Hi Guys,
 
I just purchased a Dragonfly V1.2 DAC and using it under WIN7 OS.
 
Most of my storage music are 44.1kHz and 96kHz. And as I read the FAQ from AudioQuest website, I have to configure the rate from Control panel->Sound->Advance before use it.
 
But the questions are coming:
 
1. Does it mean I have to configure it to 44.1kHz when I play a 44.1kHz music and configure it again when change to play a 96kHz music? If so that is not smart at all. 
2. Under WIN7 OS, I can only find 24bit in Control panel->Sound->Advance, but why there is no 16bit option? If I still play a 16bit music under 24bit, will it impact the audio quality?
 
Thank you in advance!

The simplest solution is to convert your high-res files to 16-bit / 44.1 kHz. Don't worry, they will sound the same.

cr31 said:

  Hi Guys,
 
I just purchased a Dragonfly V1.2 DAC and using it under WIN7 OS.
 
Most of my storage music are 44.1kHz and 96kHz. And as I read the FAQ from AudioQuest website, I have to configure the rate from Control panel->Sound->Advance before use it.
 
But the questions are coming:
 
1. Does it mean I have to configure it to 44.1kHz when I play a 44.1kHz music and configure it again when change to play a 96kHz music? If so that is not smart at all. 
2. Under WIN7 OS, I can only find 24bit in Control panel->Sound->Advance, but why there is no 16bit option? If I still play a 16bit music under 24bit, will it impact the audio quality?
 
Thank you in advance!

Click to expand...

Use Foobar2000 and it will address all of your questions.  If the Dragonfly is limited to 44.1KHz, Foobar can set the bit-depth in File-Preferences-Playback-Ouput.  It will then automatically adjust for the limits of the Dragonfly resolution frequency.
 
All the while with Foobar, your 24-bit, 96KHz files will still sound noticeably superior than the 16-bit 44.1KHz files.  This is true, even if you only have a 16-bit USB connection (as long as you match the bit-depth limit in Foobar.  You won't have to do this to go down in bit-depth, the higher bit-depth limit is downward-compatible.  Foobar will display the file bit-depth and resolution in the bottom border of the player window, so you'll always know, regardless.
 
This is all assuming FLAC, of course, or some other lossless compression with the suitable Foobar plug-in - this includes APE, SACD, SACD and DVD-A iso's, etc.

tomb said:

  All the while with Foobar, your 24-bit, 96KHz files will still sound noticeably superior than the 16-bit 44.1KHz files.

Click to expand...

 
If you convert 24/96 files to 16/44.1, there is no audible difference between them. The only difference is the different masters that some high-res downloads were derived from.

music alchemist said:

 

tomb said:

  All the while with Foobar, your 24-bit, 96KHz files will still sound noticeably superior than the 16-bit 44.1KHz files.

Click to expand...

 
If you convert 24/96 files to 16/44.1, there is no audible difference between them. The only difference is the different masters that some high-res downloads were derived from.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but my experience says this is wrong.  I have both types of files from the same master and the 24/96 is superior.  I can't explain why this is true even when listening through a 16-bit DAC.  There are some possibilities, but it would be speculating.

tomb said:

  Sorry, but my experience says this is wrong.  I have both types of files from the same master and the 24/96 is superior.  I can't explain why this is true even when listening through a 16-bit DAC.  There are some possibilities, but it would be speculating.

Click to expand...

 
Did you convert the 24/96 files to lossless 16/44.1 yourself? (This is a prerequisite of any comparison.)
 
The only thing 24-bit bit depth does is add more dynamic range, but no recording in existence has more dynamic range than 16-bit can handle. 44.1 kHz files are capable of playing all the frequencies we can hear. Any frequencies outside our range of hearing are inaudible. In other words, there is literally nothing extra to hear in high-res files beyond Red Book. It is physically impossible to hear a difference between them unless there is a problem in your system.
 
For technical details, read this article: https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
 
If you would like to test your perception and document whether you can distinguish between high-res and Red Book, go to my thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/738552/testing-the-claim-i-can-hear-differences-between-lossless-formats

music alchemist said:

 

tomb said:

  Sorry, but my experience says this is wrong.  I have both types of files from the same master and the 24/96 is superior.  I can't explain why this is true even when listening through a 16-bit DAC.  There are some possibilities, but it would be speculating.

Click to expand...

 
Did you convert the 24/96 files to lossless 16/44.1 yourself? (This is a prerequisite of any comparison.)
 
The only thing 24-bit bit depth does is add more dynamic range, but no recording in existence has more dynamic range than 16-bit can handle. 44.1 kHz files are capable of playing all the frequencies we can hear. Any frequencies outside our range of hearing are inaudible. In other words, there is literally nothing extra to hear in high-res files beyond Red Book. It is physically impossible to hear a difference between them unless there is a problem in your system.
 
For technical details, read this article: https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
 
If you would like to test your perception and document whether you can distinguish between high-res and Red Book, go to my thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/738552/testing-the-claim-i-can-hear-differences-between-lossless-formats

Click to expand...

 
I thought that was where you were heading, but gave you the benefit of the doubt at first.
 
Just a few questions:

1. Why does your referenced article argue nothing is better than 48KHz sampling when Redbook is 44.1KHz?  Doesn't that immediately imply that the Redbook limitation is suspect?
2. Knowing that Nyquist sampling is a theorem, are you perfectly comfortable with the assumptions that have to take place in applying it to a real-world signal domain (music)? 
3. Are you certain than an anti-aliasing filter that establishes bounds for the Nyquist sampling to work has absolutely no affect whatsoever to the signals left in bound?

 
Finally, have you even listened to a Pono?  It might be illuminating for you.
 
Personally, I don't like the results of the Nyquist theorem failing for high-quality audio.  All I sell are 16-bit DACs, but I know what my ears tell me ... and I'm not in a minority, I think.

tomb said:

  I know what my ears tell me ... and I'm not in a minority, I think.

Click to expand...

 
In that case, would you be willing to demonstrate your ability to distinguish between Red Book and high-res at my thread?
 
As for minorities...to my knowledge, not a single person has ever demonstrated what I just requested of you, so this should be interesting.

If you set the device to 24-bit 96 kHz in the Windows OS you don't have to convert your music files. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
With the DAC plugged in, right click on the speaker icon in the bottom right hand corner. Select 'playback devices'. Click on your Dragonfly DAC, click 'properties'.  Click the 'advanced' tab. Select 24bit/96khz from the drop-down menu. Click 'ok'.

music alchemist said:

 

tomb said:

  I know what my ears tell me ... and I'm not in a minority, I think.

Click to expand...

 
In that case, would you be willing to demonstrate your ability to distinguish between Red Book and high-res at my thread?
 
As for minorities...to my knowledge, not a single person has ever demonstrated what I just requested of you, so this should be interesting.

Click to expand...

It's not worth the trouble.  Seriously, the market has left you.

blse59 said:

  If you set the device to 24-bit 96 kHz in the Windows OS you don't have to convert your music files. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
With the DAC plugged in, right click on the speaker icon in the bottom right hand corner. Select 'playback devices'. Click on your Dragonfly DAC, click 'properties'.  Click the 'advanced' tab. Select 24bit/96khz from the drop-down menu. Click 'ok'.

Click to expand...

This is fine if you have a 24-bit DAC and the necessary drivers to go with it.  Things will degrade real fast if you don't ... assuming it will even let you change it.  I think the problem is that most any USB device that operates at 16-bit 44.1/48KHz can use native drivers in Windows OS.  With higher bit-depths, a compatible driver has to be supplied, if the device is capable of it.

tomb said:

This is fine if you have a 24-bit DAC and the necessary drivers to go with it.  Things will degrade real fast if you don't ... assuming it will even let you change it.  I think the problem is that most any USB device that operates at 16-bit 44.1/48KHz can use native drivers in Windows OS.  With higher bit-depths, a compatible driver has to be supplied, if the device is capable of it.

Click to expand...

Windows supports up to 24/96 without drivers I think. Any dac that is 24 bit capable should be able to select it from the menu.

tomb said:

  It's not worth the trouble.  Seriously, the market has left you.

Click to expand...

 
More like the market has left reality. There is not a single shred of scientific evidence that resolutions higher than Red Book offer any audible improvements during playback. In fact, the differences have been measured and demonstrated to be well below the threshold of audibility. The high-res market is taking advantage of everyone who lacks an elemental understanding of how audio works. I'm not saying that high-res albums aren't worth buying if they came from a different master, but many of them didn't and consequently sound the same as their CD counterparts, potentially making their customers waste their money on things they already have. In these cases, it's deceptive advertising at best. The reason people aren't willing to document their ability to hear a difference (and that no one ever has) is because they can't -- it's physically impossible! What you are implying is that you can hear frequencies far beyond the human limit of hearing. Whenever high-res sounds different than Red Book, it is either due to a different master or the inability of a system to properly play the various files, the latter of which would produce distortion, not music.

blse59 said:

 

tomb said:

This is fine if you have a 24-bit DAC and the necessary drivers to go with it.  Things will degrade real fast if you don't ... assuming it will even let you change it.  I think the problem is that most any USB device that operates at 16-bit 44.1/48KHz can use native drivers in Windows OS.  With higher bit-depths, a compatible driver has to be supplied, if the device is capable of it.

Click to expand...

Windows supports up to 24/96 without drivers I think. Any dac that is 24 bit capable should be able to select it from the menu.

Click to expand...

OK, I think you are correct, but compatibility may not be as widespread with older OS's than Win7 or 8 ... I think.  24/192 will definitely require special drivers.