[tomscy2000]

Quote:

  Thanks for the prompt reply...Man, that really does stink. I don't understand the issue at all.  I mean, both the operating system and the media player display 24/176 as a viable option, and the D7 itself lights up to indicate signal reception.

Yeah, me neither. It looks like the XMOS chip is accepting the signal, but just not sending it over to the DAC chip. I have an odd feeling that the driver programmers just forgot to put in a single line of code or something silly like that...

 

[oneway23]

 
That makes all the sense in the world, actually.
 
Let's hope it is indeed nothing more than wonky code...wouldn't that be fortunate!
 
How odd..I'm not buying the Stones again in 24/88, however.
I'll just hope they release an updated driver at some point.
 
Do you happen to know if 24/192 works ok?

 

[oneway23]

Double post...sorry!

 

[tomscy2000]

Quote:

 
Do you happen to know if 24/192 works ok?

Yeah, 24/192 works fine. While subjectively, I feel that 24/192 tracks, when compared to identical 24/96 tracks carry more 'air' to them, objectively, most DAC chips measure worse at 24/192 than they do at 24/96, so I'd save some bucks and just go with a lower bitrate.

 

[oneway23]

Would you care to elaborate when you say "measure worse"?  
I apologize if I sound like a little kid with the number of questions I tend to ask...just my natural curiosity at work, I guess.
This is my idea of great Saturday night conversation, and since you're here as well, I'll just presume you share that notion!
 
Feel free to respond at your leisure...

 

[tomscy2000]

Quote:

  Would you care to elaborate when you say "measure worse"? 

Well, this topic has somewhat been well-discussed but is still a matter of debate. I can't really speak on the nature of the D7's internal implementation (XMOS -?-> WM8740), but there are many DACs that don't perform as well at 24/192 (THD, noise floor, etc.).
 
Many DACs also don't have good effective bit depth (working at 16.x-bits even in 24-bit mode). Almost all good 24-bit DACs can't even perform at the full 24-bit depth (don't know about the newest DACs, or the 32/384 DACs) --- 20-bits is about the maximum.
 
Here are a few links (you can also search on head-fi for more discussions):
http://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=115:is-2496-good-enough&catid=62&Itemid=3
http://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=126:96khz-vs-192khz&catid=57:reader-feedback&Itemid=24
 
Of course these discussions were made a couple years ago, before a spate of newer technology hit the shelves, including 32/384 implementations from the ESS Sabre chip (that the D7 was supposed to have used before iBasso re-assessed costs, and probably performance benefits as well)
 
Of course, there is always the issue of subjectivity and future-proofing.
 
I downloaded a few tracks from 2L Nordic Sound at both 24/96 and 24/192 and A/B'ed them: http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html
 
In all cases, to me 24/192 sounds better than 24/96 out of the D7, but it could very well be a psychological thing. I haven't tried a blind test, nor do I intend on doing one. I also figure that I might as well keep the 24/192 file, since I don't mind the extra space, and I might as well keep it for the future, when DACs actually perform to their full potential.
 
However, I'm also acutely aware that my hearing will only recede over time, and I don't know whether it's worth it to download files whose sonic benefits I can't possibly perceive, even at this stage in life. I'd ask my toy poodle to A/B the various tracks for me and give me feedback, but sadly I don't speak canine.

 

[oneway23]

Quote:

sadly I don't speak canine.

 
Although your dog may, unbeknownst to us all, speak a fair bit of English.  The A/B test may, in fact, be an opportunity he's awaited his entire existence.
 
Thanks for the knowledge.

 

[burgunder]

Try the DACPort drivers.

 

[IndieScent]

Quote:

Try the DACPort drivers.

it is no use, the chip plainly just cant do 176. the only thing that could work is if thesycon/chipset maker releasing new firmwire to support it.

 

[tomscy2000]

Quote:

it is no use, the chip plainly just cant do 176. the only thing that could work is if thesycon/chipset maker releasing new firmwire to support it.

+2 Yup. Already tried it.

 

[oneway23]

When burgunder posted the idea of the dacport driver, I really wasn't comfortable registering w/ the CEntrance site to get it.
 
I'm disappointed that it doesn't work, yet glad others have tried it.

 

[bluishgreen]

Quote:

 
That makes all the sense in the world, actually.
 
Let's hope it is indeed nothing more than wonky code...wouldn't that be fortunate!
 
How odd..I'm not buying the Stones again in 24/88, however.
I'll just hope they release an updated driver at some point.
 
Do you happen to know if 24/192 works ok?

 
24/192kHz works for me.

Also--there's no need to re-buy.  You can always use a player that up/downsamples to whatever level the player supports--I don't know which ones on Windows, but on the Mac, I use "Decibel".  I haven't tried, but perhaps the newer VLC 2.0 does it?  Or, if you don't have a player that does it, you can always create re-sampled copies to something better-supported, obviously keeping your original copies, so it's just a copy and not a replacement.  Again, I don't know which ones on Windows, but I use the free tool "XLD" on the Mac.  Since I don't notice much of a difference on my semi-portable, mid-fi MacBook Air setup, and since my local disk space is more limited on an SSD, I archive my original 24/96 and above stuff to other systems, and create downsampled 24/48 versions of everything for use on my MBA.  It saves space since the files are half the size of 24/96 and a quarter that of 24/192.
 
Another reason I started doing this is because I finally gave-up on keeping separate hierarchies of hi-rez content vs my iTunes content and gave-in to Apple (especially when I signed-up for iTunes Match) and started converting FLAC stuff to ALAC in order to have everything on that system under one hierarchy and automatically available to my iPhone.  Kind of a bummer, since I've always been a hardcore FLAC & Vorbis guy (even bought a Sansa Clip Zip recently, specifically to play Vorbis...) but Apple is obviously never going to support either.  In any case--when doing so, I discovered an annoying, undocumented aspect of iTunes Match when all of my ALAC files above 24/48 wouldn't upload and were marked as "Ineligible".  I did some trial-and-error, and found that I had to downsample things to 24/48 to work with iTunes Match.  I didn't see this anywhere in the documentation or googling (at least months ago when I first discovered it) and Apple's docs claimed to simply support ALAC without any qualifications in the docs back then.  In any case, you can always create re-sampled copies to make annoying things like this work, even if it isn't 100% ideal.
 

 

[TiEx]

Majority of music is still in redbook 44 format, rare audiophile 96 and even more rare 88. Not so much music can be found in 192 format and 176. Don't see problems here. If you have something like 176 just convert it to 88 and live happy. I think to convert is a better way, because software up/down samplers may degrade SQ.

 

[Roller]

Quote:

Majority of music is still in redbook 44 format, rare audiophile 96 and even more rare 88. Not so much music can be found in 192 format and 176. Don't see problems here. If you have something like 176 just convert it to 88 and live happy. I think to convert is a better way, because software up/down samplers may degrade SQ.

Converting is an irreversible process, while on the fly resampling maintains the original file untouched, structure wise. Converting is only recommended for people who have lossless archives and wants to use them on a PMP that either doesn't support lossless, is space limited or the environments where music is listened to don't allow for quiet listening sessions, which is where the lossy formats enter into play.

 

[TiEx]

I am 99.99999% sure that in a blind test you wouldn't have any chances to distinguish a difference between 176 and 88 even on a very good gear! There are some articles who state that 96 is plenty good enough and 192 can be even worse sometimes if implementation is not on a good level. No offence man, lets keep it cool. I just want to say that D7 is a bang for buck and lack of 176 support is a very minor issue (if it is an issue at all). 176 is a rare format to start with. 
 
And about conversion. Where did find that recommendation only for PMP use? First time hear such a thing. On the contrary resampling "on the fly" with software may give a bad result. Lack of 176 is not a deal breaker for me. I am still considering D7 in future.
 
Cheers.
Quote:

Converting is an irreversible process, while on the fly resampling maintains the original file untouched, structure wise. Converting is only recommended for people who have lossless archives and wants to use them on a PMP that either doesn't support lossless, is space limited or the environments where music is listened to don't allow for quiet listening sessions, which is where the lossy formats enter into play.