|
424
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your questions about the PC -> DAC route / Re: Hiface Impressions
|
on: March 16, 2010, 12:55:26 am
|
|
GerardA,
Did you compare integrated motherboard USB controller to one of those PCI-to-USB controllers, especially on PCI-Express?
I use Belkin's PCI-to-USB adapter and this way I get much better SQ out of my M-Audio Transit (compared to 4 different motherboards and PSUs). Now I consider upgrading to PCI-Express controller. I wonder if there is any sonic difference...
|
|
|
|
|
431
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Playback Tweaks and Source related subjects / OS latency
|
on: March 08, 2010, 05:04:41 pm
|
|
I propose that you post your current system's latencies (from dpc latency checker) as well as your hardware configurations. There is a huge dependence betweend your system's latency and SQ. The lower latency, the better SQ. It's not a placebo, believe me!
The lowest value I ever got was under XP SP3 (highly optimized, only sound drivers installed). DPC latency checker showed constant 4-5us. That was on my second, older PC (X2 3600+ @1.9GHz, 1GB DDR II 800MHz at CL3, integrated Radeon X1250, Samsung F1 HDD)
Currently I am using Windows 2008 R2. I really like this OS, since it allows for easy customization of windows features. DPC latency checker shows 20-30us. (on Windows 7x64 I got sth like 130-150us...) I highly recommend using 2008 R2, which is basically more pro Windows 7.
|
|
|
|
|
432
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / 09-y8
|
on: March 08, 2010, 04:54:49 pm
|
|
I've just installed it. Frankly, to my ears Special mode plays the best. The sound is coherent - most detailed but without any harshness. Could it be any better than this, Peter? How deep would it go into a record? Right now I am able to hear so much background noises, that I'm actually scared. Is it still music that I am listening to or rather some kind of freaking analysis...
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: 0.9y-7
|
on: March 08, 2010, 04:46:13 pm
|
Gerard - 0.9y-8 doesn't change a bit or byte.
And, I just don't understand that table you presented.
FYI : One sample is always indicated as an "x channel sample" where x in our case is 2. So, one 16/44100 sample comprises of :
2 bytes (= 16 bits) per channel = 32 bits = 4 bytes for 2 channels = 44100 * 4 = 176400 bytes per second @ 16/44100.
1 sample thus (regardless of bit depth) takes 1/44100 = 0.0002267573 seconds. E.g. 88 samples take 88 times of that = 0.00199546424 seconds. This is 2ms.
At 176400 samples per second this is 1/176400 = 0.00000566893 for 1 sample, and 88 samples take 0.00049886584 seconds, or 499 microseconds (half a millisecond).
Maybe I am wrong somewhere, but if not, I don't understand that table.
Of course this has nothing to do with the (not so good) sound you perceive from it all.
yyyy, does it mean that the higher sample rate, the lower latency is possible? or am I missing sth oO because basically I can get lower latencies with my m-audio at 96kHz than at 44kHz. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
