Every month, I live broadcast on this channel and talk for several hours. In fact, many of the questions raised by viewers are very good and are of interest to audiophiles, so I will try my best to answer them on the spot (please correct me if I am wrong), but I want everyone to Watching "Avengers" for such a long time to relive the live broadcast is difficult for some people, so this time I want to select some questions that I think are very interesting during the live broadcast and edit them for you to review if you like to watch it. Then I will also edit the highlights of the live broadcast for you to review later. I would like to ask if it is better to rip the CD to FLAC into 44.1kHz than 96kHz?
Yes, that's right, I can definitely answer this. If your CD is 16bit 44.1kHz, then you should make a backup to 16bit 44.1kHz. Try not to change its sampling frequency, because changing the sampling frequency will change the sound. You can see the (sound) waveform as well. Different is a different thing, but I can also tell you with certainty that this change will definitely have gains and losses. Some gains and losses have already been given to face. Most of them are losses. I would rather your file be based on the original situation as much as possible. Don’t change it, it’s like this, it’s like this, it’s a very low level, it’s a very low level, it’s even unbalanced left and right, you’re left unbalanced by it, don’t do it until you have other post-processing when you replay, your machine has a DSP or you It's good to use HQ Player to organize it. Post-processing, don't mess with the file. Except that it is a CD, I may change its original format to HDCD and convert it back to a 20bit file 20bit 44.1kHz. Do you think it is good? What about the sound? To be honest, I don’t think it will be louder. Don’t convert it. Try not to change it. I would like to ask how to use two-channel amplification to watch the Blu-ray concert. It will be better. Blu-ray concerts have two sound tracks. There are two types of sound tracks. The first is a multi-channel sound track. The second is a two-channel sound track. If your concert has a two-channel sound track, it is strongly recommended that you use the two channels on that disc. In most cases, it will be better than downgrading the multi-channel audio track to two-channel on your machine. Sometimes the specifications of the two-channel audio track on those discs are a little higher, maybe. 96kHz or even 192kHz, but if you are listening to multi-channel, it may be 48kHz. The second is to use the decoding in the Blu-ray player to convert it back to analog output. Isn’t the decoding beautiful? Because that decoding may mainly handle multi-channel. There may not be an independent set of two-channel decoding. Some expensive machines will have it. Then you can use the coaxial digital output or optical fiber digital output on the back of the Blu-ray player to connect the High-End two-channel high-end in your hand. It would be better to use better quality decoding. Will SACD make a comeback?
No, it probably won’t make a comeback. In addition, there should be a company operating in the SACD Alliance now, but there won’t be any special actions. It is just operating the license. If SACD issues new guidelines, it will open up DoP. What is DoP given to everyone (manufacturers)?
We can use our coaxial digital cable, AES/EBU cable, and optical fiber cable, which is the standard PCM interface for transmitting digital signals in the past. If we can transmit the digital signal to DSD signal, we can use something called DoP DSD over PCM. In fact, it is just packaging the DSD signal into PCM. Then add a suffix to tell the device "I am from PCM" and then you can smoothly pass various hardware interfaces. This machine (SACD machine) can send out and decode, and can receive it back. When you receive it back, you will see "It turns out it is not PCM." "The tail tells me it's DSD. OK, then I know how to turn it on and it will become DSD. This decoding will make the market more active. Nine out of ten of our decoders will support DoP reception, but our SACD player will Nine-to-five out of ten movies cannot output DoP. In fact, there are some. Now organically, they can output it, but not many. And they dare not say it too loudly because in fact, basically this function violates the original requirements of SACD because SACD One of the very important requirements is copyright protection. They require that SACD players cannot output DSD digital signals unless they use their own encrypted transmission method. So in the past, you may have seen Esoteric. It has a separate SACD player, but it Will use their format called HS-Link (actually Accuphase) to transmit Denon once had an interface called Denon Link that can transmit DSD signals. In fact, it is all a network cable RJ45 network cable, but they also have their own encrypted signals They can do this, but because of their own interface, you can't connect it to other people's equipment. In this audio market, where everyone likes to play Mix & Match, there is no way to do it because there is nothing to play with. Every time I bought one set but couldn't get enough of it. I forgot to ask Denon or Esoteric back then, so I asked them why they didn't release SACD Transport AES/EBU output USB output HDMI I2S output is enough. Add one more coaxial output and four sets of digital outputs. When it comes to DoP, if they are willing to come up with it, I will definitely buy it myself. But they said that they will not violate the standards required by the disc format, especially the copyright standards, so there is no more. I used to use WAV format, and after listening to Chen Ao, I switched to AIFF format and felt that the music felt better. What I want to say is that it is actually about the format. More than ten years ago, I wrote a lot of things in "Sound Technology" for I don't know how many issues. At that time, I read a lot of information. To understand one thing, first of all, WAV. What is the format?
It should be the world's earliest digital audio (file) format. Of course it was promoted by Microsoft. What about AIFF?
That is, Apple promotes uncompressed audio (file) formats, and the content of the two is basically the same (PCM). The only difference is that the packaging is different. Because AIFF is better, the file can be brought to Metadata and can be hung on the album cover. Sorry, it can't be linked to song information but WAV. WAV is clean and only has sound. AIFF is better. It can be linked to other Metadata. So later, there is actually a new version of WAV called BWF. If you are using some more professional recording software, you will see that there is one more file format for you to choose from, which is BWF Broadcast WAV Format. In fact, they are both WAV, but they just have an additional Metadata function. The content of these two things is the same, so why are they there? What about the different sounds?
Then this brings us back to how our machines process these files. The step is to identify what the file is and process the file appropriately. For example, if it is a DSD file, then I will know it is DSD. For example, what does it look like? Sampling Rate, then how do I deal with it? It's just that simple. Basically, those players have to do one job, which is to actually Unpack the file and then know what it is, and then get back the data in it. Then in this In the process, because different file formats have a processing step, each machine can choose some different processing and buffering. The impact is actually very similar. The problem is just how the playback program or playback equipment handles it. The file method and process are different, and this slight difference makes the sound slightly different. It is not because of the advantages of the format. The format has no advantages. It is exactly the same thing. (Subtitle proofreading: Ken)