So we need to resample 44.1 to 48k ? to make sure something almost everyone cannot hear is better for people who have OCD about objective measurements.
@@sharuraudio Cool .. mind you I just did that with a track 44.1 to 48k also went from 16bit to 24bit .. file was bigger .. with my poor non golden ears it sounded just the same :( better to stick with 16Bit ?
It's good practice in general. If you have a gaming rig, I don't recommend anything above 48K because some game sound engines don't like high sample rates and bug out.
Maybe you should prepare your talking points a bit more, and sound less like you're rambling aimlessly. What is it exactly that you're trying to say ? I'm a signal processing engineer, btw, so this is pretty basic stuff you're scratching on. Anything specific you want to raise awareness about ? Just say it, and back it up.
I'm saying that yes, dacs can be audibly differentiable under specific scenarios, but the test conditions laid out by goldensound do not necessarily constitute as one another transparent dac vs another since it is possible to hear above 20 kHz.
@@sharuraudioas a person who is not a sound engineer but as someone with perfect pitch and good ears, who can play any instrument he picks up, dacs can be told apart by tone and timbre, and thd+N ratings become audible at two digits after the decimal. People who say they all sound the same need a new hobby.
@@sharuraudio just blindfolded with my son handing me earphones. If you think different dac implementations all have the same sound, there is something wrong with your ears. I can tell a Shio from a Hiby no problem, and you should be able to do this as well.
It's a very contrived and manipulated test. Notice that Golden did not compare actual DACs because he would likely fail those tests just by listening to test tracks and toggling between them.
@@sharuraudio But Golden's claim is that DAC filters give music more resolution, at least that's what he's likely hinting at based on claims he made in the past.
I agree with you. When i resample my files to 48 or 192, every time i can hear dac cleans some messyness and sound becomes more clean. Also that is proven by my friends with their absolute ears. (Blind test)
1. I can't hear over 18k in tone generator. Should i be worrying about dac filters? 2. If i upsample my 44100 files to 48000, won't that introduce artifacts?
Not Sure why you are not adhering to Shannon-Nyquist? There more to the subject matter 48khz was only support due to its presence in Video prior to HI-Fi, Similar to Intel making a 8bit cpu because 16 bit peripherals were not plentiful. In other words 48khz is not at all what it is presented as. You need a multiple of 2x for Nyqist
You're mostly right, but imo all of this doesn't matter much. this is even less significant than inverted polarity which I am a strong advocate for eliminating and this matters even less in any practical sense (note that the people claiming this like GS and his affiliates are still using awful headphones and shilling stupid gear). until people are recording outputs of their transducers in very low noise conditions and are able to prove, demonstrably and repeatedly, there is no compounded distortion sub-nyquist from the mechanics of their transducers then there is no idea to know what is going on for sure. on top of this, there is perhaps also psychoacoustic/biological basis for some perception differences with lost frequencies affecting other bands. high frequency tuned cochlear hair cells are still capable of the transduction of lower frequency sound at certain levels, and any sort of damage to any of these structures (which we all have to varying degrees with age and abuse) are capable of contributing distortion products and anomalies to what we hear.
i don't give a fuck, spacial presentation is important for my listening experience, if you like stereo flat experience like audeze do then take it, there are people that want the monitors experience and use these stuff with some hrir and works damn good
I think your presentation in the introduction about high-res audio is not quite correct. I did prove to you that all you could hear were upsampling artefacts, including dither. And not "higher resolution" or more "dynamic range".
IF u has a digital source of course must dun be radiculous noobs. Either way, analogue or digital towards ur transducers and finally ur noobs ears r ok. Peace!
So we need to resample 44.1 to 48k ? to make sure something almost everyone cannot hear is better for people who have OCD about objective measurements.
yes
@@sharuraudio Cool .. mind you I just did that with a track 44.1 to 48k also went from 16bit to 24bit .. file was bigger .. with my poor non golden ears it sounded just the same :( better to stick with 16Bit ?
It's good practice in general. If you have a gaming rig, I don't recommend anything above 48K because some game sound engines don't like high sample rates and bug out.
@@jonfairway8235 Don't resample. Set your DAC to 48K in Windows or OSX and the audio gets resampled automatically.
Resampling introduces artifacts and distortion, so no, not a perfect solution. Better to get audio files that already have a high sample rate.
Do DAPs matter? Or is iPhone fine?
Hello baldy
noob
Moondrop Miad 01 yes or no?
What are your thoughts on DMS Project Omega headphones?
Maybe you should prepare your talking points a bit more, and sound less like you're rambling aimlessly. What is it exactly that you're trying to say ? I'm a signal processing engineer, btw, so this is pretty basic stuff you're scratching on. Anything specific you want to raise awareness about ? Just say it, and back it up.
I'm saying that yes, dacs can be audibly differentiable under specific scenarios, but the test conditions laid out by goldensound do not necessarily constitute as one another transparent dac vs another since it is possible to hear above 20 kHz.
@@sharuraudioas a person who is not a sound engineer but as someone with perfect pitch and good ears, who can play any instrument he picks up, dacs can be told apart by tone and timbre, and thd+N ratings become audible at two digits after the decimal. People who say they all sound the same need a new hobby.
@@wahid-lg1kk you have done this in controlled ABX tests?
@@sharuraudioyou know the answer to that 😂
@@sharuraudio just blindfolded with my son handing me earphones. If you think different dac implementations all have the same sound, there is something wrong with your ears. I can tell a Shio from a Hiby no problem, and you should be able to do this as well.
Sharur and Golden Clown sittin' in a tree...
It's a very contrived and manipulated test. Notice that Golden did not compare actual DACs because he would likely fail those tests just by listening to test tracks and toggling between them.
comparing two software generated files is the most effective way to test for specific differences
@@sharuraudio But Golden's claim is that DAC filters give music more resolution, at least that's what he's likely hinting at based on claims he made in the past.
I agree with you. When i resample my files to 48 or 192, every time i can hear dac cleans some messyness and sound becomes more clean. Also that is proven by my friends with their absolute ears. (Blind test)
What resampling algorithm are you using? What filters on your DAC?
@@coloradoing9172 i resampled files on neutron without a filter. Jcally jm6 pro is the dac i used.
0:38 You didn't link it in the description =[
fixed
@@sharuraudionice
1. I can't hear over 18k in tone generator. Should i be worrying about dac filters?
2. If i upsample my 44100 files to 48000, won't that introduce artifacts?
no and no
if i have 2k budget what iem would u recommend i buy
truthear nova
Sharur whats the best website to eq on that is not squig and autoeq?
so u will review DAC's now and what is the best DAC?
no
I want to know how to buy dac & how much budget is better to use on mobile
if you use optical output on your pc to the dac, does it still matter?
yes
Clicked into the video thinking that Sharur was going Summit-Fi. 🤡
Geez, your hair is growing really fast. Miss my 20s. 😩
i can hear only up to 17,5 khz. do i really need to care about all that stuff?
no
Not Sure why you are not adhering to Shannon-Nyquist? There more to the subject matter 48khz was only support due to its presence in Video prior to HI-Fi, Similar to Intel making a 8bit cpu because 16 bit peripherals were not plentiful.
In other words 48khz is not at all what it is presented as.
You need a multiple of 2x for Nyqist
You're mostly right, but imo all of this doesn't matter much. this is even less significant than inverted polarity which I am a strong advocate for eliminating and this matters even less in any practical sense (note that the people claiming this like GS and his affiliates are still using awful headphones and shilling stupid gear). until people are recording outputs of their transducers in very low noise conditions and are able to prove, demonstrably and repeatedly, there is no compounded distortion sub-nyquist from the mechanics of their transducers then there is no idea to know what is going on for sure. on top of this, there is perhaps also psychoacoustic/biological basis for some perception differences with lost frequencies affecting other bands. high frequency tuned cochlear hair cells are still capable of the transduction of lower frequency sound at certain levels, and any sort of damage to any of these structures (which we all have to varying degrees with age and abuse) are capable of contributing distortion products and anomalies to what we hear.
yes
@@sharuraudio try 1.5-3mm hair length and 3-6mm beard 👍
Who is your favourite cr ytber
ryley cr
@@sharuraudio ian77 better
I have the kef mu7 and I think they are the best wireless headphones and you should try them
Sounds reasonable, but it is Sharur so would be easier to dismiss out of hand. Decisions, decisions, decisions...
yeah, now use some topping dac and switch to a schiit modi multibit then return here and say if you don't hear difference
it's not important
i don't give a fuck, spacial presentation is important for my listening experience, if you like stereo flat experience like audeze do then take it, there are people that want the monitors experience and use these stuff with some hrir and works damn good
I think your presentation in the introduction about high-res audio is not quite correct. I did prove to you that all you could hear were upsampling artefacts, including dither. And not "higher resolution" or more "dynamic range".
my video on high res audio linked in the description is accurate
it's joever for objectivists
Just enjoy the music !
ok
noob
@@LachlanThompson-qi5yc pathetic ...
I like your glasses!
thanks
Who is the 57 years old person who passed the test?
someone on your asr thread
@@sharuraudio I missed that one, what is the user name?
09:55 "if you use eq you're resampling the audio to where it's no longer bit perfect anyway" does bit perfect even matter? like who cares lol
no
@@sharuraudio kk thx
Interesting
So this was just rambling. With intermittent desk hits to abuse the ears of anyone listening
ok
you need to have bat hearing to pick up those differences so probably dont matter.
No
yes
@@sharuraudioNo
I have my take on dac and its trur that a proper dac can make a difference beyond the tipical extra loudness and gain
IF u has a digital source of course must dun be radiculous noobs. Either way, analogue or digital towards ur transducers and finally ur noobs ears r ok. Peace!
Nah