Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Resampling sucks!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Resampling sucks! - Page 2

post #16 of 32
I am seeming to prefer 96KHz on my card, like Fewtch (IIRC) said in another thread, my card simply seems to "like" being in its native mode, and it seems to sound noticably less flat to my ears.
post #17 of 32

Thoughts...

I prefer 88.2 with my RME and no upsampling with the DMX 6ifre LT.
post #18 of 32
Just to second what Glassman said, interger upsampling (44.1 to 88.2, 176.4, etc...) is considered better than non-interger upsampling. (96, 192, etc...)

All external variables aside, non-interger upsampling requires some pretty exotic algorithms to produce a perfect conversion. It's possible that this coloration could be "pleasant" to some folks considering their listening preferences. Considering MP3s, coloration can without a doubt make them sound better. Interger upsampling, (as opposed to non-interger) would be less forgiving with lower quality sources.
post #19 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by fewtch
I think it is the card... 88.2 KHz sounds ugly with my card as well (in fact I get clicks/pops which don't appear at any other sample rate), but 96 KHz is very smooth and clean sounding. I figure it must have something to do with the DAC... one would think that a 96 KHz DAC would actually do best at multiples of 48 KHz rather than 44.1 KHz.
I think fewtch may have hit the nail on the head.
post #20 of 32
I tried resampling to 24 bit on my Santa Cruz and noticed a decrease in quality, if anything, like it couldn't process it or something. I think the safest thing to do with these cards is to go with the specifications it uses by default. For me, that's 16/44.1.
post #21 of 32
you can't 'resample to 24bit', resampling changes sample rate, not bit depth.. and your card can't handle more then 16/48 so this is all somewhat out..

in fact, your card also can't handle true 16/44.1 as it will resample to 48kHz, it's the hardware limitation of the DSP and AC'97 codecs used.. you should resample to 48kHz slow mode with dither enabled in foobar..
post #22 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glassman
you can't 'resample to 24bit', resampling changes sample rate, not bit depth.. and your card can't handle more then 16/48 so this is all somewhat out..

in fact, your card also can't handle true 16/44.1 as it will resample to 48kHz, it's the hardware limitation of the DSP and AC'97 codecs used.. you should resample to 48kHz slow mode with dither enabled in foobar..
Yeah, I did that a while back when I found Hydrogen Audio and cast aside Winamp and the MAD decoder. They fixed up foobar for me real nice. Kernel Streaming is actually what I'm using, even though I can't tell the difference. At least I don't have to mess with 3 volume controls this way.
post #23 of 32
You really ought to at least amp the analog outs on your card. Why bother with "last 2%" tweaks like upsampling when you can probably get 10% improvement or better with an amp? Particularly with low impedance Grados, which put quite a stress on the analog circuitry in a soundcard. You'd only have one volume control to deal with that way, too.
post #24 of 32
It's clear now.I'm deaf.
With the help of my girlfriend I performed a blind test and failed to tell the different sample rates apart listening through a RME and a Benchmark DAC(the latter upsampling anyway).
The only card I was clearly better than 50 % was an Audigy 2, upsampled to 48 kHz, but this one is only for games and movies, so who cares?
post #25 of 32
who doesnt like good sounding game effects!!!!!!!!
post #26 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmopragma
It's clear now.I'm deaf.
With the help of my girlfriend I performed a blind test and failed to tell the different sample rates apart listening through a RME and a Benchmark DAC(the latter upsampling anyway).
The only card I was clearly better than 50 % was an Audigy 2, upsampled to 48 kHz, but this one is only for games and movies, so who cares?
For smaller detail oriented listening, the cables and power conditioning, matter. Maybe you are not deaf but your system isn't resolving enough yet.
post #27 of 32
Meh, resampling is not even supposed to make an audible difference so what you got was the expected result.
post #28 of 32
Resampling is indeed a last 1/2/10/what-have-you percent tweak. I've used 88.2, 96, and 192, and didn't really hear all that much of a difference from the stock 44.1, nor did I with dithering. I'm not saying it doesn't exist; perhaps my equipment (FLAC ---> FB2K ---> ASIO4ALL ---> AV-710 ---> CMOY ---> HD 280) just isn't high enough to get details.

That being said, 96 in slow mode takes around 50% of my XP 2000+ (512MB RAM)'s CPU power. 192 in slow mode takes around 90% Not something I'd want to have running if I'm attempting to do anything else.

(-:Stephonovich:-)
post #29 of 32
Slow mode resampling to 192KHz only takes 42% of the CPU power on my AthlonXP 2500+ running at 2800+ speeds (11x183)
post #30 of 32
Data Point:

The sound from my Terratec EWX 2496 with 88.2k resampling from Foobar2k hits the nail right on the head. It beats no resampling and 96k resampling by a substantial margin.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Resampling sucks!