Jump to content

hanshopf

  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    Germany

About hanshopf

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Yes, I tried the 32bit noise shaped version as well. I found it very slightly less "clean" and sharper. I wouldn't have said it has "softer" transients, because it was not only slightly less brilliant, but also slightly harder. But then this may very well be the result of softer transients.
  2. Very much appreciated. I will send you the file tomorrow! Thank you, Zaphod, for the files!! It's astonishingly obvious: 32bit without noise shaping is the way to go via Mscaler. It's so much better than 24bit or 32bit noise shaped, that there is no doubt at all. The noise shaper in Mscaler obviously works extremely well. Does noise shaper inside DAVE work identically? In that case Mscaler may work like a shield between the source and DAVE similarly to inserting SRC-DX between the source and DAVE. I find no need for experime
  3. Hello, no offense intended, but how on earth would you make the live sound in the hall a reference point of comparison for different upsampling methods? I suppose you slightly missed the point of my trial. :) Apart from that: there is no such thing as "the actual live sound in the hall". On every seat in the hall you have a different sound. And microphones do not "hear" what you would hear, when you are at the same point in the hall. In addition to this in the hall you listen with your eyes as well.
  4. Yes, indeed, because I currently have not enough computing power at hand to do it myself. Very much appreciated. I will send you the file tomorrow! Ok, maybe. This is unfortunately a rather expensive device for a relatively simple function. When I recently played them via USB directly into DAVE I was critizised for hereby not doing an apple to apple comparison. So I had to pass them trough Mscaler.
  5. Hello everyone! So today I did the proof-of-concept experiment I recently suggested for PGGB - and the result was not at all what I expected! Let me report directly and present the technical details afterwards: I recorded a track from Vinyl to digital in 16/44.1 and then had the file transferred to 24bit PGGB. The file was then played through Mscaler plus DAVE (hereby bypassing Mscalers upsampling stage) and compared to the 16bit file, upsampled by Mscaler. DAVE was connected to Phonitor2, as was the phono amp. Both files this way could be comp
  6. Thank you all for your replys. You may be right, even though I tend to doubt the notion, a battery driven source into galvanically isolated USB input of DAVE or noise shaping from 32 to 24 bit inside DAVE should be the reason for the PGGB files to aquire the perceived unnatural brightness. But I will try again, next time a step further, recording a LP and then compare it with the files through the same headphone amp. Let‘s see which of them sounds more similar to the vinyl.
  7. Hello everyone, I would like to add something to my recent suggestion for a proof of concept experiment for PGGB. Thanks to the new cloud based option of upsampling files with PGGB, I today had the opportunity to try it out for myself. I played the upsampled files through Audirvana and sent them directly to DAVE. The original reference files for comparison were as well played through Audirvana and sent to MScaler. I am a trained listener, recording concerts with classical music on a regular base myself (not as a sound engineer but as a video director), but
  8. This is such a curiosity driven community, that I hope someone will take the effort. I would love to do this myself, but neither do I have a tape machine nor would I probably hear well enough to get reliable results.
  9. I would connect the output of the tape machine to the same headphone amp to which I would connect DAVE. Thus the sound of the PGGB file should be identical to the tape (or at least more similar than through Mscaled file), if PGGB works as theory predicts.
  10. @Zaphod Beeblebrox Thank you so much for your insightful reply! I dont't think the setup required to accomplish this exists today. You will need a A/D converter that would be able to record at 16FS or higher rate, the same converter should also record at a lower rate (say 2FS). More importantly both the conversions should be of a very high quality. Unless I am misunderstanding you, in which case please elaborate on how that setup would look like including what rates to use I thought, a conventual digitalization would be sufficient. Even as low as 16/44.
  11. Hello everyone! With great interest I read about the PGGB project - especially after use of Mscaler plus DAVE transformed my listening experience - and am a bit confused about the different given tuning options in PGGB. Logically speaking shouldn't there be only one correct setting? A little "proof of concept" experiment could be interesting. Something like digitizing an analogue tape and then comparing the tape master with the PGGB file. If the experiment is done carefully there should be only one PGGB-setting, which sounds absolutely identical to the tape. And furthe
×
×
  • Create New...