PDA

View Full Version : 24/96 files



sckramer
2008-10-02, 07:31
Hello,

The boom plays 24/96 fine & sounds awesome, i'm wondering though, is it playing these natively, or is squeezecenter down-rezzing them?

also while its playing and you check info on the song, it shows a very high bitrate; something like 4800kbps

Thanks!!

schiegl
2008-10-02, 09:25
Hi,

the Boom, Squeezebox Classic and Squeezebox Receiver use the (almost) same decoding system. You can search the forum for 24/96 to find out that for these tracks every other sample is simply dropped.

the high bitrate is displayed because it's part of the meta-data (imported on scan) and therefore not really the used bitrate.

kind regards,
Markus

toby10
2008-10-02, 10:33
Hello,

The boom plays 24/96 fine & sounds awesome, i'm wondering though, is it playing these natively, or is squeezecenter down-rezzing them?

also while its playing and you check info on the song, it shows a very high bitrate; something like 4800kbps

Thanks!!

I think you must go up to the Transporter level to get native 24/96 playback

mvalera
2008-10-02, 14:47
24/96 is not supported by any of our devices except Transporter.

All the others are CPU limited to 24/48. 24/96 will "play" on Squeezebox Boom, but as schiegl noted, it's decimating the quality of the file.

Mike

sckramer
2009-01-07, 09:45
using the 7.3+ the boom can't play these wavs anymore (24/96) (just whitenoise now)

why? thats fine if it down-samples it to play, but why take this away? it sounded great playing these files!!!

Phil Leigh
2009-01-07, 11:13
24/96 is not supported by any of our devices except Transporter.

All the others are CPU limited to 24/48. 24/96 will "play" on Squeezebox Boom, but as schiegl noted, it's decimating the quality of the file.

Mike


but - but - SB3 can now - with 7.3.2 - use SOX transcoding to properly downsample to 48/24 without decimating
Does this not work with the Boom?...rushes off to try it...

EDIT - nope: works great!

Upgrade to 7.3.2.

andyg
2009-01-07, 11:28
On Jan 7, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Phil Leigh wrote:

>
> mvalera;346395 Wrote:
>> 24/96 is not supported by any of our devices except Transporter.
>>
>> All the others are CPU limited to 24/48. 24/96 will "play" on
>> Squeezebox Boom, but as schiegl noted, it's decimating the quality of
>> the file.
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> but - but - SB3 can now - with 7.3.2 - use SOX transcoding to properly
> downsample to 48/24 without decimating
> Does this not work with the Boom?...rushes off to try it...

It works fine for all products.

sckramer
2009-01-07, 11:35
wavs also? or just flac--

I'll try again tonight, but the wavs that did work, stopped working in between revs somewhere--

andyg
2009-01-07, 11:45
On Jan 7, 2009, at 1:35 PM, sckramer wrote:

>
> wavs also? or just flac--
>
> I'll try again tonight, but the wavs that did work, stopped working in
> between revs somewhere--

Why would anyone want to stream 24/96 WAV when they can save a ton of
bandwidth with FLAC... I think it only works with FLAC.

sckramer
2009-01-07, 13:43
i didn't purposly make them wavs, they just came that way, no big deal-- i'll just convert them to flac

however it's a filetype that once worked, now does not... why not have everything you throw at it just work?

Phil Leigh
2009-01-07, 16:00
On Jan 7, 2009, at 1:35 PM, sckramer wrote:

>
> wavs also? or just flac--
>
> I'll try again tonight, but the wavs that did work, stopped working in
> between revs somewhere--

Why would anyone want to stream 24/96 WAV when they can save a ton of
bandwidth with FLAC... I think it only works with FLAC.

Only works with FLAC = yes

awy
2009-01-08, 00:51
By default (except on ReadyNAS) WAVs are streamed as FLAC. The wav->flc rule in covert.conf did not get updated to use sox. If it were updated, then downsampling of WAVs could be achieved.

