Foobar + SoX resampler

Discussion in 'Computer Audio' started by flognuts, Jan 21, 2010.
Page 1 of 2
2
Next
 
Last
  1. Flognuts
    Its Amazing!

    set to 96000khz and enjoy.

    If you got a xonar essence set that to 96000khz too.

    http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=67373

    things I noticed:

    Vocals clearer and much more smooth.
    bigger sound stage
    taken some of the aggressiveness out of the xonar essence and ad900 highs
    not as fatiguing
     
  2. Speex
    Didn't hear a difference.... maybe it's because I use onboard audio and a crappy (by Head-Fi standards) pair of cans.
     
  3. khaos974
    Nice resampler, it works very well, has loads of options to satisfy you inner tweaker and uses much computing power than PPHS ultra to run.
     
  4. khaos974
    More to add after a dozen hours living with the SoX resampler, compared to the internal resampling of the UA-25/or PPHS Ultra, I get subjectively:

    - a clearer image, the melodies are easier to follow, especially with complex and heavily charged songs.
    - better timbres for the different instruments.

    I just hope it's not placebo.[​IMG]

    PS: I use the following settings Passband 95%, Aliasing not allowed, Linear
     
  5. Flognuts
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by khaos974 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    More to add after a dozen hours living with the SoX resampler, compared to the internal resampling of the UA-25/or PPHS Ultra, I get subjectively:

    - a clearer image, the melodies are easier to follow, especially with complex and heavily charged songs.
    - better timbres for the different instruments.

    I just hope it's not placebo.[​IMG]

    PS: I use the following settings Passband 95%, Aliasing not allowed, Linear




    what do you resample too?
     
  6. khaos974
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Flognuts /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    what do you resample too?



    96 kHz and therefore bypassing the internal SRC of the Edirol.
    To be exact it sounds better than:
    44.1 kHz => Foobar Wasapi => Edirol UA-25 (It probably has an internal oversampling procedure)
    44.1 kHz => 96 kHz via PPHS Ultra => Foobar Wasapi => Edirol UA-25

    Now, it's
    44.1 kHz => 96 kHz via Sox Resampler => Foobar Wasapi => Edirol UA-25
     
  7. Shahrose
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Flognuts /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    Its Amazing!

    set to 96000khz and enjoy.

    If you got a xonar essence set that to 96000khz too.

    A new resampler DSP for foobar2000 - Hydrogenaudio Forums

    things I noticed:

    Vocals clearer and much more smooth.
    bigger sound stage
    taken some of the aggressiveness out of the xonar essence and ad900 highs
    not as fatiguing




    I found similar improvements resampling to 96khz at VHQ, aliasing allowed, 95% passband.

    PROS:
    -Slightly smoother treble, and definitely less grainy
    -Clearer low-level details and easier to hear ambience of the recording
    -Larger soundstage (because of the above point)
    -Blacker background
    -Better dynamics

    CONS:
    -Slightly less bass
     
  8. Hybrys
    I've always been a big fan of the SoX resampler. Usually have it set to 176k (or whatever the higher multiple of 44.1 is).
     
  9. dex85
    i gave it a try, i second the better focus, clearer vocals, deeper soundstage, better imaging, ambience details retrieval and a sense of "faster" sound and musical flow. but i noticed the sound significantly lost on the weight, cello and violins immediately struck me as too thin sounding and unnatural. i don't doubt it has to do with headphones, equipment and recordings' characteristics as well. with some songs i preferred it with Sox but with most i didn't.
     
  10. Shahrose
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dex85 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    i gave it a try, i second the better focus, clearer vocals, deeper soundstage, better imaging, ambience details retrieval and a sense of "faster" sound and musical flow. but i noticed the sound significantly lost on the weight, cello and violins immediately struck me as too thin sounding and unnatural. i don't doubt it has to do with headphones, equipment and recordings' characteristics as well. with some songs i preferred it with Sox but with most i didn't.



    Matches my findings exactly. SoX makes the sound a bit thinner and less bassy, but makes it faster. Depending on the setup, this could be a good or bad thing. In my case, it wasn't a positive change, though it was outweighed by the benefits.
     
  11. sagatman
    I had the same improvement for sound after upsampling to 96kHz using Asus Xonar Essence ST。 Whether the upsampling to 96kHz is done in foobar by SOX resampler or xonar contral panel, the sound is better than 44.1hKz
     
  12. Hybrys
    If you can, everyone in the thread, try 88.2 instead of 96, and tell me what you think. (Resampled from 44.1 source.)
     
  13. ninjikiran
    Bumping an old thread,
     
    Personally I didn't get any improvement, if anything only a slight degradation of the sound.  I found not messing with my sample rate and letting my dac handle that mess is usually better.  But I still like to mess around with this stuff just in case I find some kind of magic.
     
    Nothing happens to SQ in x2 increments for the above poster.
     
  14. yugiyao
    Erm...guys u all know which mod is better? b'cos it have 3 mod: normal, mod, mod 2.
     
    Also what setting to do to make the tunes sound right?
     
    Thx in advance.
     
    Cheers
     
  15. khaos974
    normal: It resamples everything to the desired frequency.
    mod: It doesn't resample the frequencies that you enter in the text field.
    mod2: It resamples only the frequencies that you enter in the field.
     
Page 1 of 2
2
Next
 
Last

Share This Page