Linux Mint Forums

Hi all. These are my first steps in the world of Linux so try to understand that’s not easy for me to understand everything. My background is with windows... sorry . My Question is: laptop is running Mint 18.3 alone, no dual boot. The laptop has an external HDD with HD music, flac files from 44.1k to 192k. Laptop is connected via USB to an external Dac. Everything work fine with the only exception that the dac play files up to 44.1k: no way the dac plays 96k or other resolution. Try different setup for the audio in settings and did the same on Clementine. Still plays at 44.1k.
Any suggestions????
Thanks for your patience

I suppose we should start from the start: what is the brand and model of your DAC?

Thanks for replay. It's an Audiolab M-DAC+ witch the system actually see and plays trough

What happens if you set the audio output module in Clementine to "USB Audio Codec" with no conversions?

BTW the best way I've found to show the sample rate of what's being played at the moment to enter this intop the terminal while you're playing it:
Resampling is the thing you need to avoid most to get good sound.

I do not want the program resample anything. I want it to play at the right bitrate. I'll try your suggestion but I try all the option and sample rate remain always 44.1K

Have you tried a different media player besides Clemente? There are some really excellent ones to choose from that should provide MUCH better sound than Clemente. I use Audacious because it gives me the sound quality that I need for my uber hi fi.

Great!!!! I used Audacius and I've to say.... stunning. It work perfectly. It switches from 44.1K to 192K. But.... In windows I used Foobar2000. A very simple and powerful program. You can select the music by organize it to be shown per Album, Song writer and folder too. Is there any chance Audacius do things like that?

Rocky Bennett wrote:Have you tried a different media player besides Clemente? There are some really excellent ones to choose from that should provide MUCH better sound than Clemente. I use Audacious because it gives me the sound quality that I need for my uber hi fi.

Absolute nonsense. I use both and they sound identical.

Hoser Rob wrote:

Rocky Bennett wrote:Have you tried a different media player besides Clemente? There are some really excellent ones to choose from that should provide MUCH better sound than Clemente. I use Audacious because it gives me the sound quality that I need for my uber hi fi.

Absolute nonsense. I use both and they sound identical.

I'm sorry, but on my system there has been an important improvement switching from Clementine to Audacious.

Hoser Rob wrote:

Rocky Bennett wrote:Have you tried a different media player besides Clemente? There are some really excellent ones to choose from that should provide MUCH better sound than Clemente. I use Audacious because it gives me the sound quality that I need for my uber hi fi.

Absolute nonsense. I use both and they sound identical.

Actually that makes absolutely no difference to reality. In reality these two apps perform their functions completely differently and sound completely different. I also use foobar2000 in Windows with WASAPI enabled and the sound quality is stunning. Unfortunately there is no direct replacement for that in Linux.

To the OP, I forgot to mention that since I have been using Linux for a few years I have learned a few things regarding hi fi audio playback that might come in handy to you. Right now I am using Kubuntu (a bit of distro hopping) but you can go into your system monitor ( I forget what it is called in Linux Mint) and elevate the priority level of pulse audio to "high priority. This will allow the audio features of the kernel to have a higher priority and use the resources of your computer to be more focused on the audio stream. Try this out and see if it makes a difference.

I will set up my Linux Mint system again soon and play with the audio settings so that I can remember some of the other tricks that I have learned. I will post back.

Rocky

Rocky Bennett wrote:To the OP, I forgot to mention that since I have been using Linux for a few years I have learned a few things regarding hi fi audio playback that might come in handy to you. Right now I am using Kubuntu (a bit of distro hopping) but you can go into your system monitor ( I forget what it is called in Linux Mint) and elevate the priority level of pulse audio to "high priority. This will allow the audio features of the kernel to have a higher priority and use the resources of your computer to be more focused on the audio stream. Try this out and see if it makes a difference.

I will set up my Linux Mint system again soon and play with the audio settings so that I can remember some of the other tricks that I have learned. I will post back.

Rocky

Thanks. I'll try it later. I found an interesting set in Audacious: direct stream to hardware with non software manipulation. It sounds extremely cleaner and louder than with other option.

Rocky Bennett wrote:

Hoser Rob wrote:

Rocky Bennett wrote:Have you tried a different media player besides Clemente? There are some really excellent ones to choose from that should provide MUCH better sound than Clemente. I use Audacious because it gives me the sound quality that I need for my uber hi fi.

Absolute nonsense. I use both and they sound identical.

Actually that makes absolutely no difference to reality. In reality these two apps perform their functions completely differently and sound completely different. I also use foobar2000 in Windows with WASAPI enabled and the sound quality is stunning. Unfortunately there is no direct replacement for that in Linux.

