[watchnerd]

  I will inject something in here that people have not said. When I tell some of my family members to compare certain headphones like 20 dollar ones to my 400i which are 500 they get mad. "Will they sound a little different,but I don't think the difference is worth 480 dollars more". Or "I don't hear any difference". Will first one has to care and second one has to know what to listen for. Is there a difference? Will YES! Difference is so noticeable it is like a slap in the face. Some people just don't care. That is what makes me mad more than anything. Some one saying this amp sounds better or that dac sounds better is fine with me. But to set there and say something like the above statements is just unbearable for me. So that is other variable to add to the mix. Some people are just too stupid to get they are missing something. Like the beautiful sun rise I saw yesterday or the shooting star last night on my way to work. Point is probably mute but one that I thought might be one to bring up. We all have that one family member that we just want to throw out the door sometimes. LOL.

 
They're not stupid.  They just have a different set of value tradeoffs than you do when it comes to audio matters. That doesn't make them dumb.
 
Would you spend $200 on a bottle of wine?  Or would think it isn't worth the money when compared to a $20 bottle?
 
Differences in preferences are not an indicator of stupidity.

 

[jimdandy]

Yes I would try a 200 dollar bottle of wine. Just like I have tried a 200 dollar bottle of bourbon. Smooth it was. Was it worth it? Yes, to experience that before I leave this earth,yes it was. But you are right I should not have said stupid. I sometimes get to wound up in things. Comes from past and near death experiences I guess. I value things others don't.

 

[castleofargh]

you need to put yourself in other people's shoes before judging their behaviors. audio doesn't have to be a big deal for everybody just because we think it is.  take this topic about R2R vs SD, how many people think we're just children arguing over nothing? I'd say most of the planet. and for most people, spending 500$ on a headphone means many other stuff they won't be able to do this month. people don't just stay home eating crap because they lack curiosity. it's perfectly normal to find that a 100$ headphone is more than enough and more a waste of good money. we're the oddballs here not the other way around.

 

[jimdandy]

  you need to put yourself in other people's shoes before judging their behaviors. audio doesn't have to be a big deal for everybody just because we think it is.  take this topic about R2R vs SD, how many people think we're just children arguing over nothing? I'd say most of the planet. and for most people, spending 500$ on a headphone means many other stuff they won't be able to do this month. people don't just stay home eating crap because they lack curiosity. it's perfectly normal to find that a 100$ headphone is more than enough and more a waste of good money. we're the oddballs here not the other way around.

True but I sacrifice to get where I am and to get what I want so,I don't like to be judged either. If people judge me then I take my turn. Someone walks in my house and judges me and what I do then I'm going to retaliate. Because I feel like they are disrespecting in my house. I never walk into someone's house and start saying you should not do this or that. They volunteer to ask the price then when I tell them they call me stupid or make some lame comment. I don't treat people that way. That is not the way one makes friends. You would have to know the people to understand. But yes agree with what you say. However if you invited me to your house I would respect your buying something simply because you probably work hard to get and sacrificed to get it. And for that you would deserve my respect.  I would not belittle you for driving a Ferrari because I drive a Toyota.

 

[jimdandy]

 

  If I may chime in please. I'm thinking about buying the Black Sabbath Complete Box Set. I was listening to samples of 24bit 96hz and 24bit 192 hz. Now it maybe the fact that I'm listen to it through Modi 2 U and Magni 2 U. I'm using HE-4400i headphone. It seems to me the 24 bit 96hz sounds "better". Like the 24bit 192hz is "over processed". Like too much spice on food covering up the mid rare steak. I'm actually waiting to get the Bifrost 4490 or the Multibit before I buy music, and have to wait for tax refund also. Was going to get the Gungnir MB but cost is just too much for my practical mind. OCD that way. LOL. Is this just me or does anybody here,hear the samething? Or is it my equipment that gives it that "sound". I'm torn between which one to buy. Came here to read then yall do conversation on bit rates so thought I would ask. Thank you.

 
I used to think that maybe, just maybe,  I could tell the difference between 24/96 and 24/192.  Then I ran it through an ABX software, administered a test on myself, and found out that I couldn't.

It might have been the streaming process they are using. It just sounded like the highs were extended. Cymbals had more of hissing sound to them. That is why I thought it might be something in my system or theirs. So,I thought I would ask some people that seem like they know more than me. Because I'll admit,I don't know a lot. This new high res stuff I don't know much about. I rip my CDs completely uncompressed with dbPoweramp. I was reluctant to buy the set,130 dollars,and download it until I knew for sure what was going on. Don't want to spend 130 for 24bit 96 when 24bit 192 is actually better. Because I'm not hearing something right or doing something wrong. I'm 53 so I come from vinyl,cassette,and CD. LOL. So maybe it is just me. 

 

[watchnerd]

 
It might have been the streaming process they are using. It just sounded like the highs were extended. Cymbals had more of hissing sound to them. That is why I thought it might be something in my system or theirs. So,I thought I would ask some people that seem like they know more than me. Because I'll admit,I don't know a lot. This new high res stuff I don't know much about. I rip my CDs completely uncompressed with dbPoweramp. I was reluctant to buy the set,130 dollars,and download it until I knew for sure what was going on. Don't want to spend 130 for 24bit 96 when 24bit 192 is actually better. Because I'm not hearing something right or doing something wrong. I'm 53 so I come from vinyl,cassette,and CD. LOL. So maybe it is just me. 

 
I wasn't using streaming. I was comparing local FLACs.

 

[KeithEmo]

   
There are several ways to do it. If you're OK with a command line interface, then SoX is pretty much the gold standard around here.
 
If you prefer a graphical interface, then what would be the best solution depends on what operating system you're on and what other audio software you have and are familiar with.

 
Most of the higher-end audio editors include the ability to convert between different sample rates.
 
If you don't like the command line interface, and you use Windows, Voxengo makes a rate converter called R8Brain (there's a FREEWARE version available for download).
(You can also get free 30 day demos for Adobe Audition, and for the iZotope products; iZotope RX, which is for audio restoration, also includes a nice sample rate converter.)
 
Note that many have multiple filter choices, many of which do sound different.
 
There is also a player called HQPlayer that allows you to select between a whole bunch of upsampling options.
These include not only different sample rates, but different types of filters, and even filters with different numbers of filter taps and such.
Note that some of the options require a LOT of processing power to play without stalling or stuttering.
(They do recommend what someone else suggested; using a non-oversampling DAC and doing the oversampling in software.)

 

[RRod]

   
Note that many have multiple filter choices, many of which do sound different.
 

 
I'm sorry, why would I want a filter that causes an audible difference?

 

[KeithEmo]

The main reason you don't hear much about ADCs is that, for the most part, these arguments are between audiophiles, and most audiophiles (myself included) don't record music. 
 
Face it, if you're playing a CD RIP, you probably don't know what ADC was used to produce it, and you certainly have no control over that. (Some few classical or jazz labels actually mention the equipment they use, but virtually no pop or rock labels do. And, even then, it's simply one among many choices made by the producers of the album.)
 
So, since you CAN decide which DAC to use to play your favorite CD, but have no control over which ADC was used to record it, what's the point in discussing it, or agonizing over it?
 
(This isn't limited to ADCs. You also don't find audiophiles discussing what ICs were used in the mixing board that was used to mix their favorite album, or what brand of cabling was used in the studio. At most, you may find the occasional mention of what brand of microphones or studio monitors were used - but rarely even that. I would say, in simplest terms, that audiophiles consider themselves to be in total control over THEIR system, but mostly not in control of, and probably largely ignorant of, what happens to the audio before it lands on the disc. And when's the last time you heard a discussion about what brand of encoder was used to deliver audio over a certain streaming service?)
 
 
Quote:

  Although slightly off-topic (from R2R vs DS), I wonder why these DAC battles don't really carry over to the ADC world? Quality R2R options (like what Schiit offers) don't seem to exist and the DS options seem extremely limited (at reasonable prices). A recently popular ADC chip seems to be the Burr Brown PCM4220 for example. I'm currently bouncing between the Tascam UH-7000 (supposedly good mic and headphone preamps) and the Audient iD22 (better drivers/latency and a built-in JFET hi-z for electric guitar) both of which have the PCM4220.

