|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
136.1.1.33
In Reply to: Re: help with components for music server... posted by e_desilva on September 29, 2006 at 09:47:41:
e-desilva,Most of what you said is Greek to me. I don't understand the 16/44.1 or 24/192 thing.
Follow Ups:
Ron,I bet it is not all that important.
But I'll try to put it in terms that you might have a better grasp of.
DO you know how if you have more pixels, video has more resolution?
It is kind of like that with audio. The more bits and the faster the sampling frequency, the better the resolution. SACD and DVD audio can have better sound quality due to this fact.
A computer can upsample (adding pixels say) to get better resolution.
Upscalers in video are similiar, adding more lines of resolution. BUt to Ed's point, those lines are fabricated and while they look good, it would look even better if the TV show was RECORDED that way.
SOme like what upsampling a 16 bit 44.1k cd to say 24 bit 96k does to the sound. Others think that one can't improve on the original recording. I think everyone agrees that something recorded at 24/96 will sound better than the same recording at 16/44.1.
So, all I was saying is that with the epia, regular upsamplers work fine, but the Secret Rabbit code one is too processor intensive to pull off higher rates.
Excellent explanation, thank you. So here's another question. Are origianl cd's recorded in different formats, or only 16/44.1?Does anything change when you rip a cd?(All my music is in .flac)
thanks again for the excellent explanation.
16/44.1 is the redbook standard.So all cds are 16/44.1.
If one rips properly, there is no difference.
FWIW, with the stock upsampler in Foobar, I go from a 2-7% usage to 3-13% CPU usage. S0, 32/96 is possible with the epia if your hard ware supports it. Just not with the secret rabbit.
That said, unless you plan to do upsampling with the secret rabbit upsampler or 60db crossovers, there is nothing n my experience to say that it won't work on the epia you are looking at especially if you are dedicating the computer to audio.
ok i'm just curious now. Am I understanding right then that the master copy(the one they use to make the printings) is actually 24/96? It seems wierd that if the master is 24/96 that they are recorded in 16/44.1. Like I said, just curious....what case did you go with? I'm looking at the morex 2699 case. Seems the cheapest one I can find..
thanks again,
Nah, when they say "mastering," they are talking about the studio process of mucking around with the originally recorded tracks, downmixing to stereo from multitrack, etc. While digital studios may keep most of that in the 24/96 or 24/192 format, it all gets downsampled to 16/44.1 before getting dumped on a CD. So, there isn't a "master copy" of a CD in a higher resolution format... When you find those CDs that say, for example "Superbit 22 bit format", its saying that the CD was mastered using 22 bit "words." You aren't getting some odd 22/44.1 format on what you are buying--its still 16/44.1.Dawnrazor-What kind of DACs deal with 32 bit formats? Are you sure you aren't talking about upsampling to 24bits? 24/96 and 24/192 are fairly common, but I haven't seen 32/96.
ED,The lynx 2 is one of those "prosumer cards". It supports up to 32/200. Although pricey (why is it that audiophiles will easily spend $2-3K or more on a cdp, but get cheap as hell when it comes to PC audio balking at a $1k sound card...and expect it to sound better tahn their 3k CDP?) I figured that it handled high enough sampling rates and frequencies, to be future proof for a long while. I can always get another computer if I need to go to those levels, or a new format comes along.
BUt The max I can do is 32/96 since I haven't found an upsampler that goes higher. Well, I CAN create files with db power amp that are 24/192 and then the computer doesn't have to do the heavy lifting realtime, but that is a ton of space, and I am not sure it is worth the time effort and money to do so.
Foobar has a setting to output 32 bits, and I usually have it set to that.
Do you know of an upsampler that goes to 192, or 176?
So are you using the analog or digital outputs of the Lynx? Guess I was wondering what DAC could chew a 32 bit input. I've got a hardware upsample (dCS Purcell), so I haven't messed with the software upsampling in foobar...
BOTH.Analog to the amps, and for head phone listening I run out to a Birdland Dac...which apparently has no problem with 32 bits.
I am assuming it is putting out 32 bits as foobar reports it, and the lynx mixer reports this as well, but I don't know for certain.
***Do you know of an upsampler that goes to 192, or 176?***Dawnrazor -
I thought you said you used "Secret Rabbit" (SRC) resampler in foobar. I'm pretty sure you can change it to 192 or 176. I know the preset numbers only go up to 96, but you have to manually type in the value if you are going higher. (192000 or 176400) Just be sure you stop any music that's playing before you do this. It freaks out if you do it while it's playing.Give it a try. Let us know how it works. It's going to take a lot of CPU power though.
It doesn't work, as you rightly say, it requires a ton of processing power. My little 1ghz machine can't do it at those rates. I think it got up to 88 with some stuttering using the SRC upsampler.I did just try playing a 24/192 file that I made on another computer using db poweramp. Foobar refuses to play it on version 09.3, but 08 will play it, there is just no sound.
My lynx software reports 192 for the clock rate on 08, there is just no sound.
SO maybe Foobar doesn't really support 192???
R,I just bought the Hush from logicsupply.com (unfortunately, that no longer seems to be available)...mostly because it was fanless, and looks like a hifi piece. Very pricey, but not to me...I thought it was worth it.
The files are 16/44.1. Foobar upsamples to 32/96, if I have it set to do so.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: