Topic: SoX, upsampling filters, MQA, etc. (Read 12104 times)

Matias · « **on:** December 12, 2017, 01:42:03 pm »

Still waiting for SoX parameters...

Several DAC manufaturers let their customers choose different filters. MQA is all about timing and filters. Why can't we try ours too? This should be very simple GUI coding since all the heavy programming is already implemented on the codec.
And lets not forget to enable the same SoX parameters in DLNA DSP as well.
Come on...

+1 if you agree.

Awesome Donkey · « **Reply #1 on:** December 12, 2017, 02:28:23 pm »

Media Center only uses the SoX resampler, not full SoX.

Matias · « **Reply #2 on:** December 12, 2017, 02:54:23 pm »

Quote from: Awesome Donkey on December 12, 2017, 02:28:23 pm

Media Center only uses the SoX resampler, not full SoX.

Could you elaborate the difference? I thought SoX ressampling is the one with configurable parameters. And it is free on foobar with Ressampler V along with the parameters.

Awesome Donkey · « **Reply #3 on:** December 12, 2017, 03:15:53 pm »

This is the SoX resampler (aka libsoxr): https://sourceforge.net/projects/soxr/

It's available as a standalone, separate library which is what MC uses and not full SoX.

Matias · « **Reply #4 on:** December 12, 2017, 05:21:15 pm »

But how does Ressampler V has SoX working with parameters for free on Soundforge, open source and all, and JRiver cannot implement it? It does not make sense to me. ?
https://sourceforge.net/projects/resamplerv/

Matias · « **Reply #5 on:** December 13, 2017, 05:40:16 am »

I just want to be able to tweak the upsampling parameters to be able to test and use a setting that is better for me.

For example look at Stereophile's review of the Ayre QX-5 converter.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-qx-5-twenty-da-processor-measurements

For ages now the late Charles Hansen had implemented a hardware switch to toggle between 2 modes of minimal phase filter.

"Measure" has more post ringing on the impulse response but has lower artifacts on the 19kHz full scale sine test on the frequency response. Uses the typical brickwall steep filter.
"Music" (also called "Listen" on previous DACs such as QB-9 and players such as C5) has more artificats on the 19kHz sine on frequency response but less post ringing on the impulse response. They call it "Music" and "Listen" because they believe the trade off is worth for a more musical experience.

Compare this with the typical linear phase filter that for example Benchmark DAC3 HCG uses. Ringing before and after the impulse in exchange for lower artifacts of the 19 kHz sine wave.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/benchmark-dac3-hgc-da-preamplifier-headphone-amplifier-measurements

As we can see this is important for music playback. Upsampling is not only "filling the high frequencies with empty information" as some people think. The parameter setting is important enough for Ayre and many other manufacturers to implement this their hardware.

PLEASE give the users the option to choose this in JRiver software upsampling.
If not the full parameter set at least a check box for choosing "minimal phase slow roll off filter" on both local and DLNA playback.

SoX on Ressampler V below.

Ayre's PDF: https://www.ayre.com/white_papers/Ayre_MP_White_Paper.pdf

Thanks!

FelipeRolim · « **Reply #6 on:** December 13, 2017, 06:01:34 am »

+1 for SoX parameters

Awesome Donkey · « **Reply #7 on:** December 13, 2017, 06:27:25 am »

If you do a search of the forums (and this topic), it's been said by the devs they don't plan on integrating full SoX or giving configuration options. But you can always create a new topic (in the Media Center 23 section) requesting a full SoX implementation and giving your reason(s) why you want it. It's worth a try, I suppose. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing at least de-emphasis being added but it's no dealbreaker for me (since I maintain de-emphasised files in my music library alongside the originals).

As said before, they don't use the command line tool, just the resampling library. That's it.

Matias · « **Reply #8 on:** December 13, 2017, 06:35:14 am »

Maybe using another SRC codec then? The point is implementing the parameters in JRiver somehow to allow tweaking the filter to one's liking.
For example the competition has Izotope's SRC implemented. Maybe licensing from them too if SoX is unavailable?
And again my question remains: how does Ressample V implement SoX parameters for free?

mourip · « **Reply #9 on:** December 13, 2017, 06:58:21 am »

Quote from: FelipeRolim on December 13, 2017, 06:01:34 am

+1 for SoX parameters

+1 for SoX parameters. I have found SOX to be a valuable addition and the ability to tweak would be great,

ÉdisonCh · « **Reply #10 on:** December 15, 2017, 05:46:32 am »

+ 1 for Sox parameters.

Matias · « **Reply #11 on:** December 15, 2017, 05:50:54 am »

Most of the competing software have this btw.

JimH · « **Reply #12 on:** December 15, 2017, 07:29:08 am »

Making more noise isn't going to change things.

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/37893-jriver-sox-upsampling-parameters-call-for-1/

JRiver's focus is on delivering the original sound as faithfully as possible, and not on providing lots of tools for tinkering with the sound.

Some of the more esoteric tools just lead from one rabbit hole to another. That's not our thing.

tyler69 · « **Reply #13 on:** December 15, 2017, 08:14:27 am »

Would changing the filters Matias is talking about hinder a bit perfect output?

Awesome Donkey · « **Reply #14 on:** December 15, 2017, 08:44:03 am »

Quote from: tyler69 on December 15, 2017, 08:14:27 am

Would changing the filters Matias is talking about hinder a bit perfect output?

Potentially, yeah. As far as I know, SoX is considered DSP and would affect bit-perfect output if you're resampling, using de-emphasis, etc.

tyler69 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 15, 2017, 09:47:29 am »

Ah understood, thanks. So the filters and graphs posted are used in resampling only?

Mitchco · « **Reply #16 on:** December 15, 2017, 09:55:15 am »

Fyi: http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2016/07/musings-digital-interpolation-filters.html

Matias · « **Reply #17 on:** December 15, 2017, 10:58:10 am »

Quote from: JimH on December 15, 2017, 07:29:08 am

Making more noise isn't going to change things.

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/37893-jriver-sox-upsampling-parameters-call-for-1/

JRiver's focus is on delivering the original sound as faithfully as possible, and not on providing lots of tools for tinkering with the sound.

Some of the more esoteric tools just lead from one rabbit hole to another. That's not our thing.

@JimH

1. I understand JRiver feature request is influenced on +1 requirements, as we previously had features implemented because of multiple +1s. So I see nothing wrong if I gather support for it elsewhere ("making noise").

2. Delivering as faithful is subjective now, isn't it? Linear phase brickwall filter has lower THD (good) but worst impulse response (bad). Minimum phase slow roll off has higher THD (bad) but better impulse response (good). Again, give us the OPTION to choose it (both on local and DLNA playback). Leave your preferred setting as default setting if you wish. Bury the option in an advanced menu if you like. Doesn't matter: just give us the option which is there implemented in SoX already.

Most DAC manufacturers "tinker" with upsampling filters. All your competing software have this option too. The most popular hi-fi magazine Stereophile measures and publishes the filter implementations. Why does JRiver insist this is not relevant?? ?

From JRiver main website:

Why JRiver?
For the purist
Because the sound engineered into the CD is the sound you will hear when you play the audio. No changes are made to it by JRiver. Nothing will come between you and the recording. The promise we deliver is fidelity and ease of use.

For the person who likes to experiment
If you need to manipulate the sound, you can use JRiver to modify playback. Upmixing, downmixing, bitdepth, speaker control. Because the audio path is fully 64 bit, any adjustments to volume, bitdepth and sample-rate are mathematically lossless.

Isn't this your core value, "earned the respect of many leading audiophile manufacturers and their customers"?

JimH · « **Reply #18 on:** December 15, 2017, 11:22:35 am »

Matias,
I don't wish to argue with you. I just think you're off in the rough. I don't think your statement about our competitors is accurate. Maybe you have a different view of who they are.

I think you've said quite a lot about this subject and tried to organize support for it. I just don't see this as an important area to work in.

Did you read Archimago's article that Mitchco referenced?

Matias · « **Reply #19 on:** December 15, 2017, 11:38:57 am »

JimH,
I did read Archimago's post. He explains it quite well. Although the subjective parts always state "IMO (in my opinion)" and "I suspect". He even did a blind test, nice.