 

[KeithEmo]

I can give you two answers - the "subjectivist answer" and the "objectivist answer" - which, in this case, sound quite similar.
 
The subjectivist answer would be "so you have more choices to pick between" (no further explanation necessary).
 
Assuming that your goal is accuracy, and you're starting with a 16/44k digital audio source, you really need to use oversampling (because doing the conversion without oversampling would require either filters that are impractical to design and build, or filters that cause an obvious alteration in frequency response, or both). Once you choose to use oversampling, part of the process requires that you use filters that alter the signal - at least to a small degree. Our little Ego DACs offer three filters; they all measure as being very flat (steady state), but one has symmetrical ringing, another has less pre-ringing and more post ringing, while the third has less ringing altogether, but is less accurate in other ways. Many other DACs offer similar options. The point is that all three are very close to "perfect", but none of them is absolutely perfect, and many people can hear a slight difference between them. And, since all three are technically compromises, but in different ways, you can't simply declare that one or the other is "the most accurate one". And, if you look at the oversampling filters in other products, especially software conversion programs, many offer various options - sharper or gentler slope, flatter frequency response at the cost of less accurate phase characteristics, and different transient characteristics. And remember that these are all at least somewhat of a compromise because nobody has yet designed a filter that can simultaneously deliver perfect frequency and perfect transient response (ignoring whether the differences are audible or not - they are easily measurable).
 
Therefore, acknowledging that "the perfect one" isn't an option, the objectivist answer is to either pick one for the user, or let them pick the one they prefer after explaining the strengths and weaknesses of each.
 
One common solution, and the one chosen by HQPlayer, is to combine both..... They offer two or three choices which sound very similar, and are very close to perfect, and then throw in a selection of other options that are less accurate, and where the differences are clearly audible, and let the user decide for themselves.
 
One thing you have to understand is that the real question isn't "Why would YOU want it?"; the real question is "Why would WE, or any other manufacturer, design a DAC or player program that way?" And, when you look at it from that perspective, the answer becomes more obvious. By offering a DAC that offers multiple options, I have a product that will appeal to both customers who want the most accurate DAC AND customers who either prefer one that's less accurate - because they "like the way it sounds" - or who simply like lots of choices. If you read other forums, you'll find people who seem to get great joy in "discovering what switch settings work the best with this or that album or song". (It's not much different than the reason why many car dealerships carry multiple brands of cars - or why two or three major tobacco companies offer literally dozens of cigarette "brands" to choose from.) 
 
And, in the case of HQPlayer.... there are lots of player programs out there, and offering a wide variety of choices is a special feature that makes that product different - and so more appealing to some customers. Assuming that you actually are curious about whether the different filter choices will sound different, and which one you will prefer, they're offering you the option of trying out different ones by changing software settings - which is much easier than doing so by building different DACs, and configuring them with different filters in firmware, and much cheaper than buying many different DACs. And, if you're the sort of customer who is going to pick which filter they prefer for playing each song, then you can do that too.
 
Also bear in mind that, whether we're talking about a DAC or a player program, once the basic design is done, adding additional filter choices is relatively simple - so it's a feature that may appeal to many customers, and one which can be added without much effort or cost to the manufacturer.
 
Quote:

   
I'm sorry, why would I want a filter that causes an audible difference?

 

[jcx]

.

 

[watchnerd]

 

because nobody has yet designed a filter that can simultaneously deliver perfect frequency and perfect transient response

 
And unless there is some amazing breakthrough in signal processing theory, they never will -- current signal processing math doesn't allow for it.  
 
Even the close-but-not-quite Chebyshev filters succumb to group delay in the passband.

 

[RRod]

 

 
The question at hand was "how do I interpolate to a new sample rate." The suggestion was "just try the typical SoX method." That method to my ears is audibly identical to filters made from mildly hacking around with various other settings in SoX. So my question is why would I ever want to pick a filter so out of whack that an audible difference suddenly appeared? I know this is going to come down to pre-ringing again so perhaps we should just leave it there 

 

[KeithEmo]

The short answer is that YOU probably wouldn't... and I probably wouldn't either. (However, I should also note that, at least according to a lot of people, while the default filter choice in Sox is inaudible, the filters in many other audio editing programs are in fact quite audible when used at their default settings.)
 
Here's a link to a VERY interesting website that offers a comparison of the technical accuracy of the sample rate conversion performed by a whole bunch of popular software programs. You'll notice that the various options on many of the programs often produce very different results; and that the results from many of the programs that don't offer a choice of options are also quite different (either by choice, or because they simply didn't write a very good filter algorithm). However, it makes it pretty clear that "just converting it in your favorite editor" is really a hit-and-miss process. Be sure to check out the impulse response and 1 kHz sideband spectra of each

 
http://src.infinitewave.ca/  
------
 
Now, to be fair, there is also something that you really do need to keep in mind. When you pick the default filter in Sox, it's not that you're picking "the best filter", and all the other choices are "less accurate" and "designed to sound different than then most accurate one"; what you're picking is the filter that, according to the folks who wrote the program, has the fewest audible compromises.... and different people perceive things differently. For example, since any ringing is a flaw, both the default filter (which usually has symmetrical pre-ringing and post-ringing) and the apodizing filter that trades off less pre-ringing for more post ringing, are equally incorrect. And, whether YOU can hear a difference or not, many people claim to hear one (and, as a general statement, psychoacoustic research does seem to justify the claim that, at least under some circumstances, pre-ringing is in fact audible to many listeners.) And, once you have a measurable difference whose audibility is varied by factors like masking effects, it's bound to be perceived differently by different listeners, with different sensitivities, and using different test material and playback equipment.
  Another thing you need to consider is that certain DACs themselves perform - and sound - differently at different sample rates. For example, many DACs have higher levels of IMD and other types of distortion at very high sample rates... in which case, for example, a certain DAC itself might actually sound BETTER when playing exactly equivalent audio at 16/44k than at 24/192k. This could mean that your particular DAC could actually be producing a lot of distortion when playing 24/192k audio, and so could legitimately sound better with the 16/44k sample, and that, if they sound the same to you, then the conversion settings you've chosen are actually producing audible degradation, but the improvement in how your hardware is playing the result cancels that out. (And, IF that were happening, then a different filter might actually sound BETTER than the original one you'd chosen because it sounded identical on your particular DAC.)  
 
However, as you say, in a situation where you hear absolutely no difference, as long as you're not planning to "extrapolate your results to the general case", then there would be no reason to choose one or the other. (And, while there are in fact a few DACs that, due to design considerations, actually do perform worse at 24/192k than at 16/44k, that is an unusual situation.) 
 
(Where we differ is that, at least when listening to audio I already own for other than test purposes, I would choose to use NONE of the converters, or their filters, and simply leave the sample at its native sample rate; both so as to avoid even the possibility of anything being changed by the process, and because changing the sample rate simply requires more effort than NOT changing it.... and, as I've mentioned before, to me the difference in storage size is simply inconsequential. Note that the going rate for a 6 tB USB hard drive is now under $200.)
  Quote:

   
The question at hand was "how do I interpolate to a new sample rate." The suggestion was "just try the typical SoX method." That method to my ears is audibly identical to filters made from mildly hacking around with various other settings in SoX. So my question is why would I ever want to pick a filter so out of whack that an audible difference suddenly appeared? I know this is going to come down to pre-ringing again so perhaps we should just leave it there 

 

[RRod]

Ringing is technically not a flaw. The *ideal*, meaning technically perfectly correct filter rings indefinitely at the cutoff frequency. This is why having a cutoff higher than we can hear is important, and why non-minimum phase filters *in the audible range* can be problematic. I am well aware of how bad some SRCs are, but SoX (which was the program under question) isn't one of them. And why are you trying to expand into how DACs work at different rates? The whole point here was to get two sources of the same content to the same rate so they can be compared. I'm also well aware of what people "claim" to hear, which somehow suddenly disappears under certain situations (that are being well hashed to death in the other thread so we'll leave that be).