[Androxylo]

I'm a little confused. "Don't backup beyond 16/44.1" but then you say:



So what's the difference between "upsampling locally" and upsampling the CD rip? The one thing I do understand is that upsampling the rip doesn't add any new information to the source.

Based on what you're saying, though, it seems that if I upsample the CD rip it will present the DAC with a 96/24 (or 88/32, whatever) file that would require less/no filtering. Wouldn't my DAC (Modi Multibit) "prefer" a 96/24 rip vs. 44/16? An added bonus would be requiring less of the hardware/software of the device serving up the files. No real-time encoding required. My point is that it wouldn't seem to matter where the upsampling takes place.

I've got a massive amount of hard drive space available so the increased file size isn't a concern.

I'm not trying to bait an argument, I just have a massive knowledge gap in this area.

I mean for the Internet music service it doesn't make any sense to transfer audio over expensive Internet with quality beyond 16/44, because that's sufficient information that human can hear. Transferring faster than this will cost more but add nothing. Then, if your equipment likes it, you can upsample the 16/41 original and store it as 32/82, which obviously doesn't add any new information to the music. I don't know which DACs work better with 32/82, some do. Only those who tried can answer this. I have Khadas board, it does sound a bit different after upsampling. I think it's better, but I'm not sure, I do listen it in 32 bits mode.

 

[Balthazar B]

Yes, please. Let's get this thread back on track with Cat pics and Coffee talk.

Good idea...

 

[Ripper2860]

OMG. What have I done?

 

[bcowen]

Good idea...

ROFL!!!

 

[bcowen]

Yes, please. Let's get this thread back on track with Cat pics and Coffee talk.

Well, ok. Just be careful what you wish for, especially with your professed fondness for felines.

 

[Ripper2860]

 

[QueYo]

 

[Timster]

I made a variety of assumptions about espresso when I had the Breville smart grinder pro that were predicated on that grinder's inferior ability. First, I assumed you needed more espresso grounds in the portafilter than in fact you do — I got up to 23g and above, with some of the staler beans. I also assumed you needed to cut off shots at 30g in the cup.

I wonder if your SmartGrinder Pro needs to have some shims added to allow the burrs to get closer together. I added these to mine, and run at about the #20 or #19 setting, quite a way off the finest setting, and if I go to 18 or 17 can easily choke the dual boiler at that setting with fresh beans and around 21g of grind. Of course your statement is still correct, it is an OK grinder and good for many home uses, but certainly inferior to the EK and others on the market. I will drive mine to the end until I replace/upgrade though

 

[tin-ear]

I have no experience with hi-rez, so I have nothing to say. But, around 25? years ago one reviewer in Stereophile predicted the demise of Super Audio CD and whatever competing "better than regular CD" formats that were around back then. He quipped that the average person would read about those and think, "this solves a problem I don't have."
Anyway, I can offer a pic of Moe, who used to visit me in the early 'oughts.

 

[bosiemoncrieff]

I think baratza sette 270wi is a great upgrade pick. More convenient than niche zero, if with an inferior burr set—perhaps the most convenient on the market, for the money.

Don’t get the ek unless you know you’re insane.

 

[Balthazar B]

I think baratza sette 270wi is a great upgrade pick. More convenient than niche zero, if with an inferior burr set—perhaps the most convenient on the market, for the money.

Don’t get the ek unless you know you’re insane.

If you're going to spend EK kind of money, and you primarily single dose, you'll be a lot better off with a Monolith from Kafatek. Almost certainly the last grinder you'll ever have to or be tempted to buy. Sort of the Yggy of espresso grinders.

Would be surprised if any coffee aficionado here doesn't already have an account at home-barista.com, a much better venue for this topic of discussion. Now we just need to find a good place for all things feline. Does Cat Fancy have a forum?

 

[NoahFence]

Ok, offtopic. I will not say anything except this link: https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html . It explains everything

.....
For me this is not off topic, and clarifies what you were saying. Thanks

NF

 

[MatthiasP]

What I think interesting is that there are 2 groups, one pro, the other contra -- until now nothing new.

The first group says it's not possible because...
- there somebody wrote something and put some math there to show that's legit
- there is science that it's not possible

The other group says:
- It's easier than to read and understand the text: Go and have a listen yourself on really good equipment.
- Look, your scientific studies are old, since a few decades it is a known fact that it IS possible to hear above 20kHz.

Just to sum up.
My recommendation: Go, have a listen. There IS a clear difference, as I just showed 2 weeks back to a friend of mine -- he found out for himself. So to speak blind tested.

 

[unsane69]

- Look, your scientific studies are old, since a few decades it is a known fact that it IS possible to hear above 20kHz.

Yeah, possibly, for some extreme outliers. For the vast majority, for the purpose of playback; 16/44.1 is more than enough.

I'd be much happier if all this energy was put toward bettering some of the practices in the industry that results in poor recordings. I really don't need to hear your schiitty mastering in hi-res. But I'm just some guy who likes music, not buying stuff again and again. Is the constant push for higher resolution because we have hit the limit for dynamic compression in the cd format?

Anyway, this isn't the thread for this; take it to Sound Science.

 

[Derrick Swart]

16/44.1 is dithered. 24/96 is not. Yes, you can hear differences. YMMV.

depends on the recording/ DAW environment and usage afterwards