Archimago wrote: > Yes, indeed a very interesting result and great that he took the time to > run the ABX. As you suggest, we have to be careful what the result > actually means of course. Remembering that this is 16/44 played back > natively by the RME Babyface vs. a 24/192 -upsample- using SoundForge > 10. -The source content is the same so there is no actual real detail > being added or subtracted like an ABX of an original 24/192 vs. a > downsample.- > > So basically, the ABX demonstrates that for the Babyface, feeding 24/192 > data seems to result in a sound the tester prefers and can differentiate > compared to essentially the same data fed as 16/44. Alternatively, maybe > the SoundForge upsampling algorithm results in a better sound.
We just lately had a thread at Hydrogen where someone did positive abx with the Babyface playback at 44.1k against 192k. He was not able to abx the same file with 192k->44.1k->192k i prepared with sox for 192k playback. The thread starts about Naim but leads to the above conclusion. http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=108758&hl=naim%20sample&st=0 Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=96407 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
