|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.23.202.251
In Reply to: Re: Foobar and SRC. posted by audioengr on September 7, 2006 at 19:09:39:
Yes, but, just because a DAC an support higher frequencies doesn't mean it is going to sound any better (and could certainly sound worse) with a higher input frequency.It is important to stress that using resampling does nothing whatsoever to improve an audio signal. It will often result in a degradation of the original data, which is why some people prefer the SRC resampler, because it apparently damages the data the least.
Upsampling only makes sense to me if you are using a DAC that actually sounds better with higher frequency inputs. The Benchmark DAC1 is an excellent example of such a DAC because it automatically resamples all of its inputs to 110K (and doesn't do as good a job as the SRC resampler, so using SRC to at least get the data to 96K so the DAC1 can mangle it a bit less when converting to 110K makes sense). The DAC1 is the only DAC I've used that actually sounds better with resampling.
It should be noted that one of the reasons upsampling is likely to degrade your audio performance (with the exception of the DAC1, for the reasons described above) is that it puts further strain on the I/O systems of your transport and DAC (not to mention your computer's CPU, if you are using a computer to do the upsampling, which could have an undesirable effect on the computer's ability to transmit the data at the appropriate speed).
Follow Ups:
Scrith-"The Benchmark DAC1 is an excellent example of such a DAC because it automatically resamples all of its inputs to 110K (and doesn't do as good a job as the SRC resampler, so using SRC to at least get the data to 96K so the DAC1 can mangle it a bit less when converting to 110K makes sense)."Does the Benchmark DAC1 force the user to upsample to 110K? There are no 88.2 or 96kHz settings?
Just wondering. The thought of resampling from 44.1 to 96 to 110... well it just *seems* like a bad idea... no? lol
Anyways, I wonder... with THAT DAC if skipping SRC and just going 44.1 straight in is the way to go.
Ten years ago 90% of audiophiles might have said "24/96 is more better" but now people (you included) are saying - sure we get the nyquist frequency up which allows the brickwall filter to be higher as well - but what are the sonic penalites?
Very good approach.
So when is Benchmark coming out with a multichannel USB DAC? :D
The Benchmark DAC1 resamples all inputs to 110K internally. The user is free to use whatever sample rate they want (44.1 most of the time, I assume, but it supports inputs of up to 192).Yes, it does seem like a bad idea on the surface. But this is how they reduce the effect of jitter. I've owned and used Benchmark DAC1s for a couple of years and I can assure you they sound fantastic. I am currently using a Lavry DA10, which sounds very similar, perhaps a bit better to my ears, but it any event it allows me to use a jitter-prone source (computer) without resampling (which I think is a bad thing, generally).
If Benchmark ever came out with a DAC with USB input (which didn't convert to S/PDIF internally, as it should be done) I would probably buy it. If it didn't need to resample to 110K I would really want to purchase it. And if they came up with their own USB driver that supported some kind of asynchronous I/O (or a similar driver that used an Ethernet or Firewire interface) I would be the first one in line with the cash for it!
Scrith:I want a multichannel USB solution that is an 8-channel DAC c/w volume control that a)does not use USB Bus power and b)does not convert to S/PDIF but instead use I2S internally.
I know Gordon Rankin could solder me up a one-of-a-kind unit... but we all know how much the cost of a product is when you're only making ONE! :D
Ah, dare to dream!
The other way to go is to "modify" the Foobar output and crossover plugins so that you can map to different audio devices simultaneously, thus negating the need for a multichannel product - you could then just use multiple stereo pairs. The trouble is... if you have three identical audio devices they will show up with the same device name, unless you create a custom installation inf file for each separate intall, thus giving you the power to have unique names.
A good USB solution can be had - but if you're going the ACTIVE route like I always seem to end up doing... that's a whole other shooting match!
... because the stop band is increased from 20K all the way up to the new sample rate, instead of being in the narrow band from 20K to the CD sample rate Nyquist frequency (22.05K). So apparently you get can get rid of brickwall filtering just by upsampling, which on the surface seems too good to be true :)Of course you are right that nothing new is created, and there will always be some degradation, but getting rid of the super steep filter could make a difference.
...I think I remember hearing that increasing the sample rate can move jitter artifacts out of the audible hearing range. Or something like that. I have a bunch of sound cards and usb interfaces and I can't tell the difference with most of them if I resample with src.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: