Anyone who spends more then $10 on a USB cable is a sucker. IMO. The encoded audio data sent over a $10 cable can not possibly sound any different then sent over a $100 or $1000 one.

Is three OPA2134's a resonable configuration, or should I consider purchasing some of the other op-amps posted in this thread? So far this sounds much better then the stock op-amps. The highs are a bit on the harsh side, that is my complaint.

I just popped in three BB OPA2134PA I found from a past active xover project. I also disabled the 250% gain. The first minute impressions are: - Much much brighter, sharper highs, almost too bright will need to get used to it. - Bass is stronger, but a little muddy, although I'm...

Quote: Originally Posted by psc001 One more question. I have a slim desktop from Dell, I was wondering if Prodigy HD would be able to fit into the slot. From the pic, it looks like it should be but if guys've installed it let me know , thanx! The HD2 is small. Probably the best...

Quote: Originally Posted by Hadakan Isn't the headphone out as good as the opamps installed? As far as I know the two JRC4580 amps (which have dubious quality) are for optional boost of the signal. If I don't use the jumpers I'll get whatever the opamps create. Or do I? I would...

Quote: Originally Posted by gyrodec frankr - this is the 16/24 bit thread, not the sample rate thread. Nyquist sampling theory has no place here, just db. We're discussing whether there is a difference between high resolution audio and rebook. DSD is 1-bit audio. Quote...

Quote: Originally Posted by VeipaCray The difference between 24 and 16 bit is well.. 8 bit. It's actually 16,711,680. Ever heard of a logarithm? That's like saying the difference between a magnitude 6 earth quake and a magnitude 8 is 2.

Quote: Originally Posted by lexnasa To address your human hearing point, what you may have been duped by is the empirical limit of human hearing, on which CDs were based. However, this empirical limit ignores the physicality of playback. It ignores harmonic interaction. So by removing...

Quote: Originally Posted by b0dhi I'm not sure whether the reason for it is filters or what, and actually it doesn't really matter, because each of these sounds clearly progressively better than the last: - http://members.iinet.net.au/~hararghost/1377_441.wav...

Quote: Originally Posted by bigshot We used a Philips 963sa SACD player, Yamaha and Sony CD players and two different rigs... my own and an experimental system being designed by an engineer friend of mine. It's all in the archive. See ya Steve Speakers?

Quote: Originally Posted by bigshot The redbook layer on many reissue SACDs I compared was different than the SACD layer. Try comparing a native DSD recording on an audiophile SACD hybrid label like Pentatone. You'll be surprised at the sound of the redbook layer when it isn't...

Quote: Originally Posted by bigshot If you are interested, you can search the archive for my posts about a comparison between SACD and redbook that I did. When I finally located an SACD that was both DSD and had a redbook layer with no mastering differences, I couldn't hear a difference...

Quote: Originally Posted by nick_charles So, you ran some blind tests to prove this ? Yes. The test was performed using the Gerry Mulligan SACD, as well as others. There were three playback devices used: Marantz SA8260 for DSD track and Redbook from its own PCM DAC and the...

Quote: Originally Posted by nick_charles Interesting, your results simply do not agree with a large scale carefully controlled study in a peer reviewed journal. Can I ask you for some more details ? I’ll refer back to my earlier analysis posted last month...

Quote: Originally Posted by regal You are hearing mastering differences. No I'm not. It's a hybrid SACD. Analog recording. Same remastered audio. Separate layers have Redbook and DSD. Amazon.com: Gerry Mulligan Meets Scott Hamilton: Soft Lights & Sweet Music: Gerry...

M-Audio BX5a.

I'm surprised this discussion raged on as long as it did after I gave up. A few weeks ago I got the chance to listen to a comparison of SACD and redbook from my EMU-0404 on VMPS RM40 speakers. Bottom line. You are near as can’t hear if you can not discern the difference between high...

It's a shame this disscussion is distracted by wether sound beyond 20 khz is important. I happen to believe that it is not. I found a way to extract the raw waveform last night and have some nice data comparing the power frequency spectra (PFS) of the 16/44 and 24/96 audio. What I found is...

Quote: Originally Posted by Febs Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to this graph: You're wondering why the scale shows information that extends beyond 22 khz. The 24/96 graphs also goes beyond 48 khz. The scale is incorrect? The freeware software I used to generate...

Quote: Originally Posted by Febs Can you explain to me how it is that your frequency spectrum graph is showing data from the 16/44.1 sample that is above the Nyquist frequency, 22.05 kHz? Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the graphs. Anything above 22 khz is obiously cut-off in the...

Quote: Originally Posted by DoomzDayz i don't see how 24bit/16bit relates to this, It doesn't, it's a tanget. My argument is that high resolution audio increases fidelity of the audible frequency spectrum. Claiming that a higher cut-off frequency is not necessary because...

Quote: Originally Posted by nick_charles The charts in that paper are pretty useless, they have no scale on the Y axis, there is no way of knowing how much energy there is on those harmonics... The purpose of the article was to show guitar strings create higher frequency sound...

I don't need to prove that the guitar is making high frequency sounds, it's in the frequency spectrum I've already shown. Do you even both to look at the data, or are you going to go on a tanget? Down sampled to 16/44 Native 24/96 audio Again, same conclusion. The down sampling...

Quote: Originally Posted by bigshot Don't use their 16/44.1 track. Resample the 24 bit down using the proper dither. See ya Steve I'll try that.

Quote: Originally Posted by Febs And as I indicated, the guitar on the recording you linked to is not playing anywhere close to 1.4 kHz. It's playing more than an octave below that, so 22.4 kHz is 5 octaves or more from the fundamental. Regardless, look at Figure 3 of the article...