Featured Sponsor Listings

Foobar2000 upsampling

Nov 28, 2003 at 4:31 PM Post #16 of 47
I definitely notice a difference with upsampling, but really can't tell if it's an improvement or not.

Whenever I use Kernel Streaming with my Sonica, every time I start a new track, I get a -really- loud pop. This doesn't happen with DS or waveOut. I'd really like to use KS, but this problem is just way too annoying. Anyone have any suggestions or experience the same thing?
 
Nov 28, 2003 at 5:00 PM Post #17 of 47
I agree with Fewtch, I think the softening is a good thing. I guess whatever you like is the good thing, but softening is getting you closer to what is intended. Perhaps 44 hardens the sound, not the other way around.

Quote:

you should use ASIO output plugin and 24bit dithered output for whatever you play


What is the point in dithering 24 bit out? 24 bits is extremely accurate. Plus I have a feeling the computer circuitry parasitics may be dithering the hell out of your signal without your wanting to do so. This depends on the computer and circuitry, of course.
 
Nov 28, 2003 at 9:08 PM Post #18 of 47
Quote:

Originally posted by aphex944
I definitely notice a difference with upsampling, but really can't tell if it's an improvement or not.

Whenever I use Kernel Streaming with my Sonica, every time I start a new track, I get a -really- loud pop. This doesn't happen with DS or waveOut. I'd really like to use KS, but this problem is just way too annoying. Anyone have any suggestions or experience the same thing?


My sonica does the same thing. But it isn't very loud.
 
Nov 28, 2003 at 9:55 PM Post #19 of 47
Regarding the Sonica, I too notice that scratchy pop when starting a track or when skipping to a part in a track with kernel streaming and not with DS / DS 2.0. Of course the standard response at FB2k's forums would be to go back to using DS.

I've played around with upsampling (44.1, 48, and 96 khz) and can't really tell a difference at the moment. The general consensus at FB2k's forums is that the built in SSRC sampler shouldn't really make a big change in what you hear. So I'm not sure what difference it is you guys are noticing. Maybe your source recordings are at 96 khz but the majority of mine are at 44.1 so I don't think it would make a difference in my case anyways.
 
Nov 29, 2003 at 8:13 AM Post #20 of 47
Well, I'm using the following mode now: 32-bit Kernel Streaming 96KHz. I assume 32-bit is what you guys mean when you say 24-bit padded to 32???

Anyway, I think the quality drop I perceived before was more to do with the difference between Direct Sound and Kernel Streaming. I have now lost no impact in the bass and the sound is definetly a bit less grainy and seems to have opened up a little too. I'd definitely say this was an improvement now.

Thanks for the help guys
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Nov 29, 2003 at 4:15 PM Post #21 of 47
I've been listening all day to music I love and am intimately farmiliar with, and I have to say the improvement that upsampling has brought is not particularly subtle to be honest. It does indeed sound less digital, but it seems to have given me a bigger soundstage, more bass drive and more detail. I know it cannot add detail, but I definitely for whatever reason hear more detail. I know I am not imagining this because I know this music like the back of my hand and I am hearing things I simply have never heard before. The soundstage now not only is in front but behind at times when called for, I've heard it slightly in the past but never like that.

Maybe its because the card is designed to run in this sample rate, I dunno, but i am very happy with this.
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Nov 29, 2003 at 4:33 PM Post #22 of 47
Since the DAC is only 24bit, it makes sense to use 24bit padded to 32bit not 32bit. You have to "show all options" to see that.
 
Nov 30, 2003 at 2:27 AM Post #24 of 47
Well, I have the resampler set to 96 khz, and do notice a smoothing over effect as well as marginal increase in soundstage. The smoothing over is most important to me as I was finding the output from my M-Audio Sonica a bit harsh for some tracks.
 
Nov 30, 2003 at 3:39 AM Post #25 of 47
Quote:

Originally posted by lan
Since the DAC is only 24bit, it makes sense to use 24bit padded to 32bit not 32bit. You have to "show all options" to see that.


24-bit output should work just as well (or so I imagine anyway). If the native format is really 24 padded to 32, then the card will pad any 24-bit output it receives with zeros (same as software would), and I don't think doing the padding in software would make any difference. It's the actual resampling to 24 bits and/or higher bitrates that I think is better done in software, and makes all the difference.

Sheesh, looks like I created a monster here with the software upsampling thing
tongue.gif
... altho I certainly wasn't the first to be doing it, but maybe I was talking about it more. To my ears it makes a big difference, more so with some music than with others. It's still what I'd call a subtle difference, but an important subtle difference (if that makes any sense).
 
Nov 30, 2003 at 4:09 AM Post #26 of 47
I am having a problem with foobar. I am using the asio output and the resampling is set to 48khz, but when I put it on 24 or 24 padded to 32 bits I get the unsupported output data format error. It works on 16 bits though. Does anyone know what the problem is? Btw, I have an audigy 2 platinum soundcard.
 
Nov 30, 2003 at 6:12 AM Post #27 of 47
Quote:

Originally posted by MusicLover
works on 16 bits though. Does anyone know what the problem is? Btw, I have an audigy 2 platinum soundcard.


I thought the Audigy 2 is a 16bit card.

Quote:

Originally posted by fewtch
24-bit output should work just as well (or so I imagine anyway).


Some drivers only accept Int32LSB. Also on some hardware, 4 byte transfers are faster than 3 byte ones.. The Sonica works with 24bit but not padded to 32bit. *shrug*
 
Nov 30, 2003 at 6:28 AM Post #28 of 47
Nov 30, 2003 at 11:49 AM Post #30 of 47
Fewtch, I pretty much have to use 24-bit padded to 32 or it will crash if I use Kernel Streaming. Any increase in quality is worthless if I cannot use Kernel Streaming because the loss of quality I perceive with that is arguably greater than the gains by upsampling.

I just cant decide whether I prefer 88.2 or 96KHz. With 88.2 you seem to get the same perceived detail increase and opening up of the soundstage, but whilst still sounding somewhat digital. 96 seems to sound a little more organic.

The beauty of a computer is its easy to switch though
smily_headphones1.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top