Raja@ASUS wrote:
Honestly, the difference to my ears is not great enough to make such a big thing out of this for the masses...

Raja, no offense, but the questions is not about the capabilities of your ears and the rest of your post is something that not even worth to be commented.

so, the facts are: even 10 years old 24bit/192 kHz capable audio card has driver that can switch automatically to the proper sample rate, i.e. the sample rate of the source audio; even listening 44.1 kHz to the closest sample rate of 48 kHz is causing such big level of IMD (Intermodulation distortion) that it's just pointless to have EUR 200 sound card and get such distortion; the questions about sample rate auto-detection is pretty serious.

msh wrote:
Raja, no offense, but the questions is not about the capabilities of your ears and the rest of your post is something that not even worth to be commented.

so, the facts are: even 10 years old 24bit/192 kHz capable audio card has driver that can switch automatically to the proper sample rate, i.e. the sample rate of the source audio; even listening 44.1 kHz to the closest sample rate of 48 kHz is causing such big level of IMD (Intermodulation distortion) that it's just pointless to have EUR 200 sound card and get such distortion; the questions about sample rate auto-detection is pretty serious.

No offence taken. But why did you chop out that part of my post, leaving the pointer of that statement out? Add that in and you will see I was talking about his list and preferences for sample rates.


"Honestly, the difference to my ears is not great enough to make such a big thing out of this for the masses. So if you want to go with your list, go ahead."

So, if you'd like to make a statement about why you feel auto switching rates are important, do so. But don't take parts of my posts and misconstrue the meaning.

And as for the last part of your post. I would tidy that up a little so the meaning is clear. If HQ do decide to read this post, I doubt they will be able to make out what it is you are trying to explain about IMD worded like that, as it seems to dart in three different directions without being clear on any one (english is not the first language of the R&D guys). I feel the fact that you have the adjustment on-hand nullifies most of what you are saying anyway - you have the option to set the sample rate to whatever the source was recorded at. Okay, so auto switching would be nice, but given there are things that need sorting on the digital side, I'd hedge bets this will not be a pivotal point of focus right now. Areas where outright functionality are lacking are what needs sorting out.

I'd also like to clear up your perception of my statement. Audio is largely subjective once we get past reading specs. It is monumentally difficult for me to pick out the audible differences between different sample rates (on any equipment I have here). I need a set of $1800 headphones to do it. Even then, the difference is that small, it would come down to subjective preference for most people rather than measured or proposed distortion spectra. There are arguments for and against upsampling, both with good arguments. Hence why i said, I will not make a "big thing" of this. If someone prefers using a higher or even lower sampling rate because it sounds better to their ears, then they are welcome to do so.

On top of that. It's not me you need to convince. If you want to see changes made, submit emails to the Xonar email address which is given in the bug report form sticky thread.


I hope that clears up my views on things. I am neither for or against the auto switching option. I only draw line under the stuff that starts to fall into the subjective realm, preferring to let people choose whatever suits them best.

-Raja

Raja@ASUS wrote:
I feel the fact that you have the adjustment on-hand nullifies most of what you are saying anyway - you have the option to set the sample rate to whatever the source was recorded at. Okay, so auto switching would be nice, but given there are things that need sorting on the digital side, I'd hedge bets this will not be a pivotal point of focus right now. Areas where outright functionality are lacking are what needs sorting out.

Raja, the problem with the above is that I have no idea what the original source was recorded at 99% of the time i.e. for games I play. I don't think that information is usually released with the system requirements for the game. I also would love to at least have a radio button or checkbox option that says "Match source sampling rate and bit depth".

Thanks Raja, sent email as follows:

Hello, I have a couple of feature requests for upcoming Xonar Phoebus driver updates if possible:

1. Please consider an option of allowing the SW/card to automatically select the proper bit-depth / sampling rate based on what the source material was recorded at. Most of the time I have absolutely no idea what the source was recorded at i.e. for games, so I don’t know what to set the options to in the UI.
2. If the HW design will allow it, I would like for the volume control on the breakout box to control the volume of the speakers when a headphone is not plugged into the box. This would prevent having to ALT-Tab out of a game to adjust the speaker volume.

Thank you for your consideration.

Regards,