Jump to content

manisandher

Members
  • Content Count

    2452
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About manisandher

  • Rank
    from-first-principles.com

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Where did I imply or say that the signal from 10-15 kHz wasn't important? All I said was that there was very little of it above 10 Khz, as all the analyses have shown. To my ears, the two captures sound very subtly different. Here's Paul's analysis once again: Do you think that the very subtle difference in sound that I'm hearing might be down to the difference between their respective FRs >10 kHz? Mani.
  2. I suppose it's the most likely culprit. No, I haven't tried yet... but do intend to, when I have a bit more time. Mani.
  3. Your comparisons of the two captures look incredibly similar: I know @pkane2001 is using his newly developed DeltaWave software, but what about you @mansr? Mani.
  4. Did you apply this to the DXD during decimation, or directly onto the 16/44.1? Mani.
  5. I could (and still can) hear a clear difference between the original DXD file (played back with no further upsampling, filtering or SDM, which 99.9% of DACs on the market will perform, to varying degrees), and 2L's down-converted 16/44.1 file (played back with 8x upsampling and filtering, but still no SDM). If there were any point to this thread, it might be to figure how the two could sound different, considering there's very little signal above 10kHz. I decided to share a couple of 16/44.1 captures to help. Set to 16/44.1, as it was, it definitely wasn't capable of capturing everything that was on the hirez file. And yet the two captures still sound subtly different to me, but to a much lesser extent than the 2L files played back directly. Mani.
  6. Just compared your version to 2L's DXD and 16/44.1. The DXD, played back with no upsampling, filtering or SDM, remains the clear winner for me. It simply sounds the nicest and the easiest to listen to. Against 2L's 16/44.1, yours sounds softer, slightly fuller, almost as though the transients have been flattened a little. Not sure which I'd take given a choice. But they do sound audibly different to me. Mani.
  7. That's excellent Paul. Thanks for doing this. I'll take a listen to the files later tonight, once I've put the kids to bed. Mani.
  8. 'Platinum Ears' here 😀. Will take a listen tomorrow... Mani.
  9. Hey Peter, thanks for the suggestion. I'll take a look at how low I can take the auto-start sensitivity and then take a few dry runs. Mani.
  10. Alex, neither of the original files I used were 'up-converted'. One was the original 24/352.8 and the other a 16/44.1, derived by decimating ('down-converting') the original (done by 2L, not me). One of the reasons I went for capturing at 16/44.1 was that it would be difficult distinguishing between the files by analysis alone... or so I thought. Both the captures I linked to were 16/44.1, so if they sound different, and they do (very subtly) to my ears, then this cannot be due to one having more HF info above 22.05kHz than the other. What it might be down to is the anti-imaging filter used when replaying the 16/44.1 file, as no anti-imaging filter was used in the case of the 24/352.8. (The anti-aliasing filter used by 2L during decimation may also be having an effect.) Mani.
  11. So what do these suggest Frank? That T004 is of higher resolution than T005? That T004 is more noisy than T005? Or perhaps that dithering is having an affect on the replay of the 16/44.1 file? Mani.
  12. That's no doubt down to the Tascam's auto-start function - it seems to get itself into a bit of a muddle. But this only lasts for a very short period of time, after which it sorts itself out. I'd discard the first second or so of all the captures, to be on the safe side. Mani.
  13. Thanks Mans - that's excellent. How strange. Why on earth would they do this deliberately? I'm tempted to do my own decimation from 24/352.8 to 16/44.1 to see if I could do a more accurate job. I did think about this. I could have used the Tascam as the ADC, as opposed to simply using is as a digital interface. However, I really don't like the way it sounds, at any resolution - it measures well, but sounds cr*p. (Anyone who thinks most modern ADCs are essentially perfect obviously don't listen to them.) I do have another decent ADC here that is 24/192-capable. Will give it a go sometime. Mani.
×
×
  • Create New...