Home of the Squeezebox™ & Transporter® network music players.
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    25

    transporter: upsample files with sox and drop external DAC?

    I am on a system simplifaction kick at the moment and have been debating dropping my DAC (Bryston BDA-2)

    The DAC does synchronous upsampling to 176.4k or 192k (i.e. has two paths for 44.1k and 48k based files) noting that all my stuff is 44.1 and I run LMS on LInux.

    My simple question is, all things being equal, would I lose anything (with regard to SQ) by using sox asynchronously inline with LMS compared to using a synchronous external DAC.

    Sadly the transporter doesnt support 88.2k (as far as I know***) so upsamping needs to be asynchronous so any opinions on target rate: 48k or 98K

    Obviously on the plus side, dropping the DAC loses one point of potentital jitter but asynchronous sox upsampling quality is a complete unknown to me.

    Thanks,

    Peter

    *** doing some surfing after posting this thread points to the fact that Sean did add 88.2k support some time in 2008... so I will test this out soon so the obvious target rate would be 88.2k and my concerns about asynchronous sox upsampling is diminished so what
    Last edited by posnos; 2018-10-23 at 15:08.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Apesbrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Coast, USA
    Posts
    1,230
    I'm sorry, after the "Windows Audiophile Edition" thread I guess we're all out of gas for this one.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Apesbrain View Post
    I'm sorry, after the "Windows Audiophile Edition" thread I guess we're all out of gas for this one.
    hmm... didnt think I was spouting foofoo here... just asking if I would lose any SQ doing upsampling with SOX inside LMS verses an external DAC.

    Unless you think upsampling is foofoo...or even extermal DAC's

    Thanks for the comment anyways.

    Peter

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,241
    Quote Originally Posted by posnos View Post
    hmm... didnt think I was spouting foofoo here... just asking if I would lose any SQ doing upsampling with SOX inside LMS verses an external DAC.

    Unless you think upsampling is foofoo...or even extermal DAC's

    Thanks for the comment anyways.

    Peter
    synchronous vs asynchronous upsampling does not mean anything. it's a transformation in the digital domain and only the precision of the arithmetic use could make a difference which is far below anything you will hear. Assuming the same precision, you can do it in the dac, in sox, in AWS in the cloud, it does not make any difference (1+1=2, wherever you calculate it). As far a upsampling is concerned, oh well ... any decent DAC+filtering, Transporter included put that problem an order of magnitude below the distorsions that are introduced by the rest of the analogue chain, your ears included.

    don't know what I'm doing in the audiophile forum
    LMS 7.7, 7.8 and 7.9 - 5xRadio, 3xBoom, 4xDuet, 1xTouch, 1 SB2. Sonos PLAY:3, PLAY:5, Marantz NR1603, JBL OnBeat, XBoxOne, XBMC, Foobar2000, ShairPortW, JRiver 21, 2xChromecast Audio, Chromecast v1 and v2, , Pi B3, B2, Pi B+, 2xPi A+, Odroid-C1, Odroid-C2, Cubie2, Yamaha WX-010, AppleTV 4, Airport Express, GGMM E5

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by philippe_44 View Post
    synchronous vs asynchronous upsampling does not mean anything. it's a transformation in the digital domain and only the precision of the arithmetic use could make a difference which is far below anything you will hear. Assuming the same precision, you can do it in the dac, in sox, in AWS in the cloud, it does not make any difference (1+1=2, wherever you calculate it). As far a upsampling is concerned, oh well ... any decent DAC+filtering, Transporter included put that problem an order of magnitude below the distorsions that are introduced by the rest of the analogue chain, your ears included.

    don't know what I'm doing in the audiophile forum
    Thanks for this reply, especially coming from someone as esteemed as yourself.

    I just retired early from a intensive job (sucked up many hours per day) and have lots of stuff I want to try now that I have the time.

    Simplifying my system is a key part of my initial endeavours and yes I wlll obviously use my ears to benchmark an external DAC verses transporter + sox verses transporter alone, but its good to understand I wont be pissing away time on a dead end.

    Peter

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    374
    I think you'll have a hard time finding a DAC that sounds as good as the Transporter. Even finding one that's a minuscule better will cost a lot of money. And no, I don't infer that all pricey equipment necessarily sounds better or even good at all. I know people who have compared the Transporter to DAC's that are twice as much and those DAC's are either close or just a fraction better.

    I've had one foot out the Squeezebox door for awhile, trying (sort of like you) to simplify my setup and find smaller gear. I was hoping to transition to a USB based setup but I don't think I'll find a DAC that sounds as good as my Transporter that I can afford. Just for fun I recently tried an inexpensive Topping D50 because it measured very well over at audio science review. (I also heard reports of it sounding better than the Oppo 105). I really wanted to keep this DAC, I liked how it worked, but unfortunately it didn't come close to the Transporter...which I seem to be stuck with. Of course it's not a bad piece of gear to be stuck with.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,299
    For future reference, synchronous/asynchronous sounds more like a description for whether the SRC occurs in real-time or is done beforehand.

    I believe you're referring to integer or non-integer "up/down-sampling factor" or "sampling rate conversion factor".

    Cheers, Darren
    Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/

    SB Touch

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •