can ffdshow audio do this dream resample to 192000hz ?

[Ghitulescu]

I pass over what my English teacher taught me :)

[vola]

Where does it say that your S/P-DIF transport more than 48kHz/24b in LPCM mode?
I've included here twice document ALC + GIGABYTE:
What they SPIDF Through ALC 892 can play if you have a technical question to ALC + GIGABYTE
I'd love to give them your question (With an explanation and evidence)

Now the main issue
If all due respect
"resample to 192000hz"
If you do not believe the manufacturer ( ALC + GIGABYTE )
Use HDMI
What is the problem ? Use HDMI ?
I understand like you THE problem of standard
( Like you I looked at WEB and NOT found material on SPIDF +24 / 192 )

I GOING TO GIVE Prize FOR "resample to 192000hz"
Player + CODE How to watch movies Originally IN 24/25/29 FPS
Turn them to 60/75 FPS! AND MORE !!!
( like frame scale Studio version )

The film will show you an amazing quality LIKE poster
Sharpness, contrast Maximum, every hair, dust you can see ALL

picture :
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/4826/666hi.png
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1676/667h.png
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/4504/668.png

As you can see
Achieved an average frame rate
Picture 666 47.7 FPS
Picture 667 60.62 FPS
Picture 668 65.59 FPS

[Inspector.Gadget]

Congratulations: in those screenshots you failed to hide the fact that you were watching pirated content. Worse yet, one of the titles is "Sex and the City 2". You ought to be embarassed.

[ramicio]

I was looking at DACs yesterday and other USB to S/PDIF high end stuff, and most of them supported transporting 24/96 over coax, some even did 24/192.

[vola]

Congratulations: in those screenshots you failed to hide the fact that you were watching pirated content. Worse yet, one of the titles is "Sex and the City 2". You ought to be embarassed.

No need to hide it
Bad movie they should make up for time

THIS IS TRAILER

[leeperry]

Why not give the possibility to make UPSCALE TO 192000HZ with audio ? Through ffdshow audio
how about typing it in, duh: http://www.pixelz.fr/0/d/4/7d64ab8d9006322780e91f0f53c68.png

It does work. This thread is full of fail :o

Your Realtek prolly has such a large jitter that your 24bit will never get through to the other side anyway: http://www.agoraquest.com/viewtopic.php?topic=34057&forum=51
The difference is not loss of Data, but the corruption of the timing relationship between the Data and the 4 timing clocks in the S/PDIF Bitstream. This timing discrepancy is called jitter and for 16 bit data there can be no more than 100 picoseconds (1 picosecond =1/1,000,000,000,000th of a second) of jitter for full resolution whereas 24 bit Data can have no more than 0.5 picoseconds of jitter to maintain full resolution.

Don't forget that S/PDIF is bound to fail in the first place, hence the need for a low jitter and a clean signal: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/172143-spdif-vs-word-clock-question.html
S/PDIF is a horrendously poorly designed interface. This is because it combines the clock and audio coding onto the same signal. The receiver is supposed to recover the clock from this signal as well as extract the audio data. This turns out to be a non-trivial task, and one that almost always leaves the recovered clock contaminated with signal correlated jitter artefacts.

And 24bit only matters for post-processing, well...except if you regularly listen >96dB: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded

Gregorio is a ProTools instructor ^

I upsample when feeding Reclock to decrease aliasing and improve my VST post-processing, but for bit-perfect audio all it does is coloring the sound/increasing the THD/THD+N IME(easy to check w/ WaveSpectra).

You can see that some pro-audio plugins also oversample on purpose to increase the processing accuracy: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/5101666-post296.html
The oversampling is necessary to avoid aliasing with the saturation, but also helps to get a more accurate response in the upper end. Just as you guys said, we use a steep IIR LP filter as oversampling filter.


Many ppl feel that NOS is a terrible idea: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/438220/nos-dac-marketing-bs

look at those measurements on a NOS DAC, I giggle to no end: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/378459/valab-dac-first-impressions/1185#post_5483734

http://www.head-fi.org/image/id/24007/width/525/height/525/flags/LL

And some other ppl feel that upsampling is uncalled for when you have a properly oversampling DAC: http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/upsampling-vs-oversampling-for-digital-audio/upsampling-vs-oversampling-for-digital-audio-page-2
The effects of upsampling are greatly debated. While it is true that upsampling does help us in attenuating the amount of jitter caused by sampling errors and an inaccurate clock, whether this jitter is audible or not is a point of contention. There is no doubt that wide bit words and super-high sampling rates that are touted by the latest products are largely marketing. Oversampling has been around for a very long time and has been used extensively in audio products to not only improve sound quality through 'better' filtering but to make these same products much cheaper. Upsampling, on the other hand, is relatively newer and debated greatly. The effects of upsampling are no doubt overstated. By carefully designing the sampler, ADC, digital processing path, and oversampling DAC, the upsampling and asynchronous rate transfer can, in my opinion, be avoided.

and last, but not least, bit-perfect can easily end up clipping due to intersample peaks: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/tips-techniques/334385-intersample-peaks.html

if you care about SQ over PCM S/PDIF, you might wanna look into:
-getting a low jitter transport to chew the receiver job at recovering the clock
-using coax instead of toslink...its jitter is horrid(like +700ps) when coax off a good transport is <100ps
-attenuate the volume to avoid intersample clipping
-using a properly oversampling DAC and avoid upsampling
-using a bit-perfect audio renderer such as KS/ASIO/WASAPI
-play lossless audio files

[Inspector.Gadget]

No need to hide it
Bad movie they should make up for time

THIS IS TRAILER

Trailers are named like "scene" releases now and have the same runtime as the full movie? :rolleyes: Read the rules, the last thing this forum needs is DMCA complaints.

[vola]

leeperry

My eyes are happy with
Tears

When I saw the picture

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/1818/82677878.png

[pandy]

leeperry

My eyes are happy with
Tears

When I saw the picture

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/1818/82677878.png

Then all that thread can end after http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1451199#post1451199

[vola]

Then all that thread can end after http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1451199#post1451199

I'm sorry to write just 192 000 not working
It sounds like 96 000 HZ

No Alagoritm reach

What's the point to register just 192000HZ
If you do not have Alagoritm to turning it to 192 000 HZ?

[leeperry]

192 000 [..] sounds like 96 000 HZ
O RLY? :scared:

[nurbs]

Upsampling doesn't improve quality. Since the 192 kHz output sounds like the 96 kHz output to you we can conclude that everything works as expected. If you could hear a difference that would be an indication that something went wrong during the upsampling or of problems with your hardware.

[vola]

Upsampling doesn't improve quality. Since the 192 kHz output sounds like the 96 kHz output to you we can conclude that everything works as expected. If you could hear a difference that would be an indication that something went wrong during the upsampling or of problems with your hardware.

do you have Receiver to check through the HDMI port 1.3a or 1.4?
24/192 Through ATI video card

If there is no difference between 96 000 HZ to 192000hz in hdmi
so 192 000 is not working at all

problem in the Algorithm or elsewhere .

[nurbs]

If there is no difference between 96 000 HZ to 192000hz in hdmi
so 192 000 is not working at all
Why? Why should there be a difference?

Does your receiver show the input as 96 kHz when you set 192 kHz in ffdshow? That would be a problem. If your problem is that both sound the same then you don't have a problem.

[pandy]

I'm sorry to write just 192 000 not working
It sounds like 96 000 HZ


I verified ffdshow output in graphedit - definitely output pin from ffdshow is flagged as 192ksps - then if You can't tell the difference seems that You need to have ear upgrade.


No Alagoritm reach


Algorithm works OK


What's the point to register just 192000HZ
If you do not have Alagoritm to turning it to 192 000 HZ?

But everything is fine - only yours ears are flaky and they need to be upgraded - maybe some cochlear implant?

[vola]

Why? Why should there be a difference?

with all due respect

Why is there a difference between 48 000 TO 96000HZ
WHY ?

Why not be a difference between 96 000 HZ TO 192 000
WHY ?

Does your receiver show the input as 96 kHz when you set 192 kHz in ffdshow?

And this is the problem that FFDSHOW not Converter Alagoritm of 192 000? to receiver ?

If your problem is that both sound the same then you don't have a problem.

Or we all have a problem, we do not understand there is a problem !

I wait to my VGA card+
HDMI then I'll Thorough checks
But I have a problem because I do not know if HD4850
Support - 192000hz

The manufacturer registrar :
"" Subject to digital rights management limitations; maximum supported audio stream bandwidth is 6.144 Mbps

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/ati-radeon-hd-4000/hd-4850/Pages/ati-radeon-hd-4850-specifications.aspx

So what card support - Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio formats
If the DTS-HD MA supports variable bit rates up to 24.5 Mbit / s on a Blu-ray Disc and up to 18.0 Mbit / s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTS-HD_Master_Audio

so How thay write that the manufacturer AMD - HDMI
Support -
Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio formats
How will 18 MB Work in 6 MB ?

What format transmitter FFDSHOW 192/24 ?

[vola]

I verified ffdshow output in graphedit - definitely output pin from ffdshow is flagged as 192ksps - then if You can't tell the difference seems that You need to have ear upgrade.

But everything is fine - only yours ears are flaky and they need to be upgraded - maybe some cochlear implant?

pandy I will give you the answer of nurbs
Does your receiver show the input as 96 kHz when you set 192 kHz in ffdshow? That would be a problem. If your problem is that both sound the same then you don't have a problem.

[nurbs]

Do all of us a favor and get somebody who speaks English better than you to help you with this stuff.

Also get your story straight. In post #62 you say there is no hardware limit and now suddenly you say your ATI card limits the output after complaining about ffdshow for several pages. The limitation you posted is consistent with uncompressed 8 channel 16 bit 48 kHz audio. It would be interesting to know if you can use higher bitdepths and samplerates if you have less channels. It is possible that this idiotic limitation is only for PCM and the card can still bitstream compressed audio.

You still haven't told us what your receiver displays. Maybe that sentence you quoted is supposed to be an answer, but I don't get it.

Assuming the card only outputs 48 kHz regardless of channels or sampling rate since you state you can hear a difference between 48 and 96 kHz, but 192 kHz sounds the same (as 96) it's entirely possible that your card uses a bad downsampling algorithm and that's what causes the difference.
If that's true congratulations. You have spent the last six pages desperately trying to upsample 48 kHz audio even though there aren't any benefits on playback and all you have achieved is worse audio quality because of your hardware limitations.

[vola]

Again you perverse the reality
I mentioned at the end :

AND If the software will BE Supports 192000
Hardware build By manufacturers going Supports Also 18MBPS
If necessary.
"nurbs" do you Read English?
get somebody who speaks English better than you to help you with this stuff ?
Also get your story straight "nurbs"

and in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTS-HD_Master_Audio
Specifically listed:
DTS-HD MA supports variable bit rates up to 24.5 Mbit/s on a Blu-ray Disc and up to 18.0 Mbit/s

If a device / manufacturer said
DTS-HD MA supports variable bit rates up to 24.5 Mbit / s on a Blu-ray Disc and up to 18.0 Mbit / s
Where do I need to know that GIGABYTE
Lying?

If they sent me this article :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_1.3
What do I need to understand?

GIGABYTE Write me No problem easily supported by DTS-HD MA / Dolby TrueHD
Where do I need to know that GIGABYTE mean up to 6 MB ???
Read their site if registered up to 6MB ???
Where do I need to know they Lie ?


OK I've included more and give you in writing
Document GIGABYET + ALC
Support -192/24
All SPIDF support today on 24/96 by manufacturers
Today ASUS + GIGABYTE now support 24 / 192 according to their answers

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/2664/70734797.png

[nurbs]

If you want to pretend that what you post is anywhere close to proper English and that if I don't understand it I'm the one who is the problem I'm not going to bother with this anymore. I hope you realize that by starting that last post like you did you are only making a fool out of yourself.

Let me give you one last piece of advice: If you want to get help with your problem then at least try to answer questions people ask.
I haven't been able to figure out yet how you determine that the upsampling doesn't work since according to pandy ffdshow outputs the right sampling rate and you haven't told us what your receiver displays.

[pandy]

im trying to be sarcastic in my previous answer but i will say this one more - if there is no hear-able difference between 96 and 192ksps it doesn't mean that upsampling not work but it can mean that for 96ksps You are in the point where Your system (equipment, ears, brain, listening environment) limit 192ksps (search for discussions about capabilities of human abilities to hear), why assumption that after living in noisy environment, listening high level of various sound you have still more than perfect hearing system?
Connect 44.1kHz wave sound with some two close frequencies (IM test) to the ffdshow, choose 192000, to the output of ffdshow connect wav dest filter and write file - then open file in decent audio editor and verify what is produced by ffdshow.

[vola]

People do not know how to dance
They claim the floor curve
in post 88 I wrote:
If you think I write wrong writing to tell me exactly what?
I have no idea what you want from me?

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1452161#post1452161

I noticed that some people a bit rude
They are not sure of thay Answer they given
so they Suggest it's because my English!

Of course they do not show the problem with my English
Or where the error
But even if they are wrong ,they make it because of me
It's rude, poor !

...last post like you did you are only making a fool out of yourself.
no
I keep my dignity
From people like you " rude "
I have no problem you Trying to prove where I am wrong in English

But instead of proving me that I right Because
You continue to" bark" (your English, your English)
It's not serious

Tell me where, tell me what exactly
tell me how this disrupts your answers ?

If you want to get help with your problem then at least try to answer questions people ask
You are wrong again
I answer all
Except rude people

You want a good attitude
Give good attitude

[vola]

I HAVE succes to resample to 192000hz
:):):):):)

It sounds sharper from 96 000 HZ
A higher level of acuity

There is a clear difference from 96 000 HZ
192000 sharper
This WOW

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/7947/17986971.png

I changed some things on FFDSOHW....
and i cross / pass to "digital output optical "
http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/7740/27694609.png

There are some difficult passages hearing ( With different sound types )
That compression 192 000
Too big for SPIDF
Directions must be done

I will try soon to see if there are Difference with HDMI

the Volume with my 48 000HZ = 55%
now
the Volume with my 192000HZ = 35%
the sound sharp, clear
:):):):):)

One problem sometimes you're resample to 192000hz do not get caught/ not encoded to 192000
Have to try several times

A second problem to do resample to 192000hz Or 96000HZ
Should target every time again to 192000hz Or 96000HZ
After the start of the song or movie
if you leave the resample in 192000hz Or 96000HZ
At the beginning of the next song or movie sound card will not work with ffdshow !

[Groucho2004]

It sounds sharper from 96 000 HZ
A higher level of acuity

Prove it! :D:D

[vola]

Prove it! :D:D
I added more pictures
have a good life to all
:thanks::thanks::thanks::thanks::thanks:

[Groucho2004]

That compression 192 000
Too big for SPIDF
Directions must be done

And don't forget that during the night it's colder than outside.
;)

[leeperry]

There is a clear difference from 96 000 HZ
192000 sharper
This WOW
yay, you did it \o/

[MatLz]

I wonder why he didn't yet asked for 384KHz :confused:
:D

[pandy]

I wonder why he didn't yet asked for 384KHz :confused:
:D

It is obvious - next step will be 768 ksps not flaky 384.

[leeperry]

I wonder why he didn't yet ask for 384KHz
over S/PDIF? good luck :D