Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
transcoding using dsf:wav;176 vs dsf:wav24;176
31-10-2015, 17:27
Post: #1
transcoding using dsf:wav;176 vs dsf:wav24;176
Hi,
The default bit width is set to 32 when transcoding dsf to wav using the setting "dsf:wav;176". Is there any theoritical or practical advantage to using 32 bit transcoding instead of the 24 bit width you get with setting "dsf:wav24;176". Both settings work on my DAC (cable ethernet connection), and frankly I cannot tell the difference, but this may depend on the type of music I am listening to. I assume that the 24 bit transcoding would use up less bandwidth, which may matter in a WI-FI setup (but this is not my case). Could 32-bit transcoding require less processing power and be more efficient ?

Any comment on your part about this point would be most welcome.

Regards
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2015, 20:31
Post: #2
RE: transcoding using dsf:wav;176 vs dsf:wav24;176
(31-10-2015 17:27)Andre Gosselin Wrote:  Hi,
The default bit width is set to 32 when transcoding dsf to wav using the setting "dsf:wav;176". Is there any theoritical or practical advantage to using 32 bit transcoding instead of the 24 bit width you get with setting "dsf:wav24;176". Both settings work on my DAC (cable ethernet connection), and frankly I cannot tell the difference, but this may depend on the type of music I am listening to. I assume that the 24 bit transcoding would use up less bandwidth, which may matter in a WI-FI setup (but this is not my case). Could 32-bit transcoding require less processing power and be more efficient ?

Any comment on your part about this point would be most welcome.

Regards

The default is 32 bits and 352.8 kHz because this is what ffmpeg produces by default. As a general principle, I think it's a good idea to use the maximum bit depth that your DAC can support unless your network doesn't have enough bandwidth for this. I will do a comparison between 32-bit and 24-bit output and also between 352.8 kHz and 176.4 kHz to see if I can hear any difference.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2015, 00:25
Post: #3
RE: transcoding using dsf:wav;176 vs dsf:wav24;176
I compared playing the same DSF file using these transcoding settings:

1) dsf:dopwav
2) dsf:wav
3) dsf:wav24;176

The best was 1) followed by 2) then 3). The renderer was a Melco N1A connected via USB to a Chord Hugo TT.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2015, 16:37
Post: #4
RE: transcoding using dsf:wav;176 vs dsf:wav24;176
(01-11-2015 00:25)simoncn Wrote:  I compared playing the same DSF file using these transcoding settings:

1) dsf:dopwav
2) dsf:wav
3) dsf:wav24;176

The best was 1) followed by 2) then 3). The renderer was a Melco N1A connected via USB to a Chord Hugo TT.

Thanks Simon for your efforts in this test.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2015, 21:06 (This post was last modified: 02-11-2015 21:13 by Mihaylov.)
Post: #5
RE: transcoding using dsf:wav;176 vs dsf:wav24;176
(01-11-2015 00:25)simoncn Wrote:  I compared playing the same DSF file using these transcoding settings:

1) dsf:dopwav
2) dsf:wav
3) dsf:wav24;176

The best was 1) followed by 2) then 3). The renderer was a Melco N1A connected via USB to a Chord Hugo TT.
And what there was media server? Melco or another NAS?
What differences in a sound of three options? How big difference in a sound?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2015, 21:49 (This post was last modified: 02-11-2015 23:13 by simoncn.)
Post: #6
RE: transcoding using dsf:wav;176 vs dsf:wav24;176
(02-11-2015 21:06)Mihaylov Wrote:  And what there was media server? Melco or another NAS?
What differences in a sound of three options? How big difference in a sound?

The server was my Windows laptop. Transcoding DSF to WAV in real time requires quite a powerful CPU.

2) and 3) were fairly similar and 1) was considerably better.

Murrays on the Linn forum has suggested that an offline conversion from DSF to WAV would be better than real-time transcoding. This sounds plausible but I haven't tried it myself.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2015, 08:39
Post: #7
RE: transcoding using dsf:wav;176 vs dsf:wav24;176
OK. Thanks!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)