I'm sorry but I've to admit that the sound quality in audacious is better that the one in foobar2000 (wasapi) and the quality of foobar2000 is better that the one in clementine. May be it's due to your hi fi equipment but on my system I can clearly hear the difference.

Here's a post from forum member 111MilesToGo titled Steps towards a near-audiophile, bit-perfect Linux audio setup that might shed some more light on your situation. He had problems down converting for his DragonFly RED DAC, which you won't, but good info on setting up Audacious.

greerd wrote:Here's a post from forum member 111MilesToGo titled Steps towards a near-audiophile, bit-perfect Linux audio setup that might shed some more light on your situation. He had problems down converting for his DragonFly RED DAC, which you won't, but good info on setting up Audacious.

Thanks for that link. Computer audio is a very serious hobby today https://www.computeraudiophile.com/

I started ripping my vinyl and CDs in 2009 and I always say that I am almost finished. It is a fun hobby for everyone in my family, including my children and Grandchildren.

Hoser Rob wrote:Absolute nonsense. I use both and they sound identical.

They probably do. Pretty much all the qualities and differences that hi-fi aficionados think they can hear disappear with blind or ABX listening - its' really pretty funny. Once you get past bargain-basement quality, speakers & headphones are the the only hardware that actually sound different from each other when the listener doesn't know what he's hearing. A $2 DAC can't be distinguished from a $1000 DAC, sampling rates > 32kHz all sound the same, etc.

E.g. https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

This paper presented listeners with a choice between high-rate DVD-A/SACD content, chosen by high-definition audio advocates to show off high-def's superiority, and that same content resampled on the spot down to 16-bit / 44.1kHz Compact Disc rate. The listeners were challenged to identify any difference whatsoever between the two using an ABX methodology. BAS conducted the test using high-end professional equipment in noise-isolated studio listening environments with both amateur and trained professional listeners.

In 554 trials, listeners chose correctly 49.8% of the time. In other words, they were guessing. Not one listener throughout the entire test was able to identify which was 16/44.1 and which was high rate [15], and the 16-bit signal wasn't even dithered!

Flemur wrote:

Hoser Rob wrote:Absolute nonsense. I use both and they sound identical.

They probably do. Pretty much all the qualities and differences that hi-fi aficionados think they can hear disappear with blind or ABX listening - its' really pretty funny. Once you get past bargain-basement quality, speakers & headphones are the the only hardware that actually sound different from each other when the listener doesn't know what he's hearing. A $2 DAC can't be distinguished from a $1000 DAC, sampling rates > 32kHz all sound the same, etc.

E.g. https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

This paper presented listeners with a choice between high-rate DVD-A/SACD content, chosen by high-definition audio advocates to show off high-def's superiority, and that same content resampled on the spot down to 16-bit / 44.1kHz Compact Disc rate. The listeners were challenged to identify any difference whatsoever between the two using an ABX methodology. BAS conducted the test using high-end professional equipment in noise-isolated studio listening environments with both amateur and trained professional listeners.

In 554 trials, listeners chose correctly 49.8% of the time. In other words, they were guessing. Not one listener throughout the entire test was able to identify which was 16/44.1 and which was high rate [15], and the 16-bit signal wasn't even dithered!

May I disagree? When you compare equipment the common "audiophile" sense let you hear the sound while blind. You have to close your eyes and let the brain uses only ears. Your brain can be deceived from what it sees and tends to let you know where the sound come from. While blind you feel the sound and you hear the differences between a 100 or 1000 DAC. You ear a more depth sound stage or the sound that collapse. You see with ears a more wide image or a very close one. The difference between Clementine and Audacious is: while playing a 92K (Diana Krall???) in Clementine the voice is in front of the speaker and the is at the same level; with audacious the voice is behind the speakers and the piano stands at a lower level. You can see the difference... era in this case.

I have to agree about the blind tests. Blind tests are actually the most "telling" of all of the ways to be able to judge musical qualities. If you can not tell the difference between different musical sources while blind, then the whole thing is just not for you. It is just that simple.

Oh yeah, I will take this opportunity to say that the 2009 Beatles remasters suck. They are way too loud, distorted and bassey. If anybody is interested, the 1987 Beatles CDs sound 1,000 times better.

alfa71omega wrote:... I found an interesting set in Audacious: direct stream to hardware with non software manipulation. It sounds extremely cleaner and louder than with other option.

Clementine also does this, as does VLC. It's just dumping the bit stream through ALSA, and Linux is so about bit streams. This is such a no brainer I'd never use a program that didn't do it.