[PcChip]

I'm curious if the audio was being sent bit-perfect to the DAC for all of these tests (ALSA direct), or if it was being run through the audio mixer and being resampled

I can always tell if my 44.1 songs are being resampled to 48 because they're being run through the OS mixer

[dist-epoch]

Proper audio resampling should not be identifiable. Of course, the OS mixer probably doesn't do proper (CPU expensive) resampling.

But a quality audio player should account for this and do it's own.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

If you're not on a US-based IP, you should check out https://src.infinitewave.ca/

It is an incredible resource to see the quality of the resampling algorithms used by the actual production software likely used in any digital audio workflow.

You will see that while the best are indeed almost 100% transparent, many are not.

[danadam]

> If you're not on a US-based IP, you should check out https://src.infinitewave.ca/

There is also https://src.hydrogenaudio.org/ (with no IP based restrictions, AFAIK).

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Currently giving me: "Internal Server error reading database"

[nok22kon]

I remember using Adobe Audition for resampling audio, this site shows I had good intuition

your software is among the best, but not pitch black best :)

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Yeah, we use Secret Rabbit Code for ours, though we have access to the sox code now and that is "perfect". We might change to that as the default sometime this year.

[rasz]

"proper" resampling was expensive in 1997 when Intel was introducing fixed sampling AC'97, but was below noise floor of CPU load meter in 2007 when Microsoft released Vista killing hardware mixing.

[PcChip]

I'm also one of those audiophile crazies that obsesses over which metals to use in cabling, power filtering, swapping opamps, and builds their own DACs, amps, and speakers