I got a pair of TFZ Exclusive 1 from Massdrop. They're pretty good.
Let me quote this before locking the thread
You cannot judge audio quality based on graphs, be it FFT or otherwise.
Like I said, thread closure is looming.
I don’t understand why we think that vinyl can’t have frequencies above 20KHz.We??
I don’t understand why we think that vinyl can’t have frequencies above 20KHz.Nor do I when there is plenty of verifiable evidence that demonstrates that it can.
Ah, no I can't - it's a 44.1 master. Although you can clearly se the cut off, which I think shows that anything above 20KHz is not necessarily distortion.
I'd say this is good evidence of high frequency content in vinyl. That's the 30Khz carier (i forget the real name, but it's added to tape recording in order to make the requency response more linear). It's certainly not distortion.The solid line could be bias but 28kHz is kind of low for that, and we need more info about the recording to be sure. Everything around it, the fuzzy stuff, is probably distortion. Regardless, none of it is supposed to be there, it wasn't in the original soundfield, and so any of it, bias or not, is a type of distortion.
Bias, that’s the word I was looking for! Also I don’t understand why we think that vinyl can’t have frequencies above 20KHz. It’s a plastic disc, rubbing a needle that moves a magnet. Theres not hard limit really. You can argue that it’s mostly distortion but there’s certainly no reason not to encode high frequencies in vinyl.
I realise now I can test this. I have that record from Jack White, and there is HD digital recordings of it too. Comparison would be interesting
thread closure is looming.
Seems like this was split off the original thread ( https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,113365.0.html ). Possibly over discussing > 20 kHz found in (digitized versions mastered from) analogue master tapes, maybe that was considered off-topic.
De-railing this thread back to vinyl is maybe not necessary, as long as we have the original thread (and maybe even less necessary if, people read before posting).
Last post by Signal Lost -
I know this or similar questions were already discussed. I read few threads, but need some details.
My current setup is Windows 7, Audioengine D3 DAC ( 48.1kHz-96kHz native playback), FB2000 with either Direct Sound or Wasapi.
When I look at the default audio settings as per screenshot - 96 kHz is selected. In this case, if I use Direct Sound (DS) output, the blue indicator of my DAC is always lit, which means that the signal Windows sends to the DAC is 96 kHz.
1. But why 96 kHz is the default option?
Majority of my files are 16 / 44.1? Aren't we creating another useless link in the chain by upsampling 44.1 to 96 kHz, which might distort the signal?
2. I have tried switching between Wasapi and DS. At glance, I don't hear any differences, but as you might guess - I'm strongly biased to rather use WASAPI. However, I don't like that all other applications are muted in this case and I get occasional sound freezes and glitches using it. I just doubled WASAPI buffer and will test it later.
4. Should I select 44.1 as default sample rate in Windows?
5. Is WASAPI any better than DS if latency is not a problem?
Thanks in advance!
It reminds me of this bug: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.dev.platform/dZC39mj5V-s/AKxFfQfkAAAJ
edit: fix link