Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Audio-GD NFB-11
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audio-GD NFB-11 - Page 11

post #151 of 977

Nearly all of my current mp3/flac are 44khz with a few at 96khz so it shouldn't affect me at all right now, but I was thinking about the 32/192 for the future in case this sampling rate becomes more common. You're point is well taken since I will need to do a sound card upgrade anyway to get the higher resolution.

 

BTW, the promo price right now for the NFB-10 is $765 (10% off the original price). 

post #152 of 977
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyNamedSue View Post

...but I was thinking about the 32/192 for the future in case this sampling rate becomes more common.

 

Don't worry about it - no DAC actually offers a true 24-bit resolution.  There might be one in a lab somewhere, but it's running under liquid nitrogren and likely not converting audio...

post #153 of 977

Taking a breath...my newness to hifi audio, perfectionistic tendency, and current upgraditis infliction has not been a great combo =). 

post #154 of 977

I'm excited to hear comparisons to the Audinst HUD-MX1, Yulong D100, and some Matrix products

post #155 of 977
Unless you are spending thousands on an audio rig I wouldn't even worry about 24/96 to be honest.
post #156 of 977


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

Unless you are spending thousands on an audio rig I wouldn't even worry about 24/96 to be honest.


Sage advise Curra. Until one can make the most of redbook (16/44.1) It makes little sense to concentrate solely on 24/96, unless of course ones source file library consists of nothing but high rez material. There is very very little native 24/192 material AFAIK anyway not to mention 24/192 encoded stuff makes for huge file sizes (compared even to their 24/96 counterparts) for very little actual audible gain. In fact I bet it woiuld be very difficult to tell the difference between 24/88.2 24/96 and 24/192 (given identical tracks for testing). I think an open pcm "redbook II" standard (24/48) might be an ideal way to go in the near future.

 

Peete.


Edited by Pricklely Peete - 10/24/10 at 7:09pm
post #157 of 977

If you have source material recorded 32 bit / 192 khz  native then by all means find a way to rig a SPDIF output or buy a soundcard that has one.  If you are listening to 16 / 44.1 audio from CDs then resampling 14-bit / 44.1 khz data to 32 bits and rate-converting the result to 192 khz will **NOT** improve your sound. In fact, statistically speaking, it degrades the data.  If the source file is 16 bit there's no way to magically create real 32 bit data out of this;  It's like when you take a 1 megapixel image from a cellphone camera and put it on an HDTV screen- the screen itself has high-definition picture resolution ability but the SOURCE FILE- the 1 megapixel phone camera picture - does NOT have hi-rez data.  There's now way the bigscreen TV can magically pull 1080p images out of a 480 x 640 file.  Same is true with music files- doesn't matter if the files are stored on a CD or on a PC hard drive; digital audio is 16 bit / 44.1 khz and there's no juju that can make it 32 bit / 192 khz. (Some fownloadable 

 

Some DACs do UPSAMPLING, but this isn't to make the source file sound better- this is only so you can move the antialias filter way up beyond the audioband. See, when you convert a 44.1 khz bitsteam to analog you have 44.1 / 2 = 22.05  khz noise (for want of an easier to explain term) in the analog signal.  You can't hear this but it would burn your tweeters out or make your amp go crazy.  So they put a filter in the analog audio circuit to filter this noise out.  The filter is right at or just above 20 kHz.  In fact this has some sonic impact on the signals passing through it, even those a fair bit lower than 20 khz because of the nature of the filter used; there is some phase shift and some other time-domain stuff like "pre-ringing"  etc.  So, the theory goes, if you upsample everything to 192 khz, then you put your filter at 96 khz which is comfortably above the audio band, and then your filter doesn't have ANY audible impact on the audio passband.  That's the theory, lots of people like up-sampling  DACs so maybe it really makes a difference.  Myself, I have plain DACs and upsampling DACs and I hear differences but I don't know if it's the upsampling / higher frequency filters I hear or some other difference in the circuit like better parts someplace or who knows.

 

So, unless you have 32 bit, 192 khz files I really doubt it will make much, if any, difference.  (I suppose you could do your own recording at that depth / bitrate or convert LPs or analog master tapes.  However I don't know of any A-to-D converters that can resolve to 32 bits at 192 khz so I think, really, there is NO 32-bit, 192 khz native content out there.)  There is 24 bit stuff you can download and also DVD-A's, and there's SACDs but there's no way to access digital data from SACD and it's 1-bit /  2.8224 MHz DSD encoded so no outboard DAC can decode that anyway. 

 

FYI  recording studios, mastering guys, and so on will often convert 16 /44.1 data to a higher rate / wider sample because it makes their digital boards and digital editing stuff more precise. They're putting their audio data through all kinds of manipulation -  filters in the digital world are really just MATH - so having extra digits after the decimal point keeps their studio digital audio workstation manipulations sounding nice and clean. They downsample to 16 bits / 44.1 khz when they make the cd.

 

YOUR PC MAY HAVE A HIDDEN SPDIF!

 

Many "on board" sound chips on PC motherboards have a SPDIF but it is usually not brought out from the motherboard to an external connector, so you'd need a little jumper to go from the socket / pins on the motherboard to an RCA jack that you'd have to install on your PC case someplace. Find out what motherboard you have then go to that manufacturer's site and look at the pins / connectors on the board.

 

Most on-board sound "cards" have middling - poor DACs on them, so their analog output isn't the best.  But SPDIF  doesn't go through the DAC......  it's digital all the way.


Edited by milosz - 10/25/10 at 2:22am
post #158 of 977

Peete- it's controversial, but there was a paper published by Meyer and Moran in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society that concluded that people- even "golden ear" type trained audiophile listeners- can't hear the difference between 16 bit/ 44.1 khz and higher-res formats.  See http://www.aes.org/journal/online/comment/?ID=14195

 

Typically, mass-release CDs are engineered to be LOUD - marketing departments demand this.  Often, SACDs or DVD-As of the same material are re-mixed / re-mastered for release to people who care about sound / have good audio gear so these MIXES will sound better, being less compressed and having had more care taken in engineering.  That is most likely what people hear as the "super quality" of these hi-rez recordings.  If you take  24 bit / 96 khz downloads from HDTRACKS.COM  and carefully downconvert & resample them to Red Book standards, I will bet you dollars-to-dill-pickles that you won't hear a difference in blind comparison.  I know I can't hear the difference.

post #159 of 977
Quote:
Originally Posted by isao2k8 View Post

I just got my tracking number. The unit was shipped yesterday evening.


Quote:
Originally Posted by maxcatView Post

 

I inquired in mail 2 hours ago, and I received my tracking number : )



Thanks guys, still waiting for mine....

 

 

 

In reference to all the different source material out there, I think it's great that these discussions are coming up a lot now.  Five years ago (and still present) it was lossy vs lossless, now we are discussing lossless vs. hi-rez lossless.....Awesome....We have come a long way and still coming...

 

I would say for me, my collection is 95% 16/44.1....However, I do have a few 24/48, 24/96, 24/192 & 32/192 (raw vinyl rips w/ pops and clicks included).  In a couple of cases, I have the cd and hi rez version.  The differences are there and most evident in clarity and backround vocals.  Albeit small but present.  Don't we try to get that last ounce of oomph with our gear?  Why not with source material?

HDs are very cheap now and space should not be an issue.

 

I waited a while to get some 24/96 files because I thought it was not worth it.  I purchased one song from HD Tracks to try out a while back (The Kinks- Destroyer)....Even with that song (non-audiophile music...lol) that last little oomph was there.

 

As was stated earlier, your 16/44.1 must be up to par and ripped correctly.  Take care of that first and everything will fall into place with other formats.  That being said, some 16/44.1 material (well recorded material, MFSL, SHM-CD etc...) will rival some other formats.

 

The important thing to ME, is that we have options available, and that is always good. 

 

Even with my humble desktop Vista machine setup--> E-Mu 0404USB--> PPX3SLAM, the minor details are there.  When my NFB-11 arrives, I'm hoping to add it in this desktop rig, as an all-in one and dac only.

 

Cheers

 

 

emu3.jpg


Edited by HeatFan12 - 10/25/10 at 4:41am
post #160 of 977

I received my unit today.

 

nfb11.jpg

 

I'll post a short review later.

post #161 of 977
Quote:
Originally Posted by isao2k8 View Post

I received my unit today.

 

 

I'll post a short review later.


Looking forward to it!

post #162 of 977
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post If you take  24 bit / 96 khz downloads from HDTRACKS.COM  and carefully downconvert & resample them to Red Book standards, I will bet you dollars-to-dill-pickles that you won't hear a difference in blind comparison.  I know I can't hear the difference.

I have done this very thing and cannot tell the difference. Good recordings (and remasters of old recordings) show improvements infinity better.
 

post #163 of 977
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim3320070 View Post



I have done this very thing and cannot tell the difference. Good recordings (and remasters of old recordings) show improvements infinity better.
 


I'm going a bit further... comparing a standard release material in FLAC vs better mastered release material in 320CBR MP3, still resulting that the better mastered material sounds better even when it is in loosy format... smily_headphones1.gif


 

post #164 of 977
Quote:
Originally Posted by isao2k8 View Post

I received my unit today.

 

nfb11.jpg

 

I'll post a short review later.


It looks smaller than expected. 

post #165 of 977

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by K3cT View Post




It looks smaller than expected.

 

 

 

 

Looks like the same size as the Sparrow?

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Audio-GD NFB-11