On the other hand, all these high end DACs have minimum phase slow roll off, as seen on Stereophile:

Ayre QX-5 (saw the PDF I linked above?) https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-qx-5-twenty-da-processor-measurements
Bryston BDA3 https://www.stereophile.com/content/bryston-bda-3-da-processor-measurements
Mytek Manhattan https://www.stereophile.com/content/mytek-hifi-manhattan-ii-da-preamplifier-headphone-amplifier-measurements
Auralic Altair https://www.stereophile.com/content/auralic-altair-da-processor-measurements
dCS Rossini https://www.stereophile.com/content/dcs-rossini-player-rossini-clock-measurements
T+A DAC8 https://www.stereophile.com/content/ta-elektroakustik-dac-8-dsd-da-processor-measurements
BelCanto Black https://www.stereophile.com/content/bel-canto-design-black-amplification-system-measurements
Meridian Prime https://www.stereophile.com/content/meridian-audio-prime-da-headphone-amplifier-measurements
Luxman DA06 https://www.stereophile.com/content/luxman-da-06-da-processor-measurements
MSB Diamond DAC IV https://www.stereophile.com/content/msb-technology-platinum-data-cd-iv-transport-amp-diamond-dac-iv-amp-da-converter-measurement
AMR DP777 https://www.stereophile.com/content/abbingdon-music-research-dp-777-da-processor-measurements
Esoteric D-07 https://www.stereophile.com/content/esoteric-d-07-da-processor-measurements
PS Audio Directstream DAC filter options: http://www.psaudio.com/forum/pwd-topics/filter-setting/

Just to name a few. Plus MQA itself is all about it. And their filters are optional. Do their opinions count too?

As for software upsampling competitors:

Roon https://kb.roonlabs.com/DSP_Engine:_Sample_Rate_Conversion
Audirvana https://audirvana.com/?p=4015
HQPlayer http://www.signalyst.com/consumer.html
Foobar free plugin https://sourceforge.net/projects/resamplerv/

JimH · « **Reply #20 on:** December 15, 2017, 11:52:16 am »

It looks like you already have a lot of choices.

With no disrespect intended, we already have a long list of things we want to do. Many of these are user requests. Some are just our own ideas. SoX improvements aren't on the list. Neither is MQA.

We're fortunate that audiophiles are a very important part of our customer base. But we need to be careful that their seemingly endless appetite for esoteric features doesn't become the tail that wags the dog. JRiver is a high quality digital media software company, not an audiophile software company.

Matias · « **Reply #21 on:** December 15, 2017, 12:07:08 pm »

I know there are other software choices. I am trying to stay with JRiver, yet you guys are not helping...

Again, SoX has the parameters ready. Foobar Ressampler V uses them and it is free. All I ask is a checkbox which calls the minimum phase slow roll off parameters. Should be really quick to do the coding (I was a developer) as opposed to DAC manufacturers who do it in hardware.

Now is your new support for WavPack DSD less esoteric? Or older features such as DSD input low pass filter choice? Playing files from memory?

I have pointed to several evidences that upsampling filters with minimum phase and slow roll off are all over the audio market. If you refuse to prioritize it this is up to you. I already argued enough about this.

PS: can anyone point me to a 3rd party plugin to import in DSP to do this?

Bigguy49 · « **Reply #22 on:** January 07, 2018, 09:56:09 am »

+1 on offering parameters.

VonBrechts · « **Reply #23 on:** January 13, 2018, 08:10:33 am »

Quote from: JimH on December 15, 2017, 11:52:16 am

It looks like you already have a lot of choices.

With no disrespect intended, we already have a long list of things we want to do. Many of these are user requests. Some are just our own ideas. SoX improvements aren't on the list. Neither is MQA.

We're fortunate that audiophiles are a very important part of our customer base. But we need to be careful that their seemingly endless appetite for esoteric features doesn't become the tail that wags the dog. JRiver is a high quality digital media software company, not an audiophile software company.

Aren't RoomCorrection, Pitching etc 'esoteric' features? I can't see any sense in your argumentation. I agree there's no need to implement every audio codec on earth and I agree with refusing offering real useless-voodoo settings but I agree with users wan't to 'optimize' the SoX-Resampler to perform best with their equipment...that's as esotheric as RoomCorrection, Equalizing etc., isn't it? Otherwise you must remove the option to use VST-Plugins etc. to keep your 'philosophy`of JRiver as pure.

+1 on offering (some) parameters

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: SoX, upsampling filters, MQA, etc. (Read 12104 times)