Digital output bit rate

[pewternhrata]

On realtek hd it gives me multiple sampling bit rates. 16bit 44 to 24bit 192. I switched between various levels and noticed the higher sampling gave less bass output but increased the clarity. Music I have is ripped wav lossless 1.41 Mbps. I'm assuming (rule #1, never assume) that I should keep it at 24bit 96 for the highest quality and just turn the sub up a few dbs? (192 I get no sound 16 or 24bit)

 

[lovinthehd]

You're comparing the same recording cd vs a download or something? Or your realtek converts it to the higher bit depth and sampling frequency? Not sure what you mean by output bit rate in this case....

 

[pewternhrata]

Playing the same song that's ripped on my pc at different rates.

 

[pewternhrata]

I've never really looked at the settings on digital coax out on my pc before. I knew there were some settings and honestly I really dont understand them.
These are default settings

 

[lovinthehd]

Playing the same song that's ripped on my pc at different rates.

Different bit depth/sampling frequency, or bit rate? Or both? The WAV should be 1411 kbps as mentioned, at least at 16/44.1....does it change when you convert it to 24/96?

I don't see what the advantage there would be in taking a 16 bit recording and converting it to 24 with a soundcard, or expanding the sampling rate....can't see how you can put lipstick on a pig so to speak.

 

[Verdinut]

I've never really looked at the settings on digital coax out on my pc before. I knew there were some settings and honestly I really dont understand them.
These are default settings

The chart which you posted is only asking which sampling rate and bit rate your receiver can accept. It does not indicate that it would change in any way the bit depth or the sampling rate of your audio source.

In order to oversample an audio source, you need a software which is designed to do so. In in any case, I don't see how you would have noticed a difference just by clicking on a more defined audio file. The quality of the final audio is limited to the quality of the source. There is no other way: Junk in, junk out! Good quality in, good quality out but not any better!

 

[pewternhrata]

Different bit depth/sampling frequency, or bit rate? Or both? The WAV should be 1411 kbps as mentioned, at least at 16/44.1....does it change when you convert it to 24/96?

I don't see what the advantage there would be in taking a 16 bit recording and converting it to 24 with a soundcard, or expanding the sampling rate....can't see how you can put lipstick on a pig so to speak.

So that's all it's doing is basically upscaling the audio?
They all sound good overall, like I said as I increase it, the overall clarity seems to improve especially in the 'highs' but the subs volume seems to go down.

 

[pewternhrata]

The chart which you posted is only asking which sampling rate and bit rate your receiver can accept. It does not indicate that it would change in any way the bit depth or the sampling rate of your audio source.

In order to oversample an audio source, you need a software which is designed to do so. I don't see how you would have noticed a difference just by clicking on a more defined audio file. In any case, the quality of the final audio is limited to the quality of the source. There is no other way: Junk in, junk out! Good quality in, good quality out but not any better!

As I switched through them, increasing, my subs got noticeably quieter. This is more or less where I'm lost.

 

[lovinthehd]

So that's all it's doing is basically upscaling the audio?
They all sound good overall, like I said as I increase it, the overall clarity seems to improve especially in the 'highs' but the subs volume seems to go down.

Makes me wonder if level was changing, or somehow losing content in the conversion? Dunno, am curious tho. Can't see that such a conversion could do anything but perhaps lose something...

 

[Verdinut]

Makes me wonder if level was changing, or somehow losing content in the conversion? Dunno, am curious tho. Can't see that such a conversion could do anything but perhaps lose something...

Not necessarily.
As an example, I use the HD-Audio Solo Ultra software with which I can upsample as well as increase the depth of an audio file from 16 bit-44.1 KHz to 24-96 if I want.
I do use it when I want to transfer an opera which originally came on 3 CDs and I transfer it to one DVD-Audio disc. However, proceeding this way, I don't have to switch discs to listen to the whole opera. There is nothing lost but neither any improvement in the audio quality.

 

[pewternhrata]

Makes me wonder if level was changing, or somehow losing content in the conversion? Dunno, am curious tho. Can't see that such a conversion could do anything but perhaps lose something...

Searched around and it seems that the realtek is native at 48khz, so either 16 or 24bit at 48khz appears to be my best option. If I understood what I found, up sampling to 96khz can have drawbacks which I guess in my case is the quieter bass.
This is one example when I hate options lol, I just want a normal natural playback, nothing else

 

[lovinthehd]

Not necessarily.
As an example, I use the HD-Audio Solo Ultra software with which I can upsample as well as increase the depth of an audio file from 16 bit-44.1 KHz to 24-96 if I want.
I do use it when I want to transfer an opera which originally came on 3 CDs and I transfer it to one DVD-Audio disc. However, proceeding this way, I don't have to switch discs to listen to the whole opera. There is nothing lost but neither any improvement in the audio quality.

I meant more with the realtek thing he's using, rather than something specialized....

 

[lovinthehd]

Searched around and it seems that the realtek is native at 48khz, so either 16 or 24bit at 48khz appears to be my best option. If I understood what I found, up sampling to 96khz can have drawbacks which I guess in my case is the quieter bass.
This is one example when I hate options lol, I just want a normal natural playback, nothing else

Got some links to what you're looking at? Seems the cd itself or recorded losslessly would be the most "natural" way to play back (and if ripped, at 16/44.1)

 

[everettT]

I stick to native for all playback material, including video.

 

[lovinthehd]

OTOH if you like the results of the conversion, and can boost the bass a bit, nothing wrong with having a preference for a difference....

 

[pewternhrata]

Got some links to what you're looking at? Seems the cd itself or recorded losslessly would be the most "natural" way to play back (and if ripped, at 16/44.1)

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111980.0.html

 

[panteragstk]

What player are you using on your PC?

I ask because it is typically preferred to use WASAPI if you can so windows won't downmix or mess with the sample rate of the recording. That will allow your audio device to directly communicate with your receiver. It basically sends whatever sample rate the file is direct so the receiver can do the decoding instead of the windows mixer decode then re-encode the signal. I'm sure I butchered that explanation, but that's the gist of it.

foobar2000 is perfect for this type of playback.

 

[pewternhrata]

What player are you using on your PC?

I ask because it is typically preferred to use WASAPI if you can so windows won't downmix or mess with the sample rate of the recording. That will allow your audio device to directly communicate with your receiver. It basically sends whatever sample rate the file is direct so the receiver can do the decoding instead of the windows mixer decode then re-encode the signal. I'm sure I butchered that explanation, but that's the gist of it.

foobar2000 is perfect for this type of playback.

I'll have to check it, currently just using windows media, but have always looked into something else. Until recently I haven't played too much music from my pc. Majority of the music I listen to, when I really care about quality is cds. That's where some of these questions come from, never got too big into running off my pc.

 

[Johnny2Bad]

Different bit depth/sampling frequency, or bit rate? Or both? The WAV should be 1411 kbps as mentioned, at least at 16/44.1....does it change when you convert it to 24/96?

I don't see what the advantage there would be in taking a 16 bit recording and converting it to 24 with a soundcard, or expanding the sampling rate....can't see how you can put lipstick on a pig so to speak.

The advantage is you can use all 16 bits of resolution available in the original file. If you only use 16 bits of your DAC ("soundcard") to play back a 16 bit file, you probably can only resolve perhaps 13 bits (because DAC chips are not linear at low levels). A 24 bit DAC can probably resolve about 19 or 20 bits before linearity errors, thus all 16 bits are correctly resolved in your 16/xx file.

Beware inexpensive sound cards that only have one crystal oscillator frequency and thus cannot properly play back both audio standard (44.1, 88.2, etc) and video standard (48, 96, etc) without re-sampling one. Typically they resample the audio files to (at a minimum) 16/48. So every music file will be resampled, even if you don't otherwise set your playback software to do so.

Faced with that situation, you may as well resample in your playback software to at least 24/96; it fits the internal clock frequency, it moves the brickwall filter further from the audio band and the file will be resampled anyway, might as well be to your choosing in the order that offers the best options for overall fidelity.