1. Check out OCAU's review of the SpaceX Starlink satellite internet service!
    Dismiss Notice

DACs and amps really aren't that difficult to understand...

Discussion in 'PC Audio' started by Snufkin, Jan 21, 2015.

  1. MUTMAN

    MUTMAN Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    9,740
    Location:
    4109
    Hey chocomuffins, can you down sample one of your 96/24's to 44/16 and punch that through the foobar ABX things.
    If you dont have one at hand, a good resampler is available from xiph.org I believe

    No hurry, let me know what you find.
     
  2. Drubbing

    Drubbing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,720
    Location:
    Perth
    It's not a test unless it's blind. They show things pretty clearly though.
     
  3. millsy

    millsy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    13,563
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Lol, might want to check yourself there mate. You're the one that sounds like a snotty wanker from my point of view. I have a reasonable sized collection of vinyl records because I prefer the analogue format, with all its imperfections. Might not wanna jump to conclusions hey?

    I'm gonna highlight that post with every word that doesn't mean a thing from a 'real word' perspective, to me at least. Feel free to respond, or don't, I'm not really fussed.

    If you want me to be a 'snotty wanker' and actually speak my mind I can do that, but let's be civil here instead of a child hey?
     
  4. Toliandar

    Toliandar Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Messages:
    226
    Haven't read all of this but one thing that time and time again that is never mentioned is experience of sound not from an audible perspective but a tactile one. We are very responsive to energy - hence why louder tends to feel better.

    I consider myself to have a very nice 2.1 setup comprised of items that punch above their $ value and I've had many friends come and listen to music and they are astounded by the difference. One common comment is along the lines of "I feel this bubble of air around me." I've put on a movie and had a friend jump out of his seat and run out the door because he responded to an explosion in the movie and thought it had actually happened. Part of the joy of music is feeling the sound waves physically hit your body - it's a tactile sensation which I consider to be highly understudied.

    Now I cannot speak for 24/192 which is a format I've never thought would offer much; but there can be (with the right production) a significant gain in 24/96 from my experience (16/96 or 16/88.2 might be more realistic options). It's not much and I think it is the tactile sensation more than the audible sensation that finds the bigger boon - but it is there.

    Also just because we cannot hear something does not mean we aren't impacted by it. For higher frequencies it may not be as obvious (it's my understanding is that they can cause tension headaches) but if you've ever felt good deep bass then I expect you know what I mean about it not being all about what you can hear.
     
  5. OP
    OP
    Snufkin

    Snufkin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    6,938
    Location:
    Surrounded by headphones
    I think some of you guys need to read that article again (or once) :)

    Also : blind tests or it didn't happen.
     
  6. Sarsippius

    Sarsippius Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    873
    Location:
    Darwin
    Keep on deluding yourself mate, there may well be a difference between the two recordings you have but it certainly is not because of the bit or sampling rates.
     
  7. Drubbing

    Drubbing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,720
    Location:
    Perth
    Blind tests bust myths. That's why many people with a vested interest don't like them. There's many reasons CD/44.1 has been the industry standard for decades, and "HD" audio has never got anywhere.

    Another point that many people miss, as it's down the bottom of that article - "The most dramatic possible fidelity improvement for the cost comes from a good pair of headphones. Over-ear, in ear, open or closed, it doesn't much matter".
     
  8. Choco Muffins

    Choco Muffins Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    138
    I called you a snotty wanker because you are a snotty wanker. You had no interest in my reply or what I had to say. Its called being a passive aggressive dick. See, thats the difference between you and me. I'll just come out and say you talk out of your ignorant arse.

    I also gave you the benefit of not being an idiot. I was wrong. You use the term 'real world' which is nothing but a vague, meaningless term that could mean anything you want to depending on the context.

    p.s. You're a passive agressive snotty wanker.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2015
  9. millsy

    millsy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    13,563
    Location:
    Brisbane

    Haha whatever you reckon, if you don't want to describe measurable differences you can keep deluding yourself :)
     
  10. Drubbing

    Drubbing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,720
    Location:
    Perth
    You've already got some work to do to have your opinion taken seriously. But childish abuse seems the level you're pretty comfortable with.
     
  11. Choco Muffins

    Choco Muffins Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    138
    Considering the copy/paste idiocy I've encountered here dont delude yourself I take your opinion seriously.
     
  12. Choco Muffins

    Choco Muffins Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    138
    Then ask for something more precise than 'real world'.
     
  13. millsy

    millsy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    13,563
    Location:
    Brisbane
    I already did
    http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showpost.php?p=16611422&postcount=43
    Replace the bolded words with something that's objective, or at least explain what the hell they actually *mean*. E.g. is smoother and softer on the ears better mid range, less over emphasised high end. I don't know! It's not something I can objectively compare. You've provided a mostly subjective comparison which is an opinion, it's not factual nor does it provide anything I can evaluate for myself.

    I love music and I constantly aim to optimise my experience without wasting money or time following bullshit which exists to wean money from the deluded.

    Half the issue in these arguments is music exists to try and evoke an emotional response and people always argue emotionally. I can and have listened to the MoFi version of Led Zepplin IV, and on my setup and my ears, it sounds different to the vinyl copy I own. Various instruments are mixed in differently, and if I knew what they were called I could describe them. That is an objective measurement, to me. Is that pleasing to your ears? Subjective, but it's an easy to distinguish difference.

