Digital Drive

Upsamplers, DACs, jitter, shakes and analogue withdrawals, this is it.

Return to Digital Drive

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Are increased upsampling rates the answer

73.236.15.243
Posted on April 3, 2020 at 20:53:00
immatthewj
 to "everything that is wrong with digital"?
& the digital source that I am interested in improving are red book CDs.

From the down-loadable owner's manual of Cary Audio's DAC-200ts

https://carydirect.com/shop-now/dac-200ts.html?mc_cid=5a6a387a9f&mc_eid=f96ed445fa

it says:

"TruBit™ UPSAMPLING OPERATIONSAMPLE RATE CONVERTER FUNCTIONTruBit™ Upsampling is a powerful upsampling technology used to upsample lower sample rates to higher sample rate and increases the bit depth to 32 bits in the digital domain via a dedicated 128 bit DSP engine prior to analog conversion. This can be very useful in achieving a more enjoyable listening experience. Once a native input signal is changed to a selected higher sample rate, the bitdepth will also automatically increase to 32 bits. However, like all-powerful tools, this too should be used prudently. We do not take a blanket "higher is better" approach to upsampling. It is important to experiment with different rates depending on your source or source material. Many times a native rate might be preferred whereas some recordings or files formats might benefit from a higher sampling rate, and so on. The available selectable sample rates depend on the input signals original sample rate. For example, above 192 kHz the available rate(s) will only be in multiples of either 44.1 kHz or 48 kHzas follows:Input signal rates of 44.1 or multiples of:BYPASS (44.1) ---> 48 ---> 88.2 ---> 96--> 176.4 ---> 192 ---> 352.8---> 705.6.Input signal rates of 48 or multiples of: BYPASS (44.1) ---> 48 ---> 88.2 ---> 96--> 176.4 ---> 192 ---> 384--->768.Pressingthe "Sample Rate Converter" button on the front panel, or the "SRC" button on the hand held remote will cycle through the available sample rates. •The BYPASSmode will pass the input signal rate out in its native rate without any upsampling.•When an upsample rate is selected, the DAC -200ts will upsample all incoming rates lower than the selected sample rate up to the selected sample rate as well as increase the bit depth to 32 bits. Any signals played that are equal to or higher than the selected sample rate will playback unchanged."

I will be completely honest & tell you that I don't understated this stuff, but will it make my red-book CD library sound better than my Muse Model 2 20 bit 44.1 kHz DAC does?


 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Are increased upsampling rates the answer, posted on April 4, 2020 at 05:23:03
PAR
Audiophile

Posts: 1732
Location: South London, UK
Joined: June 4, 2019
 The essential thing to understand about upsampling (rather than native high resolution) is that there is no more information than with a 16/44.1 file (if that was the original). Further, upsampling can produce unwanted artefacts that, whilst comparatively subtle,once identified can never be easily overlooked (strange effects upon imaging are one typical aberration which I have consistently found results in significant listening fatigue). It can, however, allow the use of gentler digital filters placed further out from the audio band.

As for "upsampling" to 32 bits this is actually only adding digital zeros to the word and is called "padding". Again no additional information is added. However, according to Paul Miller(editor of HiFi News, head honcho at Stereophile etc. and they guy that carries out the HFN tests), sending a digital word to the processor that matches its native processing power can provide improved sonics. However 32 bits is not required for any music reproduction, nor for capturing the sound of Krakatoa exploding or even that of an atomic bomb. It caters for a dynamic range of 1528 dB. Hear that and I guarantee you'll never hear anything like it again ;-).

I can only suggest that you try and and see how it goes for you but don't approach it with the expectation that those big numbers are inevitably going to provide audio Nirvana.

"We need less, but better" - Dieter Rams

 

RE: Are increased upsampling rates the answer, posted on April 4, 2020 at 06:46:26
knewton
Audiophile

Posts: 563
Location: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Joined: May 18, 2010
 Upsampling can be a very confusing subject, with subtle aspects. First, I want to point out that the description of upsampling by Cary is quite confusing. Just look at the following sentence fragment; "Upsampling is a powerful upsampling technology used to upsample.."... Uh, okay. That's not helpful. I don't desire to insult anyone but, that is the sort of wording utilized by those who really don't know what they're talking about.

