I stumbled on this post while searching if I could turn on the 'bit perfect led' in my Asus Xonar Essence One Dac which shares many features with the DAC which the OP has. Not really cool, but at least i'll make sure Which I'll probably do on Amazon and send back the item once I performed my tests. Well, as Sal1950, I was just curious about "Bitperfect" on Linux to make sure I was getting the correct bit/sample rate out of my computer.īut I guess to be sure, I'll need to get my a DAC that displays the bit/sample rate. I am just saying that, then, I was able to tell the difference. The tracks played were : first minutes of 1st movement of Beethoven's fifth and first minutes of second movement of Beethoven's 7th.Ī friend of mine switched from one source to another, but that was not immediate. loudspeakers were Linn Keltik with active quad-amplifcation (1 amp channel for highs, 1 amp channel for mids, 1 amp channel for bass "front" and 1 amp channel for bass "behind" as the Linn Keltik have 2 boomers in "push-push" configuration, which is called "Isobarik" in Linn's language and of course, that is for left same must be done for right !) Love those speakers that are almost impossible to drive I made them myself and they're OK and "dirt" cheap) loudpseaker cables I made myself from a combination of various Van den Hul cables from the reel (they look like shit, but, hey. amps were 2 Linn AV5125 with active cards for the Linn Keltik I also cannot remember if I still used the Arcam AV-8 as a pre-amp but that might well be. The player was either the Oppo BDP-93 or BDP-95, I had both and can't rememeber which one we used. I've more or less tried to remember and tests were made about 5 years ago (it seemed it was way longer than that. The author wrote this software because he was annoyed that some other companies were charing hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars for this same functionality.I am not saying that the tests were performed "as they should be" (and which is almost impossible to achieve) and that there are no differences in level between the different formats of the same track bought on the same site. Better upsampling and digital volume control (although you will always be messing with the bits doing that). Playback of DSD audio files on a DSD-capable DAC.Ĥ. I'm not so convinced, but it doesn't hurt.ģ. Some people believe pre-loading part or all of the track into the memory buffer improves playback. If all you have are mp3 or AAC compressed audio, you aren't going to be able to hear any difference.Ģ. Those who will really benefit from this will generally have a collection including lossless higher-resolution files. If you are using Airplay exclusively, this isn't for you, since everything gets resampled to 44.1 kHz anyway (and if you use Apple TV, gets resampled a second time to 48 kHz). This takes care of the problem automatically. You have to repeat the process each time you play a track with a different sampling frequency, or else your music will get re-sampled. Everything else will get resampled, unless you quit iTunes, change Audio MIDI setup to the new sample frequency manually, and then restart iTunes. If your iTunes library contains tracks that have various sampling frequencies (normal CDs and most iTunes store tracks are 44.1 kHz sampled, "higher resolution" can be 48 kHz, 88.2 kHz, 96 kHz or even higher), iTunes will only be able to play one of these bit-perfectly, depending on the settings in Audio MIDI setup. ![]() What does this give you that iTunes does not?ġ. It gives you almost all of the advantages of iTunes (since it runs as a parasite on the iTunes interface), but enables you to avoid some of the limitations inherent to iTunes. Other than that, it is not audiophile, so stop wasting your money on something that cannot be. In other words, forget audiophile, unless you are young, still have good hearing, and have a lot of expendable cash lying around for top equipment starting with output devices and following back to the source. mediocre headphones or speakers on the end of high end amps and players will not reproduce audiophile quality sound. If you really want audiophile and can hear it, that is where your money should go first. If you don't have that, nothing else matters as that is what your ears actually hear. Finally you have to own speakers or headphones that are capable of audiophile playback ranges with minimal distortion. ![]() Any other claims for recording or equipment is marketing hype. If you are over 50 forget audiophile due to hearing age degradation-i.e you can't hear it anyway. lossless audio format from the source., which is not anything on iTunes or MP3. Anything else is compressed and sampled, unless it is stated to be audiophile quality on the source-i.e. Is this a joke? For Audiofile level recordings you need analog standard (not cassette) tape or vinyl.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |