|
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 |
|||
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
| Messages In This Thread |
|
transcoding using dsf:wav;176 vs dsf:wav24;176 - Andre Gosselin - 31-10-2015 17:27
RE: transcoding using dsf:wav;176 vs dsf:wav24;176 - simoncn - 31-10-2015, 20:31
RE: transcoding using dsf:wav;176 vs dsf:wav24;176 - simoncn - 01-11-2015, 00:25
RE: transcoding using dsf:wav;176 vs dsf:wav24;176 - Andre Gosselin - 01-11-2015, 16:37
RE: transcoding using dsf:wav;176 vs dsf:wav24;176 - Mihaylov - 02-11-2015, 21:06
RE: transcoding using dsf:wav;176 vs dsf:wav24;176 - simoncn - 02-11-2015, 21:49
RE: transcoding using dsf:wav;176 vs dsf:wav24;176 - Mihaylov - 03-11-2015, 08:39
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Search
Member List
Calendar
Help



