Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: So, a few Questions ............. posted by Cut-Throat on August 08, 2020 at 13:37:26
No, still on the 3B. I'm not having any dropouts though. I was playing 24/384 and DSD256 just now and everything came through just fine. I'm not using the wired ethernet either, just the wifi, and it is battery powered. I don't know if that would eliminate any internal noise generated. I think I get more background noise from the AC that is running in my upstairs bedroom than I can hear from the system.
I was curious about the RPi4 though, but I already have more Pi's than I need.
One question I have though is that one of the tracks showed up as wave 32/384 but played at 24/384. I thought the E30 could handle 32 bits, but maybe not some other part of my chain? I'm using DLNA and maybe that is limited, or the RPi itself is limited? Something is. I'll have to direct connect it again to my iMac to see if I can get 32 bit to play. It isn't important though, I only have the one track and there isn't much out there except some demos.
And one other thing too, DSD256 sounds incredible. It just sounds "right".
In truth, you need about 20 good bits to provide all the dynamic range found on recordings. 24 is simply the next convenient data size.
I cannot think of any studio that finds the need to record in 32 bits. Converting 24 bit content to 32 bits just pads the data stream.
That wasn't the point. Regardless of whether it is necessary or needed, I do have one recording done in 32 bit, and when I played it I only got 24 bits at the DAC. In any case though I figured it out. Audirvana's setting was to only go to 24 bits and I changed it to 32 and all is well and I get 32 bits at the DAC. Does it make a difference? I don't know but it sure sounded good that way.
I have a few DSD256 tracks and these all sound superb, the most realistic presentation of anything I have. It really does make a difference. 32/384 could be the same in that tracks recorded that way will sound realistic. 16/44.1 does NOT sound realistic to me, it didn't in 1986 and it doesn't now either, even on a DAC that sounds better than anything I've had so far. It can sound good, but not realistic, not like DSD 256 does. Now of course all of these DSD tracks are audiophile types, carefully recorded by engineers that are looking for the best sound possible, and mostly from Norway. I'm sure that is part of it. It's the Norwegian sound, just like our speaker drivers are all from Denmark.
When I was in Norway a few years ago I was surprised at how much that sound pervades the country. Even the street musicians had that sound. A performance in a park by a small jazz orchestra had that sound. Even the tram in Bergen had that sound, Grieg of course! Every stop on the way to the airport has a different little ditty that plays, and Grieg's home stop of course played Grieg. It was a fantastic trip to a place I'd never thought of going to. I've got pictures of a bike ride I did that was the most incredible ride ever.
I do have one recording done in 32 bit...
Alrighty then. Nothing succeeds like excess! ;)
While I agree that 44/16 was a standard fenced in by 1976 era media limitations, I find that 96/24 is where the differences start getting more difficult to hear. I have many 176/24 and 192/24 recordings, but I couldn't say they are necessarily *better* because of that. The 96/24 format offers plenty of bandwidth in which to use a more gradual aliasing filter.
I'm of two minds about DSD. Some claim that "upsampling" PCM to DSD sounds better. If that's true, then it is necessarily changing the original and imparting its own *nicer* sound.
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: