Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: [TOS #8] audiophile settings nonsense (Read 4940 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[TOS #8] audiophile settings nonsense

Oh, my god... First of all, I’m Russian, so, please try to understand. No. Wrong, Audigy2 PLAYS 24 bit, BUT you need an alternative drivers for it (not from Creative) – kX Project. Well, this is my setup:

Audigy2 (SB0244 OEM)
kX Drivers 3538a
Foobar2000 0.8.3

DSP Manager:
Resampler (SSRC) 192000 (you need to enter it manually), Slow
Equalizer (optionally)
Advanced Limiter

Playback:
24bit fixed-point padded to 32bit
No dither, no noise shaping

Output:
Kernel Streaming, kX Wave SB0244 10k2 [c400] HQ, 1000 ms


This “kX Wave SB0244 10k2 [c400] HQ” is actually the main part of my setup - the ONLY way to hear something more than 48000 from your Audigy2 card, and to avoid stupid emu10k1/2-bug in the last bit of 16bit sampe, in case you are not interested in higher sample rates (yes, all emu10k1/2 cards occasionally distorts last 16th bit, and sometimes even 15th (!), regardless wherever you resample you stream to 48000 or not, it’s an old hardware bug in DSP enter gate).

I think, this can help you to get out most possible quality from you Audigy2 card... But beware, “192000 Slow” resample uses VERY much CPU (40% on my Athlon XP 3200!), if you have slower PC try 96000 (all other settings are the same), and, at last, 48000. BTW, do not try 96000 or 192000 w/o Slow mode, it may be even worse than 48000 Slow (but still more demanding).

Minuses: forget about “EAX ADVANCED HD” (never loved it, though), and, kX drivers still a bit buggy, I hope they’ll be polished in near future... So this setup gives me an opportunity to hear pseudo DVD-Audio on regular 16/44 material.

At last, such efforts pointless unless you have a real good-quality sound material (at least 192Kbps MP3, but I prefer lossless Monkey’s Audio – already filled 56 GB on HDD with them  ).

[TOS #8] audiophile settings nonsense

Reply #1 –
Quote
Resampler (SSRC) 192000 (you need to enter it manually), Slow

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=255689"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For listening, I recommend you use the PPHS resampler instead, and resample to 48000Hz.
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.

[TOS #8] audiophile settings nonsense

Reply #2 –
Quote
So this setup gives me an opportunity to hear pseudo DVD-Audio on regular 16/44 material.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=255689"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I hope you know it by yourself already, but upsampling does not improve quality. 
Life is Real...
(But not in audio :) )

[TOS #8] audiophile settings nonsense

Reply #3 –
Quote
Resampler (SSRC) 192000 (you need to enter it manually), Slow[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=255689"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Huge waste of CPU time, for no real improvement. Have you ABXed upsampled signal vs non-upsampled signal ? No ? Then stop suggesting your settings to people until you actually verify that they do anything useful.
Since you haven't read the message in resampler preferences page, I'll post it here for you.
Quote
Using resampler for playback is not recommended, you should expect up to 50% CPU usage with resampler enabled on most of machines, especially with slow mode.
Resampling to higher sample rate doesn't increase perceived "sound quality", only resampling to 48000Hz avoids issues with certain types of sound hardware.
Slow mode processes sound data in big chunks, resulting in CPU usage spikes which may cause sound stuttering on some systems - try lowering playback thread priority if you encounter them.
Slow mode has been reported to give noticeable differences only with resampling from very low samplerates, *not* when resampling 44100Hz=>48000Hz.

Other than that,
Quote
24bit fixed-point padded to 32bit[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=255689"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This produces exact same sound as plain 32bit output, since no consumer-level DAC even utilizes full dynamic range of 24bit signal. Why tell people to use advanced settings if they don't improve anything ? For placebo value maybe ? This kind of "help" is not welcome here.
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.

[TOS #8] audiophile settings nonsense

Reply #4 –
Of course, resampling doesn't "improve" but as your message in resampler preferences page says, " resampling to 48000Hz avoids issues with certain types of sound hardware". You cannot avoid quality loss by 100% - it's just impossible, but resampling to 192 (or 96) helps to avoid quality loss better than resampling to 48000 (more points for interpretation). Some parallels could be drawn here from printing pictures on the photoprinter with 2400x2400 dpi instead of 600x600 dpi though, both of them exceeds original picture size (for example, 450 dpi).

I didn't say that upsampling to 192 has great benefist, but I said that it gives you BEST POSSIBLE stereo sound reproduction regardless the cost. Its up to you to choose. As for me I usually listen to music intentionally (not during making any work on the computer) so 40% cpu usage or 80% is quite the same for me... that's all

and about using 24bit padded to 32bit instead of simple 32bit - i guess, it's needed to correct function of advanced limiter. when you "limiting" 32bit sound there is no effect, since last 8 bits means nothing to DAC, but first 24 mean (or at least, not more than 24).

[TOS #8] audiophile settings nonsense

Reply #5 –
Heh, ouch.
 

[TOS #8] audiophile settings nonsense

Reply #6 –
Quote
Of course, resampling doesn't "improve" but as your message in resampler preferences page says, " resampling to 48000Hz avoids issues with certain types of sound hardware". You cannot avoid quality loss by 100% - it's just impossible, but resampling to 192 (or 96) helps to avoid quality loss better than resampling to 48000 (more points for interpretation). Some parallels could be drawn here from printing pictures on the photoprinter with 2400x2400 dpi instead of 600x600 dpi though, both of them exceeds original picture size (for example, 450 dpi).

I didn't say that upsampling to 192 has great benefist, but I said that it gives you BEST POSSIBLE stereo sound reproduction regardless the cost. Its up to you to choose. As for me I usually listen to music intentionally (not during making any work on the computer) so 40% cpu usage or 80% is quite the same for me... that's all
Please read Terms of Service point 8, which you have repeatedly violated.
Quote
and about using 24bit padded to 32bit instead of simple 32bit - i guess, it's needed to correct function of advanced limiter. when you "limiting" 32bit sound there is no effect, since last 8 bits means nothing to DAC, but first 24 mean (or at least, not more than 24).[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=255847"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Seems you don't even know what the difference between 32bit output and 24bit padded to 32bit is either (null bits are least significant ones, not most significant).
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.