Oct 21 2008, 02:57 PM
We are not stopping people from using fancy DSP or resampling software, the point is, if you can hear differences when using resampler (bar the DSP, as it DOES alters the music), like LittleGhost said, its either purely placebo or the software itself alters the data itself, hence differences. I'm not stopping them using them, just telling the fact what going on when they uses them
Talking about own preferences, some people do listen to others for advice, even when they talking about who are going to be their partner in life (husband/wives). Just look at 'Cupid Corner' subforum and see what I mean, people nowadays is funny, they don't know what they want
EDIT: Resampling does not ADD anything, the standard audio redbook CD is at 16-bit 44.1kHz. I taking a post by gregorio on Head-Fi regarding this:
QUOTE
Let me make a few points clear:
1. Upsampling cannot improve the quality of the audio. A CD is sampled at 44.1kFs/s and by definition cannot contain any frequencies above 22,050Hz. Upsampling cannot magically find the audio frequencies which have been deliberately, totally and irrevokably removed from the original recording. If you do find frequencies beyond 22050Hz when you've upsampled I would return the DAC and ask for your money back because it's malfunctioning!
2. If you think your audio sounds better at a higher sample frequency than the original 44.1kFs/s, what you are really hearing is a smoother reconstruction filter in the DAC, not an improvement in the quality of the audio file itself. This is telling you that you have a cheap and nasty DAC whose implimentation of a reconstruction filter at 44.1k is so poor that anything else sounds better.
3. Higher sample frequencies make sense only for poor quality DACs (or ADCs for that matter). It is difficult to make an anti-alias filter or reconstruction filter work without artefacts over a small range of audio frequencies. Higher sample frequencies allow for smoother, more easily implemented filters. If you can hear a difference between 44.1kFs/s and say 96kFs/s, it's the implementation of these filters you can hear.
Last time, it is not humanly possible for you to hear a difference between a 44.1kFs/s audio file and an audio file with a sample rate of 88.2, 96, 176.4 or 192kFs/s. There are NO exceptions to this rule, providing of course that you are a homo-sapien!!
Gregorio
1. Upsampling cannot improve the quality of the audio. A CD is sampled at 44.1kFs/s and by definition cannot contain any frequencies above 22,050Hz. Upsampling cannot magically find the audio frequencies which have been deliberately, totally and irrevokably removed from the original recording. If you do find frequencies beyond 22050Hz when you've upsampled I would return the DAC and ask for your money back because it's malfunctioning!
2. If you think your audio sounds better at a higher sample frequency than the original 44.1kFs/s, what you are really hearing is a smoother reconstruction filter in the DAC, not an improvement in the quality of the audio file itself. This is telling you that you have a cheap and nasty DAC whose implimentation of a reconstruction filter at 44.1k is so poor that anything else sounds better.
3. Higher sample frequencies make sense only for poor quality DACs (or ADCs for that matter). It is difficult to make an anti-alias filter or reconstruction filter work without artefacts over a small range of audio frequencies. Higher sample frequencies allow for smoother, more easily implemented filters. If you can hear a difference between 44.1kFs/s and say 96kFs/s, it's the implementation of these filters you can hear.
Last time, it is not humanly possible for you to hear a difference between a 44.1kFs/s audio file and an audio file with a sample rate of 88.2, 96, 176.4 or 192kFs/s. There are NO exceptions to this rule, providing of course that you are a homo-sapien!!
Gregorio
This post has been edited by Najmods: Oct 21 2008, 03:11 PM
Quote
0.0312sec
0.08
6 queries
GZIP Disabled