Great Sound?!?

[EricB]

uhh eric b... last sentence... change it...

what wrong with it?

 

[NewCents05]

oh nvm i misread it ignore me

 

[003]

^ If you're so high and mighty, how exactly is he wrong?

Lets get something straight here.

48Khz, and 44.1KHz are the sample rate of a recording.

16-bit, and 24-bit are the bit-depth of a recording. They are two unrelated things.

Now, lets understand something here. CD Audio is recorded with a 16-bit bit depth and a 44.1KHz sample rate.

The Audigy2 does not support putting out a true 44.1KHz signal, so it has to upsample CD Audio (and any other sound with a 44.1KHz sample rate -- pretty much everything now) to 48Khz. Again, this is sample rate here, not bit depth. The bit depth remains 16-bit.

Upsampling the sample rate causes the sound quality to be degraded, and to worsen it, the DSP that does the upsampling does a crappy job of it to boot, resulting in an audible degrading of the sound quality.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

If you still can't understand the difference between sample rate and bit depth then you need to spend some time reading this article:
http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

Also, EricB, please explain to me how he was dissing 16-bit audio, when he didn't even use the term 16-bit in his post, or 24-bit for that matter.

 

[EricB]

Upsampling the sample rate causes the sound quality to be degraded, and to worsen it, the DSP that does the upsampling does a crappy job of it to boot, resulting in an audible degrading of the sound quality.

why? because your friend told you so?

this is exactly where our opinions differ

explain this between all of that bull that you are feeding

Edit.

if we were to listen to you, the soundblaster would have a frequency of 100-5000 hz and have a signal to noise ratio of 20 db and a crosstalk level of +1db and all of these levels were measured at 25% distortion rate

right. get a life

 

[003]

It is similar to the effect you get when converting between lossy formats.

Upsampling, or modifying the original signal will always result in a loss of quality.

This poses the question of "Well, is it a difference you can even hear"? The answer is yes. There are some things you can do to the signal that probably would not have any effect audible to your ear, but any kind of resampling is not one of them.

If you read that article I linked to, you would know that bit depth is the number of bits you capture in an audio stream.

You would also know that sample rate is the number of times the audio is measured (sampled) per second.

So when you resample the audio, the DSP has to re-sample (re-measure) the bits of audio per second.

You can not perfectly resample something. You can do it very well, depending on the equipment you are using, but not perfectly. And the Audigy2 is not something that even does it "good". It is sub par at best. To do it very well can be extermley expensive, and yet still never perfect.

So now you may be asking, "Well then why did creative use a DSP that does not support a 44.1KHz sample rate?"

That, my friends is the big question. That is the major mistake made on the Audigy 2. It is a mistake that was not made on the x-fi.

 

[EricB]

It is similar to the effect you get when converting between lossy formats.

Upsampling, or modifying the original signal will always result in a loss of quality.

This poses the question of "Well, is it a difference you can even hear"? The answer is yes. There are some things you can do to the signal that probably would not have any effect audible to your ear, but any kind of resampling is not one of them.

If you read that article I linked to, you would know that bit depth is the number of bits you capture in an audio stream.

You would also know that sample rate is the number of times the audio is measured (sampled) per second.

So when you resample the audio, the DSP has to re-sample (re-measure) the bits of audio per second.

You can not perfectly resample something. You can do it very well, depending on the equipment you are using, but not perfectly. And the Audigy2 is not something that even does it "good". It is sub par at best. To do it very well can be extermley expensive, and yet still never perfect.

So now you may be asking, "Well then why did creative use a DSP that does not support a 44.1KHz sample rate?"

That, my friends is the big question. That is the major mistake made on the Audigy 2. It is a mistake that was not made on the x-fi.

can you answer my question ronald reagen

why doooesss this degrade the sound quality? what did creative do, plant acid in it the chipset? the last time that I check upsamping is suppose to to improve the signal (yeah. I know. in reality that isn't true, but it doesn't destroy the signal either like you are claiming)

the main reason that I'm asking is because every analog audio device in the world does this in one form or another

I don't need to read an article to tell me that.

for the record, you guys, stuff that is sample at 44k is 16bit

don't listen to 003

 

[Snake-Eyes]

Lets get something straight here.

48Khz, and 44.1KHz are the sample rate of a recording.

16-bit, and 24-bit are the bit-depth of a recording. They are two unrelated things.

Now, lets understand something here. CD Audio is recorded with a 16-bit bit depth and a 44.1KHz sample rate.

The Audigy2 does not support putting out a true 44.1KHz signal, so it has to upsample CD Audio (and any other sound with a 44.1KHz sample rate -- pretty much everything now) to 48Khz. Again, this is sample rate here, not bit depth. The bit depth remains 16-bit.

Upsampling the sample rate causes the sound quality to be degraded, and to worsen it, the DSP that does the upsampling does a crappy job of it to boot, resulting in an audible degrading of the sound quality.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

If you still can't understand the difference between sample rate and bit depth then you need to spend some time reading this article:
http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

Also, EricB, please explain to me how he was dissing 16-bit audio, when he didn't even use the term 16-bit in his post, or 24-bit for that matter.

One, i never claimed to know any of that, or to support either claim. Two, i wanted someone to explain how he (EricB) was wrong, instead of just blindly saying he is wrong. Three, so the lower the sample rate the better the quality?

 

[EricB]

One, i never claimed to know any of that, or to support either claim. Two, i wanted someone to explain how he (EricB) was wrong, instead of just blindly saying he is wrong. Three, so the lower the sample rate the better the quality?

no 3. no a higher sampling rate poduces better quality

but the commercial world is using 44k 16bit cd audio now. 10-15 years from now we might be a 96k 24bit cd, but we aren't right now

 

[EricB]

guys. for now I'm done with this stupid conversatin until I talked to creative.

because the only proof that he has showed that creative even does this, in an internet email link.

I'll post back with the results.

P.S.

if he right about the upsample thing, it doesn't mean anything. the audigy still sound good when it isn't listening to a sine wave at over 50 of it's volume. Do you listen to sine waves? I don't. I listen to music. it will never approach the energy of a sine wave.

if I'm right and the sdpif is just a simple bypass, like it is suppose to be

I'd say let's ban the fool for wasting our time this weekend

 

[003]

Three, so the lower the sample rate the better the quality?

No, but today the standard is pretty much 44.1KHz, and upsampling to something higher will always degrade the quality.

I do not know the math behind it. Just like I do not know the specifics on why digital can not be perfectly converted to analog.

Want audible proof? Compare an Audigy2 and an X-fi XtremeMusic. The XtremeMusic uses the same DAC as the Audigy2, but it supports a 44.1KHz sample rate.

I have directly compared them, and while they both are not that great, the X-fi is a little better. The Juli@ is en even bigger jump in quality yet, and the difference was quite clear.

If you want to know the specifics on why resampling will always degrade quality, go ask on audio asylum, hydrogen audio or head-fi forums.

if I'm right and the sdpif is just a simple bypass, like it is suppose to be

I'd say let's ban the fool for wasting our time this weekend

The only fool here is you. I know what I am talking about. You do not. SDPIF does not bypass the DSP, it bypasses the DAC.