FLAC 192/24 & Computer audio - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigitalDirect 

There are several interesting questions here. Firstly, the easiest one. Just use the inexpensive J. River Media Center (JRMC) software to bypass Windows Media Player (WMP). As you may know, WMP on Vista and Windows 7 always dithers the output, so you cannot get bit-perfect data to your DAC in this way.

Use the WASAPI Event Style mode of JRMC and guaranteed bit perfect out of your PC and you're done with this task.

 

Regarding 192/24, firstly, my recommendation is to start with files recorded natively in this format. 2L of Norway has many free sample tracks available. Reference Recordings has many releases in 176/24 also.

 

If your ears are sensitive enough, and even with relatively modest playback gear, you should notice a definite improvement in smoothness that becomes really apparent as one goes to higher and higher levels of gear.

 

The high resolution files are available as uncompressed .wav, Windows Media Lossless, or FLAC, as you prefer.

 

And yes, often high resolution files are or rather have to be mastered quite differently from the 44/16 type, as khaos pointed out. Watch out for junky 44/16 that have been magically transformed into 96/24 or higher. Although upsampling may help in various ways, better to start with real, native high rez recordings in the first place.

 

TOSLINK is a second-rate interconnect compared to S/PDIF on RCA  or AES3 on XLR. It's higher jitter, and will sound a little dull or blurred compared to the others.

wait, so TOSLINK is no good?

question: between TOSLINK and USB, is one better than the other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajreynol 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigitalDirect 

There are several interesting questions here. Firstly, the easiest one. Just use the inexpensive J. River Media Center (JRMC) software to bypass Windows Media Player (WMP). As you may know, WMP on Vista and Windows 7 always dithers the output, so you cannot get bit-perfect data to your DAC in this way.

Use the WASAPI Event Style mode of JRMC and guaranteed bit perfect out of your PC and you're done with this task.

 

Regarding 192/24, firstly, my recommendation is to start with files recorded natively in this format. 2L of Norway has many free sample tracks available. Reference Recordings has many releases in 176/24 also.

 

If your ears are sensitive enough, and even with relatively modest playback gear, you should notice a definite improvement in smoothness that becomes really apparent as one goes to higher and higher levels of gear.

 

The high resolution files are available as uncompressed .wav, Windows Media Lossless, or FLAC, as you prefer.

 

And yes, often high resolution files are or rather have to be mastered quite differently from the 44/16 type, as khaos pointed out. Watch out for junky 44/16 that have been magically transformed into 96/24 or higher. Although upsampling may help in various ways, better to start with real, native high rez recordings in the first place.

 

TOSLINK is a second-rate interconnect compared to S/PDIF on RCA  or AES3 on XLR. It's higher jitter, and will sound a little dull or blurred compared to the others.

wait, so TOSLINK is no good?

 

question: between TOSLINK and USB, is one better than the other?

I think that this is a never ending story because some people say that Toslink is superior over Digital Coax and others will say the opposite. The best way to prove it is to try it by yourself because neither Toslink nor Coax are costing too much and when you have the possibility to connect your DAC with both of them it will be the easiest way to find an answer. Regarding the facts, USB and Digital Coax may have the problems with ground loops and/or RFI, whereas Toslink maybe concerning with higher jitter. Concerning the sound this is always subjective IMO. Another fact as far as I know is that the native USB output is limited to 16 bit. Personally I am using Toslink, Coax and USB and up to now I didnt hear any significant differences. Changing the headphones will make more differences to me.. :)

Toslink is usually significantly better than many usb implementations out there at the moment. However, ajreynol's Nuforce Icon HDP--which I also own--has a remarkable usb section that handles 24/96 high resolution and does an awesome job controlling jitter. FYI that some newer gear have nice usb implementations that can handle high resolution well.

I love my laptop > WASAPI + Foobar 2000 > nuforce Icon HDP > Jena Labs Ultrawire cable > HD 650 setup with HDTracks 24/96 downloads...:)
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by monoethylene 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajreynol 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigitalDirect 

There are several interesting questions here. Firstly, the easiest one. Just use the inexpensive J. River Media Center (JRMC) software to bypass Windows Media Player (WMP). As you may know, WMP on Vista and Windows 7 always dithers the output, so you cannot get bit-perfect data to your DAC in this way.

Use the WASAPI Event Style mode of JRMC and guaranteed bit perfect out of your PC and you're done with this task.

 

Regarding 192/24, firstly, my recommendation is to start with files recorded natively in this format. 2L of Norway has many free sample tracks available. Reference Recordings has many releases in 176/24 also.

 

If your ears are sensitive enough, and even with relatively modest playback gear, you should notice a definite improvement in smoothness that becomes really apparent as one goes to higher and higher levels of gear.

 

The high resolution files are available as uncompressed .wav, Windows Media Lossless, or FLAC, as you prefer.

 

And yes, often high resolution files are or rather have to be mastered quite differently from the 44/16 type, as khaos pointed out. Watch out for junky 44/16 that have been magically transformed into 96/24 or higher. Although upsampling may help in various ways, better to start with real, native high rez recordings in the first place.

 

TOSLINK is a second-rate interconnect compared to S/PDIF on RCA  or AES3 on XLR. It's higher jitter, and will sound a little dull or blurred compared to the others.

wait, so TOSLINK is no good?

 

question: between TOSLINK and USB, is one better than the other?

I think that this is a never ending story because some people say that Toslink is superior over Digital Coax and others will say the opposite. The best way to prove it is to try it by yourself because neither Toslink nor Coax are costing too much and when you have the possibility to connect your DAC with both of them it will be the easiest way to find an answer. Regarding the facts, USB and Digital Coax may have the problems with ground loops and/or RFI, whereas Toslink maybe concerning with higher jitter. Concerning the sound this is always subjective IMO. Another fact as far as I know is that the native USB output is limited to 16 bit. Personally I am using Toslink, Coax and USB and up to now I didnt hear any significant differences. Changing the headphones will make more differences to me.. :)

Vista and 7 both put out dithered audio if one uses Windows Media Player.

Source: the person who developed the audio stack, and the peson who hired the person who developed the audio stack. JRMC (J River Media Center) in WASAPI and WASAPI Event Style modes are bit-perfect (make sure no signal processing is enabled inside JRMC such as equalization, etc.)

If you use something like the Audiophilleo1 or 2, the S/PDIF output will be an order of magntitude, perhaps two orders of magnitude, less jittery than a typical TOSLINK output. See measurements published by John Atkinson in the December Stereophile, p. 113 ff on the Halide Bridge. Laptop TOSLINK has the advantage of less galvanic noise coupling, but it passes through all the jitter just fine :)

My experience is that TOSLNIK always sounds substantially worse than coax, even when using ultra-high-quality glass optical fibers. Plastic fiber is generally rather poor, mushy, dull; glass fiber is much better, but then one is limited by the line drivers.

thanks for the comments, Sid and mono.  I have both toslink and USB...and I can't say I hear a difference between them running out of my Mac.  Equally great to my ears. 

edit: I'll check some of that stuff out, Digital.  thanks for the insight.