Fundamentally, there are two classes of upsampling. Synchronous and asynchronous, both of which are in essence, digital reconstruction filters. Synchronous upsampling outputs a sample rate which is some fixed integer multiple of the input rate; i.e. x2, x3, x4, etc. Asynchronous upsampling enables non-integer (arbitrary) ratios between of the input rate and the output rate; i.e. x1.5, x4.1, x12.7, etc. The audio industry generally refers to asynchronous upsampling, when they say, upsampling. Remeber, upsampling is essentially digital reconstruction filtering.

Just as digital reconstruction filters (synchronous upsampling) typically within most CD players and DACs don't add any information, neither does aynchronous upsampling. The fundamental purpose of any digital reconstruction filter is to 'ease' the filtering performance demands placed on the analog reconstruction filter which follows it. Digital filtering/upsampling does not recover or add any new information. Increasing an digital filter's bit depth only lowers it's mathematical noise (computational errors).

The key question is, of course, what's the subjective affect on the sonics? There is no hard answer to that question which reliably applies to the ears of all listeners. Some listeners like the sound of asynchronous upsampling, for example, some do not. Some don't like the sound of digital reconstruction filters of any kind, preferring DACs that have no such filter at all. I suspect that the reason here has to do with how a particular digital filter is designed and implemented. Typical chip based digital reconstruction filter's produce undesired processing artifacts.


_
Ken Newton

 

In a word: no, posted on April 4, 2020 at 08:10:41
garymuffley
Dealer

Posts: 445
Location: Maryland
Joined: March 29, 2006
 As PAR points out, no additional musical information results. It enables a gentler digital filter to be used. The better course, IMHO, is to avoid upsampling, overdampling and filters completely.

 

RE: Are increased upsampling rates the answer, posted on April 4, 2020 at 09:15:58
Kal Rubinson
Reviewer

Posts: 12436
Location: New York
Joined: June 5, 2002
 For example, above 192 kHz the available rate(s) will only be in multiples of either 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz as follows:

Input signal rates of 44.1 or multiples of:BYPASS (44.1) ---> 48 ---> 88.2 ---> 96--> 176.4 ---> 192 ---> 352.8---> 705.6.

Input signal rates of 48 or multiples of: BYPASS (44.1) ---> 48 ---> 88.2 ---> 96--> 176.4 ---> 192 ---> 384--->768.

There are a couple of incorrect entries in these two lists. IMHO, it doesn't matter anyway.

 

I enjoy 16/44 more when it's up-sampled to DSD64..., posted on April 4, 2020 at 10:52:14
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23904
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since: January 29, 2004
 I think up-sampling PCM to DSD takes the digital edge off some of my music files. My FiiO M11 Pro and also my FiiO M15 both have the capability to up-sample PCM to DSD before converting to analog and it seems to improve the sound quality on many of my CD rips. Anyway, it's an available setting on both of my FiiO digital players so I use it and I really like the sound of these little DSD players.

On the other hand, I believe the best sound quality is achieved from DSD128 and DSD256. I have about 75 albums in each of these formats and I think they sound better than anything I have in hi-rez PCM.

Good luck,
John Elison

 

Maybe it's that noise layer in the DSD high frequencies that you really like? ;-), posted on April 4, 2020 at 14:40:38
Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26487
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
  Since: February 6, 2012
 I do agree with you that DSD 256 can sound pretty decent, although 24/96 PCM can easily sound every bit (sorry!) as good IMHO. A specific instance might be the Fischer/BFO recording of the Maher Seventh, which sounds outstanding as a DSF256 MCh download. But to me, the Jansons/Concertgebouw recording of the same work sounds even better in DXD (i.e., 24/352.8) - it's very likely that a significant part of my preference for the latter stems from the acoustic itself, rather than from the methodology by which it was recorded. And, to get back to 24/96 for a minute, I'm not the only one who prefers the engineering of the Jarvi/RSNO recording of Strauss's Josephslegende (24/96) on Chandos to that on the Fischer/BFO DSD recording of the same work on Channel Classics, as fine as Jared's engineering typically is on that one. Once again, the acoustic of the recording environment itself is usually a far bigger factor in the ultimate quality of the sound than whether it was recorded in PCM or DSD.

As a user of HQ Player, I have the means to convert (not upsample - please!) any recording I play to DSD256. I don't use this capability, because, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't improve anything.

 

RE: I enjoy 16/44 more when it's up-sampled to DSD64..., posted on April 4, 2020 at 16:48:47
Dawnrazor
Audiophile

Posts: 12592
Location: N. California
Joined: April 9, 2004
 I only have music that will ever be in 16/44. My dac does convert to DSD if I want it too and I tend to agree with you that it does sound less edgy.