Also a wav-wav-transcode rule could be added to allow downsampling and keeping the result as WAV.

But I do not understand why you get noise. With the current configuration neither wav->wav nor wav->flc should be valid (because they cannot downsample), and so the transcoding framework should choose wav->mp3, which can downsample. Of course, it will not choose this if you do not have wav->mp3 enabled, or if you do not have lame installed, but in that case it should simply refuse to play the track. What does track-info (click on the track in the WebUI or go RIGHT/MoreInfo in the Player UI) say about the sample rate?

sckramer
2009-01-09, 09:22
i don't have exact numbers but here's what More Info says:



playing the WAV:
sample rate: 96.0
24-bit
~4800kbps
154MB file
in parens it says 320kps (so looks like it's trying to transcode it to mp3) but plays static noise

I converted the same files to flac w/foobar2000
sample rate: 96.0
24-bit
~1700kbps
60MB file
in parens it says ~700kbps (so it's transcoding to 24bit/48 flac?? maybe?)

this is w/7.4 nightly

I'm not in front of the boom right now, so I can edit this later w/exact numbers

Phil Leigh
2009-01-09, 10:48
I kind of feel we have some crossed wires here, but I can categorically state that with 7.3.2, 24/96 FLACs are downsampled correctly via SOX to 24/48 and play beautifully on SB3 and Boom.

High bit-depth wavs have non-standard headers (this is not a Slim/Logitech issue!) and can cause the static problem. For example, a 24/44.1 or 24/48 wav will play static on my system. This is just one reason why I never use anything but FLAC...

sckramer
2009-01-09, 12:34
I kind of feel we have some crossed wires here, but I can categorically state that with 7.3.2, 24/96 FLACs are downsampled correctly via SOX to 24/48 and play beautifully on SB3 and Boom.

High bit-depth wavs have non-standard headers (this is not a Slim/Logitech issue!) and can cause the static problem. For example, a 24/44.1 or 24/48 wav will play static on my system. This is just one reason why I never use anything but FLAC...

never said flacs did not (or i was always talking about wavs, guess I never said that at the beginning)... the flacs do play fine

sounds good, i'd rather store them as flac of course... didn't know wav headers are flaky sometimes

Phil Leigh
2009-01-12, 11:17
never said flacs did not (or i was always talking about wavs, guess I never said that at the beginning)... the flacs do play fine

sounds good, i'd rather store them as flac of course... didn't know wav headers are flaky sometimes

The problem is with the (ahem) "standards" for WAV headers... they were laid down before high-res was a reality...

JJZolx
2009-01-15, 18:11
Does using SOX for the FLAC-to-FLAC transcoding mean that SOX is now involved when playing single-file FLACs with CUE sheets?

awy
2009-01-16, 02:35
Yes it does mean that

JJZolx
2009-01-16, 03:45
Yes it does mean that

Is there any credence to the observation posted elsewhere that this requires a lot more CPU resources than the old method of using flac.exe to do the same thing?

awy
2009-01-16, 04:00
Apparently, yes: http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=10719. I had thought that the default was -C 0, but it seems not.

JJZolx
2009-01-16, 04:03
Apparently, yes: http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=10719. I had thought that the default was -C 0, but it seems not.

At -C 0 should they be roughly the same in terms of CPU requirements?

awy
2009-01-16, 04:05
I would hope so, since sox just uses libflac.

andyg
2009-01-16, 07:38
On Jan 16, 2009, at 6:03 AM, JJZolx wrote:

>
> awy;385391 Wrote:
>> Apparently, yes: http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=10719. I
>> had thought that the default was -C 0, but it seems not.
>
> At -C 0 should they be roughly the same in terms of CPU requirements?

Yeah, -C 0 makes a huge difference.

milesr3
2009-03-23, 05:01
It works fine for all products.

...Except on the ReadyNAS Duo install of Squeezecenter 7.3.1 which doesn't include Lame and 7.3.2 which doesn't include Sox.