"I didn´t do any upsampling - that would have changed the results. "Quite the contrary, in fact. Not doing oversampling in a controlled way in the software, prior to sending the 44.1kHz to the DAC leaves all oversampling, including the reconstruction filter, at the mercy of the DAC. And typical DAC oversampling/reconstruction filters are linear-phase half-band, i.e. with pre- and post-ringing at 22.05kHz and imperfect stop band rejection. ...
listening tests were undertaken to establish formally that the anti-alias filtering required for a nominally flat response to 20kHz, even at the 44.1kHz sampling rate—the sternest test because the transition band from 20kHz to 22.05kHz is so narrow, demanding an extremely steep filter rolloff—has no audible effect. Many informal listening tests were conducted too, often using Sony's PCM-F1, because it was the first 16-bit digital recorder that most people were able to lay hands on. The outcomes of this testing, formal and informal, were overwhelmingly positive. Many PCM-F1 users claimed that a signal passed through the machine's A-to-D and D-to-A stages was indistinguishable from the feed, and some still cite that experience as proof that 16-bit/48kHz audio, properly realized, is essentially perfect.But even in the earliest days of domestic digital audio there were dissenting voices. Many hi-fi writers, myself included, were thoroughly underwhelmed by our initial experiences of Compact Disc, and so were some influential audio professionals, such as Doug Sax*. Over a period of some years the intensity of this opposition to CD decreased somewhat, but many commentators and ordinary audio consumers concluded that there was something fundamentally amiss with 16/44.1 and 16/48 audio. Many of them voted with their feet, continuing to prefer the sound of the "obsolescent" LP.
I am sorry, but it appears to me that many of you don't know what you aredoing here.When starting from a 96kHz master it is impossible to compare 96kHz with 44.1kHz.What you are comparing is the 96kHz source with [[[ the combination of a 44.1kHz sampled signal space with the particular anti-alias filter used when converting from 96kHz to 44.1kHz ]]].So before starting you have to agree on which AA filter you'll include."Generate your own Redbook master from Linn's HiRez WAV (VHQ SRC with intermediate phase low-pass"
they ought to try the experiment with whatever down-conversion product they have, and see if they get a positive result. Then if you get positive results. we can do a post-mortum.
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 13 September, 2009, 10:04:25 PMthey ought to try the experiment with whatever down-conversion product they have, and see if they get a positive result. Then if you get positive results. we can do a post-mortum.According to this HA thread it might be time for a post-mortem. There seems to be a positive ABX for a 24/96 to 16/44.1 conversion.
Seems there are other issues besides dither at play."
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 14 September, 2009, 08:55:24 AMSeems there are other issues besides dither at play."Sure, and it's a pity that the OP doesn't seem to see the importance of separating the issues of SRC and dithering/re-quantization. However, if he can hear a difference between a 24/96 and a 16/44.1 source, that deserves some attention IMO since according to HA belief this should not be possible unless something has been done wrong.
....this should not be possible unless something has been done wrong.
Quote from: rpp3po on 19 August, 2009, 05:03:19 AMAs far as I know the E-MU 0202 USB does not switch sample rates automatically, but employs Windows' mediocre quality realtime-SRC to convert to the rate set in the E-MU USB Audio Control Panel.Oh, but it does. Completely automatic.
As far as I know the E-MU 0202 USB does not switch sample rates automatically, but employs Windows' mediocre quality realtime-SRC to convert to the rate set in the E-MU USB Audio Control Panel.
I use the 0202 USB [...] Both interfaces also have one big problem: they don´t work very well with foobar´s ASIO output. It has to be configured anew after every restart of the host-pc.
Quote from: Cavaille on 07 October, 2009, 04:27:21 AMI use the 0202 USB [...] Both interfaces also have one big problem: they don´t work very well with foobar´s ASIO output. It has to be configured anew after every restart of the host-pc.Looks like it might not have been as "automatic" as claimed and it might have been flawed switching after all and not golden ears that made the difference. I restate: prior upsampling using a high quality converter is a much cleaner approach to evaluate wether 16/44.1 discards audible content that 24/96 would preserve.
I ordered the http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/ disc - the music was quite nice too, which is more than you can say for many "audiophile" recordings.
So let´s read the following sentence very carefully: The E-MU 0202 USB switches sample rates automatically (it doesn´t have an internal resampler). BUT: when you re-start your PC you´ll have to configure foobar2000s ASIO output. Let´s read again: foobar2000´s ASIO output. Not the interface itself.
Reason: foobar2000 somehow uses the hardware-ID for assigning the ASIO output (there is a thread for this somewhere on HA). Since the interface always gets a different Hardware-ID after every re-start due to the special synchronized USB connection, foobar2000 forgets all the information. So this is not a failure of the interface, it is a failure of... well, it should be obvious by now.
EDIT - DOH! I guess you're on his mailing list too then krab!
Now you'd think life vs death would be ABXable, wouldn't you?
Quote from: 2Bdecided on 06 August, 2010, 07:31:25 AMNow you'd think life vs death would be ABXable, wouldn't you? Well, do you really think you could ABX beeing dead?
The Hydrogen guys are inexperienced. Anyone who has done even a modest amount of hirez recording understands the value of 24/96 over 16/44. It's simply not subtle, no matter how good the 16/44 playback is."It seems to me we have two audiophiles - those that listen to music, seek out the best, and enjoy it and those that debate the scientific merits endlessly.I don't want to shut down the technical debate if it is done in an open-minded way and subjective assessments are included...after all, you cannot measure everything we hear. Sadly I see little open-mindedness at Hydrogen.
It seems to me we have two audiophiles - those that listen to music, seek out the best, and enjoy it and those that debate the scientific merits endlessly.
More of the usual "of course you can easily hear a difference, it's obvious" - which would, if pressed, magically turn into "I can't ABX a difference".I like the honest post that says "the differences are subtle". I think that's the conclusion that any rational person must come to - if there are any audible differences, they must be very subtle, because positive test results are so rare.Consider this...1. People say "it's all about having revealing gear" - now, I can see why that could be true in theory.2. People say "it's all about having golden ears" - again, I can see why that could be true in theory.*