Though get your salt out because turning on the conversion to DSD drops the volume 10db so its impossible to do a proper AB. I just let it do its thing.

There are also different filters (slow and fast) and and IFL filter that starts at 50k and goes up to 70k. I can't hear any difference on any of the settings so I leave it off.

Cut to razor sounding violins

 

RE: I enjoy 16/44 more when it's up-sampled to DSD64..., posted on April 4, 2020 at 17:02:37
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23904
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since: January 29, 2004
 I can't seem to hear the difference between the different filters, either. However, I've heard that a slow roll-off is better than a brick wall filter so I set mine to a slow roll-off.

Best regards,
John Elison

 

RE: Are increased upsampling rates the answer, posted on April 4, 2020 at 17:14:31
immatthewj
 My enthusiasm has been dampened (which is usually a good thing) & I remain confused (which is usually a standard thing) & as always, I still have many more questions.

But to cut to the chase (to quote Judge Ito) if 44.1 is the limiting factor to the red-book format, are there no answers except to step (up?) from red-book to a different format?

 

RE: In a word: no, posted on April 4, 2020 at 17:17:56
immatthewj
 "As PAR points out, no additional musical information results. It enables a gentler digital filter to be used. The better course, IMHO, is to avoid upsampling, overdampling and filters completely."

If I am correctly interpreting what you have typed, the best play back for a red-book CD is 16/44.1? Do you have any recommendations?

 

RE: I enjoy 16/44 more when it's up-sampled to DSD64..., posted on April 4, 2020 at 17:37:18
immatthewj
 I went to your profile to find out what your red-book front end was
"Lynx L2B soundcard (Dynamatted)"
& I did a few searches.
Technology passed me by a while ago.

 

RE: I enjoy 16/44 more when it's up-sampled to DSD64..., posted on April 4, 2020 at 18:56:49
Dawnrazor
Audiophile

Posts: 12592
Location: N. California
Joined: April 9, 2004
 Ah. That was a long time ago.

Its different these days.

Its a computer running Hysolid as the player. That outputs to an asio driver which talks to an Audinate AVIO AES adaptor. Basically ethernet in and AES digital out. Which goes to an Apogee Big Ben. Then to the dac which is an April Music Stello DA-200MKII


ethernet to AES/EBU: https://www.amazon.com/Audinate-ADP-AES3-AU-2X2-Dante-AVIO-Adapter/dp/B07G5M2QP5/ref=sr_1_5?crid=1BJASGKSECTXS&dchild=1&keywords=audinate+dante+avio&qid=1586051629&sprefix=audinate+%2Caps%2C181&sr=8-5

AES/EBU to Reclocker: https://apogeedigital.com/shop/big-ben-refurbished

Dac: https://www.amazon.com/April-Music-Stello-DA100-MKII/dp/B00X8FWPM0/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?dchild=1&keywords=April+Music+Stello&qid=1586051807&sr=8-1-fkmr0

Cut to razor sounding violins

 

RE: Are increased upsampling rates the answer, posted on April 4, 2020 at 20:13:48
Dawnrazor
Audiophile

Posts: 12592
Location: N. California
Joined: April 9, 2004
 I think you got it mostly.

FWIW the odds of having ALL your collection in some other highres format is pretty slim. If not impossible.

So I think its a good strategy to have a system to sounds great on 44.1 and go from there for other formats. Unless you have some crazy collection of mostly HiRes.

Cut to razor sounding violins

 

RE: Are increased upsampling rates the answer, posted on April 4, 2020 at 21:48:06
zacster
Audiophile

Posts: 2180
Location: NYC
Joined: November 22, 2003
 No, I think it is correct. The upsampling can occur from 44.1 to 48 or 96, or from 48 to 88,2 even if that requires a lot more processing and makes little sense. At the higher upsampled rates it only allows power of 2.

I've turned on upsampling in Audirvana for 44.1 to 176.4 and 48 to 192, but that is all. All other rates are native. It may sound a tad better but I doubt I could tell the difference in a test. I've also tried conversion to DSD64, 128 and 256. It sounded smoother, but then I also found that my RPi/DAC converts it back to PCM, so I don't know what I got there.

If you are streaming from a computer it is easy enough to just try it and see if you like it.

 

RE: Are increased upsampling rates the answer, posted on April 4, 2020 at 21:51:16
immatthewj
 No, I just play red-book CDs from a transport/DAC combination.

