Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › DIY (Do-It-Yourself) Discussions › Going to build a DIY amp, need help deciding which to build.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Going to build a DIY amp, need help deciding which to build. - Page 3

post #31 of 40
10/26/11 at 11:18pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post


The vast majority of music is 44.1 so basic logic dictates tests in 44.1. 



Since you need a computer to use the uDac, and computers make up-sampling real easy, basic logic is that it should have been tested at 24/96. I up-sample via a Foobar plugin.

 

Just sayin'


Edited by cheapskateaudio - 10/27/11 at 1:50am
Reply
post #32 of 40
10/27/11 at 3:08am

If the uDAC cannot do music encoded at standard sample rates justice, it isn't going to suddenly improve with 24/96.

 

@bcg27

 

Shike reproduced NwAvGuy's crosstalk results with RMAA. Unsurprisingly, he got the same results as AMB right up until the point he fixed his dummy load!

 

 

Reply
post #33 of 40
10/27/11 at 10:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheapskateaudio View Post



Since you need a computer to use the uDac, and computers make up-sampling real easy, basic logic is that it should have been tested at 24/96. I up-sample via a Foobar plugin.

 

Just sayin'


 

No, it doesn't make any sense. Up-sampling is a lossy process, and you are degrading the audio. rolleyes.gif

 

 

Reply
post #34 of 40
10/27/11 at 12:15pm
Thread Starter 


 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post


 

No, it doesn't make any sense. Up-sampling is a lossy process, and you are degrading the audio. rolleyes.gif

 

 

 

Why would it be lossy? It's a computer working with 1's and 0's, there is no loss that I can think of. 

Reply
post #35 of 40
10/27/11 at 12:17pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willakan View Post

If the uDAC cannot do music encoded at standard sample rates justice, it isn't going to suddenly improve with 24/96.

 

@bcg27

 

Shike reproduced NwAvGuy's crosstalk results with RMAA. Unsurprisingly, he got the same results as AMB right up until the point he fixed his dummy load!

 

 



So now assumptions are common practice in objective thinking? This is the problem all objective folks run into, they start to think they *know*, based on previous experience. It should have been measured at it's best capability to provide a true picture of what it is capable of. Especially if it was going to be slammed like that! 

 

The unnamed has a listening test posted on his site wherein the uDac 2 posted second place results after the much more expensive Benchmark Dac.

 

The DACs that supposedly throttled the uDac on price/performance were in fact shamefully outperformed when it came to *hearing*. 

 

He even admits as much, stating that sometimes superior measurements != superior sound.


Edited by cheapskateaudio - 10/27/11 at 12:28pm
Reply
post #36 of 40
10/27/11 at 12:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheapskateaudio View Post


 

 

 

Why would it be lossy? It's a computer working with 1's and 0's, there is no loss that I can think of. 


It's like re-encoding a low bit rate mp3 at a higher bit rate - nothing can be gained, you just degrade the sound in the process. 

Reply
post #37 of 40
10/27/11 at 12:52pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post


It's like re-encoding a low bit rate mp3 at a higher bit rate - nothing can be gained, you just degrade the sound in the process. 



Ok, hold on, hold your horses there bud! Those are two different applications aren't they? One of them is a modification of the digital file, the other is a modification of the digital output. There is a difference isn't there? There is data on a disk (MP3, FLAC), and then there is data being processed into music, the latter is where up-sampling occurs. 

 

 

Reply
post #38 of 40
10/27/11 at 2:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheapskateaudio View Post



Ok, hold on, hold your horses there bud! Those are two different applications aren't they? One of them is a modification of the digital file, the other is a modification of the digital output. There is a difference isn't there? There is data on a disk (MP3, FLAC), and then there is data being processed into music, the latter is where up-sampling occurs. 

 

 


It's just an analogy. 

Reply
post #39 of 40
10/27/11 at 11:10pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satellite_6 View Post


It's just an analogy. 



You should consider a career in politics.  

Reply
post #40 of 40
10/28/11 at 4:06am

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheapskateaudio View Post



So now assumptions are common practice in objective thinking? This is the problem all objective folks run into, they start to think they *know*, based on previous experience. It should have been measured at it's best capability to provide a true picture of what it is capable of. Especially if it was going to be slammed like that! 

 

The unnamed has a listening test posted on his site wherein the uDac 2 posted second place results after the much more expensive Benchmark Dac.

 

The DACs that supposedly throttled the uDac on price/performance were in fact shamefully outperformed when it came to *hearing*. 

 

He even admits as much, stating that sometimes superior measurements != superior sound.


 

Superior sound =yes for those who are say, students studying music who need a good dac for their course? not at all. And for those who buy this without an amp, say IEMs and low impedance headphones? the Behringer outperforms the uDac 2 by a mile on the headphone outs.

 

Anyways its a fact that upsampling does not provide any real benefit to resolution in music, yes it may make your music more "musical" but does not make it clearer and that is why 44.1khz is used instead of 24/96. Using 24/96 is only probably useful with native 24/96 tracks.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › DIY (Do-It-Yourself) Discussions › Going to build a DIY amp, need help deciding which to build.