Do you resample...

[EnOYiN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif TBH, I can't really tell the difference between the SRC, SSRC and PPHS sampling rate converters I have yet to tell the difference between 44kHz and 96kHz, let alone different converters.

Same here. I think the only thing you would want to re/upsample is to apply DSPs in a recording environment or to feed a better signal to a resampling soundcard. If you think it sounds better than please do use it.

 

[el33tpenguin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif TBH, I can't really tell the difference between the SRC, SSRC and PPHS sampling rate converters I have yet to tell the difference between 44kHz and 96kHz, let alone different converters.

Same.

 

[Gatticus]

Yea, I can't tell the dif between 192kb/s mp3 and lossless so the chances of me hearing a dif when upsampling are probably nil.

 

[Xakepa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have yet to tell the difference between 44kHz and 96kHz, let alone different converters.

On Stax

?! That's puzzling...44 resmpled to 96 (non-integer) definitely sounds "more detailed, airy" or harsh and infested with non-harmonics I'd say. Never did blind a/b but I thoght it's so obvious...

 

[MaloS]

theoretically higher sample rates will be more exact when reproduced by the DAC, plus they have as mentioned less non-harmonics. Don't expect to get more detail honestly, but more analog/smooth sounding results are very possible in theory (did not hear difference on practice personally yet).

 

[Zenja]

Hmm, I remember trying resampler before a few times and never noticing any difference. I tried it again yesterday and the difference was pretty obvious. It does sound different, but I'm not sure if I could say that any is better. I kind of prefer the original, and it's probably more likely to be "right." Besides, the DAC does upsampling, I think.

 

[kamuela]

Is the Secret Rabbit Code plugin supposed to resample better than SSRC?

 

[milkpowder]

Hmmm... I think I'm hearing a very slight difference between 44kHz and SRC 96kHz. The bass seems to be ever so slightly more solid and there's just generally more of it. I would definitely say it is an improvement. However, it is so subtle I'm currently attributing it to placebo. I'll have to do more listening to be absolutely sure.

 

[Gatticus]

I'm using 96khz right now and it's really hard to say if I hear any difference without doing proper ABX testing. What about post processing format? Should I set foobar to 24bit for EMU 0404?

 

[cjs]

It may have to do with the fact that I am using an Audigy 2 ZS Notebook with K701's (yeah, I know

, but upsampling sounds worse to me. I have tried PPHS, SSRC, and Secret Rabbit Code with foobar. I am fairly confident that the audigy is bit-accurate, bypassing the infamous upsampling to 48 KHz.

As I am a newbie, the description is vague: with upsampling, the sound is "flatter", the bass sounds less "immediate", and there is an overall "harshness" - which gets worse as the quality of the algorithm gets lower (I first noticed it with Secret Rabbit's ZOH which sounds really bad).

So I think it is best to try and feed the DAC with the source's sampling rate and bit length.



I have found this comparison of different converters; it looks interesting.

- Costas

 

[Gatticus]

Yea, after playing around with different settings last night I have decided to stick with 44100khz and 16bit. That sounds the best to my ears. And that is with directsound too, asio on my EMU0404 USB uses too much cpu resources and causing lag when manually switching to a new song.

 

[hYdrociTy]

src@192khz sounds junky on my modded m-audio soundcard. 176 sounds better, but 48 is best for me because a lot of my stuff is 48khz, while the rest is upsampled from 44-48.. I guess upsampling really shines with higher quality sources..