    I say, 'x instrument is much more prominent in this mastering'. You can check that for yourself, easy to observe.
    I say, 'x instrument is much airier in this mastering'. As the meme goes, http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads...l_that_s_just_like_your_opinion_man_super.jpg
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2015
  14. Drubbing

    Drubbing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,720
    Location:
    Perth
    You'll finish your 4yo tanty and then you'll piss off. I couldn't care less what you think. You've laid out your ignorance and what you're really here for, so there's not really anything for you to prove.
     
  15. ^catalyst

    ^catalyst Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    11,987
    Location:
    melbourne
    If only audiophiles had the ability to some how "record" these differences, imagine a device that could do that!?

    Imagine a "reverse-speaker" of some kind.

    Let that soak in.

    You could even, maybe, somehow interface this device with a computer and then quite feasibly perform some type of analysis on the resultant data.
     
  16. IzzyBlues

    IzzyBlues Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    102
    Location:
    Sydney
    This thread... Wow...

    Moving on, I'm loving my DAC purely because of how handy the TOSLINK inputs are (I'm using a DacMagic Audio Plus) and it works a treat.
     
  17. OP
    OP
    Snufkin

    Snufkin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    6,938
    Location:
    Surrounded by headphones
    A lot of audiophoolery preys on the fact that people feel bad when they say they can't tell a difference, like maybe their hearing isn't as good or they're somehow inferior.

    "I give them both cables to try and let them choose which one they prefer" is a very common tactic with cable sales. People figure "well, it's not that much more for the better cable, I may as well" even if they can't hear a difference. Or they convince themselves they can hear a difference, often AFTER purchasing the product (to justify the purchase).

    One thing that irritates me to no end with hi-fi and headphone-fi is that people get so caught up on numbers and specs they lose sight of the fact that it's about the music, I don't care how much you spent - bragging rights can suck a dick.

    In terms of 24/192, 320vFLAC etc for 99% of people it's TOTALLY IRRELEPHANT and even the last 1% I'd say to 99% of them it's TOTALLY IRRELEPHANT as well. Arguing about it is stupid.
    Arguing that you can hear the difference is stupid because a) you can't and b) NOBODY CARES IF YOU CAN.
     
  18. callan

    callan Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2001
    Messages:
    5,100
    Location:
    melbourne
    44.1kHz - The reason for it.

    Thought this might be of interest.

    Re-reading Pohlman's "Principals of Digital Audio", I came across what he claims is the justification of the oddly arbitrary figure of 44.1kHz sampling rate. I'd always wondered why that rather singular figure was picked.
    In much the same (apocryphal) way as the size of a horse's arse determined the diameter of the Space Shuttle solid rocket booster, it seems Television video standards determined this rather odd sampling rate.

    So there you go!

    Callan
     
  19. Drubbing

    Drubbing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,720
    Location:
    Perth
    That's an interesting story, but I don't think it reveals why 44.1 has remained. There are no 'restrictions' in either studios or CD manufacturing that would prevent a different sampling rate from taking precedence - if one was ever proven to be superior.

    None have, so it hasn't changed.

    Wiki claims Philips and Sony, the original manufacturers of CD players, agreed on 44.1 because:

    "Firstly, because the hearing range of human ears is roughly 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz, and via the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem the sampling frequency must be greater than twice the maximum frequency one wishes to reproduce, the sampling rate therefore had to be greater than 40 kHz. In addition to this, signals must be low-pass filtered before sampling, otherwise aliasing occurs, and, while an ideal low-pass filter would perfectly pass frequencies below 20 kHz (without attenuating them) and perfectly cut off frequencies above 20 kHz, in practice a transition band is necessary, where frequencies are partly attenuated. The wider this transition band is, the easier and more economical it is to make an anti-aliasing filter. The 44.1 kHz sampling frequency allows for a 2.05 kHz transition band."
     
  20. callan

    callan Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2001
    Messages:
    5,100
    Location:
    melbourne
    It remained because that was what was used at the outset: There was no need to change it. For proof, marvel in the spectacular dominance [sic] of SACD (hell, even with backwards compatibility with redbook, it still failed to garner significant traction)
    It was high enough past the Nyquest limit and with enough sampling headroom that analogue low-pass filters could provide the 80dB+ cutoff by the requisite 20Khz target needed to prevent audible aliasing, whilst minimising phase distortion by being a lesser rolloff.
    This could be implemented and productionalized using existing equipment - solving the chicken-and-egg problem that then existed: developing standards for equipment to test, develop and implement those same standards.

    These days with oversampling and digital filters a "brick-wall" filter is simultaneously easier to implement, but equally less necessary: much less so back then, though.

    And, lets face it, the S/N, dynamic range and THD from the audio CD blew out that of tape or vinyl so much that there was no imperative to change the standard (and already well past the point of diminishing returns). Keeping jitter under control was far more important than tweaking an already superlative playback sampling rate & bit depth.


    Other texts I've read tell similar tales of how odd standards actually came about: there's a lot more happenstance and arbitrariness in the creation of standards than most would like to believe. One of the more interesting ones was (seriously) a treatise on the history of the shipping container; "The Box". (I DO read strange things sometimes).

    I guess, like laws and sausages, it's oft best not to know how standards are made.:sick:


    Callan
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2015

Share This Page

Advertisement: