop directly to a 25K meitner does not lose anything compared to those that stream...I even think that any decent dac that uses their own clean 5v reference voltage, is galvanically isolated, and reclocks the signal should compensate for noise. I believe those that stream compensate for noisy usb in different ways and that both methods are effective if done right. I also believe that the majority of those that stream are into upsampling where noise can be a bigger issue, but you really can't bette
  22. I don't do apple, but I was thinking the same but haven't yet tried android as a DAP connected to a dac, although even connecting an android directly to an amp sounds relatively impressive. I am curious, do you or anyone know if the newer android phones with type c connector (i have a moto g7), allow you to connect to a usb dac?
  23. seems odd...most reviews i have seen about the mojo considered even the lower end bifrost mb superior to the mojo...in all the reviews i have seen about the mojo in comparison to the schiit suggested it is more "rounded" and i read 3 different reviews that said the same. I have been considering both the chord and schiit for awhile and was leaning more toward the chords for the dsd support, but after reading and "believing" i better understand the purpose and advantage of upsampling, i am now leaning more toward schiit. I would have thought you or anyone would have been fairly impressed with
  24. I think 44.1k does fully encapsulate most peoples hearing spectrum, and that said, i think that 48K upsampled to 96K would be the sweetspot without having to do "too much" and without having to mess with very high DSD ratest than can cause their own issues. A solid 96K or 192K USB PCM DAC with good isolation and reclocking should be satisfying to even the most demanding golden ears....i think the schiit mb w/unison does this...and there may be many others, but Moffat has been in the business and knows PCM probably as well as the best.
×
×
  • Create New...