There is no security guard preventing someone who wants to still go ahead and fill their curiosity. If you have time, sure.
Put or link them in the first post aswell, that was my suggestion.
That is what I took to be thread goal.
I dont feel 'the thread has successfully addressed the original investigation', giving benefit of doubt from very limited number of samples a HQ OS vs actual NOS test is still needed to conclude anything on that.
If people prefer HQ OS to NOS then you can end it there, but that will only answer the question ''why do people prefer NOS'' but potentially not ''why they sound different', there are others factors to explore aswell , like influence of clock rate, an absence of digital attenuation (maybe other that i'm forgetting).
With limited sample numbers and the test environment vs long term, casual listening, you may be missing other factors in why they sound different, that may also be part of why some prefer it.
Last edited:
If you can point me to instructions for how to edit an old post, I will consider.
You can feel anyway you wish to.
The question of 176.4 OS is only to see if it maybe performs superior to NOS or to 88.2 OS. The question of what makes on-chip OS, and NOS sound different has already ostensibly been indicated by the PGGB 88.2kHz upsampling experiment. It matters not at all to me whether you personally accept the indicated findings. That’s your choice.
No doubt, those are potential factors affecting the sound, as well as others you didn’t mention. You are free to devise and conduct a series of experiments to determine their exact influence. As for what this thread was investigating, I’m sufficiently satisfied with it’s apparent indications. If you are not, that’s fine, but then do something yourself to get satisfied. Show some initiative. Otherwise…
Last edited:
You can always edit OPs, at least I can, but it's just a suggestion, do what you like.
I think I might see the confusion, for you it is not about understanding the specifics of how they sound different but just the uncharacterised ease of listening and enjoyment?
'why they sound different' = 'why they offer different levels of enjoyment' ?
It makes sense you wouldn't need a NOS dac to test this.
So then you don't think that NOS and PGGB OS would sound indistinguishable?
For me it is strange to condense SQ down to like this but I get it.
I think I might see the confusion, for you it is not about understanding the specifics of how they sound different but just the uncharacterised ease of listening and enjoyment?
'why they sound different' = 'why they offer different levels of enjoyment' ?
It makes sense you wouldn't need a NOS dac to test this.
So then you don't think that NOS and PGGB OS would sound indistinguishable?
For me it is strange to condense SQ down to like this but I get it.
Last edited:
Ken, you can probably still edit the first post, although you can't attach any files. You could therefore add links to or numbers of a couple of key posts, although it would be a hell of a job to start doing that now.
I did that for the valve DAC thread Valve DAC from Linear Audio volume 13 after nautibuoy told me it was possible (I had been on this forum for 17 years without knowing that). It actually saved me time, as it helped me finding things back and as otherwise I had to give the same answers repeatedly.
I did that for the valve DAC thread Valve DAC from Linear Audio volume 13 after nautibuoy told me it was possible (I had been on this forum for 17 years without knowing that). It actually saved me time, as it helped me finding things back and as otherwise I had to give the same answers repeatedly.
Last edited:
The test results in this thread can't make that claim.
...
I think you answered it yourself really... :
I don't think it matter which verb you choose - your own assessment above leads to that The test results in this thread can't make that claim.
To make the claim, the results need to be statistically confident.
//
...
I think you answered it yourself really... :
I don't think it matter which verb you choose - your own assessment above leads to that The test results in this thread can't make that claim.
To make the claim, the results need to be statistically confident.
//
Last edited:
Sure pre and post echo's can be audible, if your reconstruction filters is badly executed.
But I can't find any proof in the scientific literature that shows these artefacts are audible with the filters used in normal commercial designs.
Intersample overshoots are mostly a thing of the past as modern digital limiters actualy can prevent these.
As Marcel has pointed out, its your own posts which are contributions to the misleading information. The one he mentioned isn't the only one.
So explain to us when intersample overshoots became a no-thing as a result of modern digital limiters. On the surface this looks like yet more misinformation but I'm happy to be shown to be wrong with evidence.
Maybe you should spend your time searching for this, rather than littering this nice thread from Ken with your useless and provocative contributions. It becomes unreadable and now Ken gets attacked that he is not putting summaries in post 1. Without all these discussions the thread would be much more readable
Just do your thing and let us do our thing, ok? I am enjoying this thread even if it is (yes I know) not the highest possible science.
It is called DIY Forum not Science Forum - You are just misguided by your own expectations what to find here. It is clear you did not find it, okay, so move on please.
thanks (and the same for others, just decide for yourself which fence you are on: DIY Hobby or Science, and decide where to go)
I didn't get the impression that that plug-in prevented intersample overs, rather reduced their likelihood. As the blurb said that the limiter isn't the best way to minimize them - better to use 4X oversampling according to them.
Even assuming that this is a foolproof way to prevent them, is there evidence of any desire to prevent them amongst those making recordings? Don't inter-sample overs increase the perceived loudness and don't the labels want their releases to be louder than the competition (aka 'loudness wars')?
This is just one example, there are lots more.
Clipping matters when using perceptual codecs as they change the waveshape and serious clipping can occur. In practice this means that different codecs will be limited differently.
Edit: As always audibility is what matters.
Btw don't streaming platforms use some kind of replay gain these day's. If not , they should.
Clipping matters when using perceptual codecs as they change the waveshape and serious clipping can occur. In practice this means that different codecs will be limited differently.
Edit: As always audibility is what matters.
Btw don't streaming platforms use some kind of replay gain these day's. If not , they should.
Last edited:
Unfortunately there's a lot of FUD out there regarding digital volume control. I never understood that, never heard any detrimental effects of it.
In my case I simply never run the output signal to the DAC hotter than around -6dB. Problem with intersample overs solved.
No fancy plugin required and actually not available for cheap but even for free
In my case I simply never run the output signal to the DAC hotter than around -6dB. Problem with intersample overs solved.
No fancy plugin required and actually not available for cheap but even for free
Last edited: