Minimum Phase vs Linear Phase

[solderdude]

many say ....

Many people say so many 'things' and often ignorantly blame certain 'things' for the by them perceived 'things' that are not the real cause and have their own (wild) theories based on nonsense they read somewhere or concluded on their own.

That basically is the root cause of the majority of nonsense and misinformation found on all kinds of audio forums.

 

[daftcombo]

BTW, many say they do not appreciate differences between FLAC 16/44 and 24/96, perhaps in many cases the reason is the use of WASAPI Event.

Unless you play superwell recorded music louder than 96dB (for peaks) and your hearing goes beyond 20 kHz you will hardly hear a difference in favour of 24/96.

 

[maty]

What's wrong with Foobar with Kernel Streaming out?

That it sounds worse than JRMC 64 bits with KS. Maybe that is why I had ASIO4ALL in foobar2000. Since then I always have it with KS but I still do not like the sound.

Many years and systems have passed (XP -> Vista, W7 and W10), it probably needs to be updated but it seems that the author of the plugin is not interested, perhaps he just got fed up with foobar2000

Edited: https://www.foobar2000.org/components/author/Peter

*** If anyone knows how to contact the author to notify you of this thread ***

 

[maty]

Off topic

In my second system I can hear easily the difference. Now with JRMC and very optimized Win but before with foobar2000 and much less optimized Win to play multimedia. With a cheap ODAC USB (tweaked by me).

In other systems that I have heard, with hard much more expensive I was unable to differentiate even between MP3 320 kbps (LAME) and FLAC 16/44, files on a USB that I carried. Why? They must have one or more BIG bottlenecks in the audio chain. One of the problems sure must be the Behringer DCX2496 Ultradrive Pro without the mods of the analogue section.

I know of many people who are also able to differentiate easily. It is a discussion overcome years ago in the world of vinyl ripping. At least 24/96 FLAC and 24/192 FLAC for those of exceptional sound quality. And many of them I have been convinced that it is better with FLAC 0, with the last available library, 1.3.2-2017.

- End off topic -

 

[March Audio]

Off topic


I know of many people who are also able to differentiate easily. It is a discussion overcome years ago in the world of vinyl ripping. At least 24/96 FLAC and 24/192 FLAC for those of exceptional sound quality. And many of them I have been convinced that it nust be better with FLAC 0, with the last available library, 1.3.2-2017.

- End off topic -

I know of many people who imagine things that aren't there. Often they post on audio forums

 

[Julf]

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C. P. Scott

Maybe you should pay attention to your own tagline?

 

[maty]

Off topic

From the first years of the last decade I published my slogans on the open net:

[Spanish] https://nauscopio.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/nauscopio-scipiorum-lemas-nauscopicos/

- End off topic -

Everything I have said is true, even my blunders. I do not know the explanations but I can't deny reality. And of course I know Nyquist, Fourier and much more advanced mathematics.

One thing is the theory and other their implementation.

 

[maty]

After so much off-topic, let us get back to the original discussion.

 

[Julf]

I do not know the explanations but I can't deny reality.

What is your definition of "reality"?

 

[Veri]

After so much off-topic, let us get back to the original discussion.

Why even post all the off-topic stuff, maty. I like your optimized pictures of gear internals you occasionally post at review threads, but all the anecdotal audio software preferences should really stop. You're just starting to repeat yourself across several not very relevant topics.

 

[simbloke]

Why even post all the off-topic stuff, maty. I like your optimized pictures of gear internals you occasionally post at review threads, but all the anecdotal audio software preferences should really stop. You're just starting to repeat yourself across several not very relevant topics.

Yeah. As far as I'm concerned playback software is a non issue. It's only over complicated software and systems that have the opportunity to go wrong at every turn. All these issues with various players and drivers makes me wonder why anyone uses them.

Arghh, sorry now I'm OT.

 

[digitalfrost]

Why even post all the off-topic stuff, maty. I like your optimized pictures of gear internals you occasionally post at review threads, but all the anecdotal audio software preferences should really stop. You're just starting to repeat yourself across several not very relevant topics.

Btw this forum software has an ingore function. Just hover over the user name, and the button will appear.

 

[Julf]

Btw this forum software has an ingore function. Just hover over the user name, and the button will appear.

Unfortunately ignoring/blocking people leads to fragmentation and self-reinforcing thought bubbles.

 

[LTig]

[..]
I know of many people who are also able to differentiate easily. It is a discussion overcome years ago in the world of vinyl ripping. At least 24/96 FLAC and 24/192 FLAC for those of exceptional sound quality. And many of them I have been convinced that it is better with FLAC 0, with the last available library, 1.3.2-2017.

- End off topic -

Why flac 0? Because of the lowest CPU load?

OK, my PC is just one year old and has a AMD Ryzen 1700X CPU with 8 cores and hyperthreading, running Linux. Still, I can run a multiprocessing python script with 100% load on all 16 logical cores and yet the playback of flac 9 files via the RME ADI-2 PRO fs is flawless.

 

[Bounce44.1]

Being focused on music production (mixing in particular), this is only partially relevant, but it's an interesting look at what's going on with minimum phase and linear phase filtering in practice.

I use this eq every day. I plead ignorance relating to filters in dacs but there is a difference here.

 

[maty]

This is the hypothesis. In principle, the difference in compression in FLAC should not be noticed, but I noticed it many years ago. At that time with an AMD and XP?

Therefore something must be done badly, in the processors or in the OS or in the software players because it is illogical (unlike what happens with the MP3).

Now, with Win 10 highly optimized for multimedia the difference is more noticeable. Much of the improvement is due to the optimization of the access of the ALU to the internal records of the CPU, to the priority of the processes and to the management of the RAM.

I can only say it works. Sometimes I overdo it and there is too much detail in music and fatigue. It is a matter of trying to find the optimal point.

And on top of that, with the new JRMC v25 I had to tweak the rules because it sounded worse than v24. After that it sounds better. So its creator must be doing things similar to mine.

 

[maty]

Returning to the subject, has anyone done the test (phase) with recordings with acoustic instrumentation like the classic one?

 

[Veri]

I can only say it works. Sometimes I overdo it and there is too much detail in music and fatigue. It is a matter of trying to find the optimal point.

And on top of that, with the new JRMC v25 I had to tweak the rules because it sounded worse than v24. After that it sounds better. So its creator must be doing things similar to mine.

so much conjecture so little proof ... sigh

 

[maty]

In another place I commented that I tried one of the first versions of v25 and it sounded worse. You can have both installed at the same time.

I recently updated directly from the last v24 to v25.0.8x, and it did not sound as bad as I remembered. I retouched the assigned priorities and the sound was better.

And now, minimum vs linear phase please.

 

[Julf]

so much conjecture so little proof ... sigh

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C. P. Scott"