|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
118.148.217.249
In Reply to: RE: "Pinging" fmak ; What are you using to upsample your CDs posted by Old SteveA on September 01, 2014 at 07:53:59
Just to get back to the original intent behind your question... I believe there are a couple of considerations to be taken into account when deciding to upsample at the raw data level (i.e create a new wav file or equivalent at the desired bit depth and sample rate).
The first of these is to consider the replay components and whether additional upsampling is going to be performed ON TOP of what you have already done in software. The second is the interface quality to an external DAC.
Many DACs that use off the shelf SRC chips are actually relying on the SRC stage to achieve their claimed jitter figures. In other words, if you asynchronously upsample in software such that the SRC in the DAC is effectively "oversampling" then you lose this benefit. You will then be more affected by interface jitter.
For me personally, jitter is the biggest contributor to a disappointing digital experience and I reclock the data prior to feeding the DAC. Software upsampling so that the transmitted data is at 96kHz or higher puts huge demands on the interface receiver design and I recommend considering something like an Apogee Big Ben or Grimm CC1 (both of which I have) to perform the reclocking task and ideally use AES/EBU connections rather than optical or RCA if at all possible. The Grimm CC1 is much more expensive but really is a reference grade product. The Big Ben represents the biggest bang for buck and is a very versatile "hub" allowing cross conversion between optical, AES and SPDIF whilst providing a much cleaner data stream.
My musical preference is classical and jazz so I share a similar preference for realism. However, having done my own recordings, I realised that basing realism on commercial recordings is like tilting at windmills - unless you were present at the recording/mastering sessions, one can only GUESS what the engineer intends you to be hearing.
From my recordings (done at 24/88.2), a properly dithered/noise shaped 16/44 version is VERY close to the original when listened to on my reference system and just as "smooth". There are subtle changes to soundstage depth and height. However, the lower bit rate and sample rate does not translate to poor timbral accuracy for me at all nor is there an obvious loss of detail.
I hope this helps a bit.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Follow Ups:
First,let me thank anyone who took the time to describe their methods / preferences
of upsampling CD files. I'm not really sure what is being done when I use the "Convert
Format" function within JRMC, as I'm not really choosing any settings other than the bit/filtrate.& I've been very pleased with the results. No that's not true, in most instances
the results are exceptional in terms of "opening" the amount of dynamic contrast that really was not evident at the 16bit/44.1khz level.
it appears that many more of my CDs were better "recordings" than my impression of
them was. (& I've always been pretty "Label" conscious over who I felt displayed consistently strong recording technique). So far I've only had a few CDs from the Dutton Epoch label that have'nt responded as well as I'd have liked. These recordings while finely
detailed have a bit too much of a hard edge to their treble that remains a bit fatiguing.
At the end of the day, I think one has to accept (with commercial recordings) that what is the "technically correct" approach to the D/A process is not necessarily the same as the "subjectively preferable". For me personally as an engineer, I demand technical perfection, in so far as that is possible with what I can afford, at which point I can then point to the recording as being the reason for a sound that isn't quite "right".
I feel there is a disparity between true realism and many commercial recordings - which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the deficiency of the medium so much as the fact that you are at the mercy of the recording engineer/producer who ultimately defines how the final product is presented.
I find orchestral recordings are quite different in soundstaging and tonal balance compared to sitting in the audience - maybe the audiophile labels could master the sound according to "the best seat in the house" equivalent :) The sound in commercial recordings often has very exaggerated detail which you wouldn't otherwise hear in the audience given the mic placements (for example clicking finger nails on piano keys!). So the question now becomes, "what is realism?".
I know that my DAC is acceptably transparent as my recordings via the ADC/DAC chain is as close to the source such that I can't tell they are in the chain. Therefore, I now know when I have a technically "perfect" reproduction of a "bad" recording in which the balance between the performers is completely wrong (for example a soloist who is dwarfed by an over bloated piano accompaniment which occupies an unrealistic width in the soundstage - I have a few recordings like that!) I dislike the "bright" tonal balance on Virgin Classic recordings. I find the EMC recordings clinically cold....
Having not used JRMC, I can't comment on the technical merits of the SRC, but at the end of the day, if the results are better to you, then that is what matters.
With respect to the benefits of upsampling in my reference system, I have to say that the benefits of a properly implemented approach (to me) are very subtle. With the cheap "toy" reclockers like the original Monarchy or Perpetual Technologies P-1 upsamplers and the like that do upsampling via an SRC like the CS8420, I found that the SRC IC plus the effects of induced jitter on the output data stream DID have a profound effect by adding a rich bloom to the sound that was very enticing at the time, but I soon realised was the effect of jitter when I bought the Apogee Big Ben.
I guess what I'm saying in a round about way is that, in my experience, there isn't a "night and day" type of difference when all of the technical aspects of the process are close to optimum - nor should one really expect one to exist given that you can't create information from nothing! If there is, then something else (such as jitter or the digital filter/SRC algorithm) is probably affecting the result.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: