[lan]

Yes LAME is cool but I was thinking more of the sample rate conversion quality.

 

[grandenigma1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdipisReks it has perfectly fine sound quality if you use a LAME plug-in or use AAC. *shrug*

Playing with my Grace 901 I came to the realization that not only do I knot like up sampling but I think it actually sounds worse... not just different. I finally discovered what exactly it was about my Nixon Dac that I enjoyed so much. With up sampling the music seems to be stuffier sounding and rolled off in the highs... sampling at the stock 44.1 that all goes away and makes for a much more enjoyable experience. I understand the need of up sampling for studio use and critical mastering but fail to see why anyone would use it outside of that.

 

[lan]

Well if you're doing any signal processing, you should keep it in 24bits after. The non oversamplings like the nixon are 16bit so you take another loss. Non oversamplings sound a bit rolled off in the highs or maybe relaxed. I find 16bit 44.1khz to usually be a bit edgy so synergy wise, I can see why you don't want to touch it. As usual, results vary depening on your equipment and preferences.

 

[CookieFactory]

CD (.wav) is inherently a lossy format. It is only lossless relative to itself. That being said, when you resample to a higher sample rate you are not increasing it's fidelity, and in many cases you are actually making it worse. The "extra info" you are getting due to the higher sample rate is just interpolated guesswork.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan Well if you're doing any signal processing, you should keep it in 24bits after. The non oversamplings like the nixon are 16bit so you take another loss. Non oversamplings sound a bit rolled off in the highs or maybe relaxed. I find 16bit 44.1khz to usually be a bit edgy so synergy wise, I can see why you don't want to touch it.

The primary difference between bit rates is the resolution of the sound at extremely low volume levels. Human ears aren't as sensitive to higher frequencies at lower volume levels, so it isn't really critical. For rock music with very little low level info, there's no appreciable difference at all. Higher bit rates are better for mixing and mastering, because they allow for more flexibility in boosting volume in passages recorded at too low a level.

See ya
Steve

 

[hwanmeister]

Wow! Lots of posts for such an innocuous question.

I can only dream of telling the difference between 44.1khz and 48khz. The most I can differentiate between MP3 files is 128kbps and 192kbps lol. But it's mostly psychological for me - knowing that I have the best possible set-up for CD rip, I then don't have to worry any more about the files and just concentrate on other things with my DAP and receivers.

Thanks for all the informative posts though. They were enormously helpful, and I've gathered exactly what I needed to know

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellor_19 get a SACD player and you will enjoy 24 bit coding with 96kHz sampling frequency.

Those are probably specs of DVDA, not of SACD. SACD is based on DSD, has a bit-depth of just 1 bit, but with sample frequencies of 2.8 MHz. DSD is very different from PCM (used in CD and DVDA). For a more in-depth technical tour into these formats, check out these links (first one highly recommended, though it's a long read):

CD vs. SACD vs. DVD-A by Niklas Ladberg

Super Audio CD Overview at TimeforDVD.com

DVD-A Tutorial at TimeforDVD.com

And a couple more, Audioholics.com's Current Trends in the recording format arena, Part I, and Part II.

 

[Murrforce]

I've been ripping at 48khz and doing AB tests....it sounds better to me as well? Although i get theoretically the originally recorded 44khz should sound better?  Does anyone know why the iTunes ripper is 48khz capable.  any rippers out there that would at least do a x2 to 88khz...mathematically that would be lossless?   thanks

 

[goodvibes]

I'm not sure anymore which ones but some OS mixers run at 48k so if your not bypassing in some way, you may just be making it easier for your PC on playback or you may just prefer a difference which can't be better unless it's more compatible with something in your playback chain.

 

[Murrforce]

Thanks much.... simple playback chain if you had a comment?  Mac Mini...NAD M2 Direct Digital Amp (no DAC)... Maggie 1.7's....thanks much