 

RE: Are increased upsampling rates the answer, posted on April 4, 2020 at 21:56:40
zacster
Audiophile

Posts: 2180
Location: NYC
Joined: November 22, 2003
 I've been creating playlists on Qobuz from the top 1043 rock songs of all time on Q104.3 FM, and it is surprising how high a percentage is in hi-res, I'd say over 50%, maybe 60. Some artists don't have any, Pink Floyd comes to mind even though I know there is an SACD of DSOTM. A few other bands aren't in hi-res, but a lot of them are. The Beatles later works are in hi-res, some of the Stones, the Who, Zep, Queen, The Eagles. If you are into obscure Rock, Jazz or Classical you may be out of luck, but there is so much OTHER obscure Rock, jazz and classical that is in hi-res. Once I was on Qobuz I stopped listening to my own music, either I wanted something I didn't know or have, or it was available in hi-res.

 

RE: Are increased upsampling rates the answer, posted on April 5, 2020 at 03:38:48
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 Oversampling/upsampling serves only one useful purpose..... Digital *filtering*..... It provides the means to apply "softer" analog post filtering, so the maximum bandwidth possible for a given sample rate can still be achieved.

As far as I'm concerned, 4 times oversampling should be sufficient for Redbook CD playback. I do believe excessive use of digital filtering increases radio-frequency interference (RFI) in the playback, since more "transistor switching" is taking place for a given period of time. (I think RFI is the component of digital audio playback that causes "listener fatigue".)

(I also believe for native sample rates of at least 88.2 kHz, there should not be any upsampling/oversampling/digital filtering applied..... Because there is enough bandwidth to use just analog filtering.)

The only real variants to oversampling is how the digtial filtering is applied.... Some prefer linear phase (equal pre ringing and post ringing), some prefer minimum phase (more post ringing than pre ringing), some (like myself) prefer time-resolute filtering (less ringing than filtering that attains flat response all the way up to almost half the sample rate frequency), yet others prefer no oversampling at all (introduces no ringing digitally, but should have a strong analog post filter).... This is the main aspect of what makes different forms of oversampling/upsampling sound different.....

The key to oversampling/upsampling is that it's done synchronously...... So that there is no jitter-correlated noise introduced into the signal. Note that DSD-based upsampling, using the ratio of 640/147 upsampling, downsampling, can achieve a 16/44.1 to 24/192 kHz conversion synchronously. The thing to avoid is any design that uses variable-rate sample rate converters (SRC chips), which is the type of upsampling that introduces jitter-correlated noise.

 

Agree, posted on April 5, 2020 at 06:40:45
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37673
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 If something additive downstream *improves* the original, it is necessarily making a change.

You cannot fix what what was never captured.

 

RE: Are increased upsampling rates the answer, posted on April 5, 2020 at 09:02:36
knewton
Audiophile

Posts: 563
Location: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Joined: May 18, 2010
 "...But to cut to the chase (to quote Judge Ito) if 44.1 is the limiting factor to the red-book format, are there no answers except to step (up?) from red-book to a different format?..."

Ahh, but the answers to what, exactly? The notion that an sample rate and/or sample size greater than RBCD is what's needed presumes that subjective dissatisfaction with the sonics of RBCD are due to it's sample rate and size. Except, is that a valid presumption? Think about this, should even a single playback experience of satisfying RBCD demonstrates that the fundamentals of CD aren't the problem. What instead becomes revealed is that certain (very common) implementations of RBCD are the problem.

Where does that leave you, at the same place, unfortunately, that it always seems to leave those seeking musical satisfaction from their audio system above all else. Engaging in a cumbersome process of trial and error auditioning to evaluate sonic quality.



_
Ken Newton

 

RE: In a word: no, posted on April 5, 2020 at 17:38:03
garymuffley
Dealer

Posts: 445
Location: Maryland
Joined: March 29, 2006
 I have chased several methods of digital replay over the years and concluded that native 16/44 is preferable.

I use Audio Note dacs, which basically espoused 16/44 with no upsampling/no oversampling/no filters long before other manufacturers joined in. In addition to AN, Schitt, Metrum, Border Patrol, Totaldac, HoloAudio and Denifrips are among a growing list of manufacturers that offer native playback options.

The other responses to your post indicate there is no consensus on which path of digital replay is the holy grail.

 

RE: Are increased upsampling rates the answer, posted on April 5, 2020 at 21:12:08
immatthewj
 "What instead becomes revealed is that certain (very common) implementations of RBCD are the problem."

Can you expound on what you mean?

 

RE: Are increased upsampling rates the answer, posted on April 6, 2020 at 02:16:36
flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011
 The short answer is not necessarily. It is all in the implementation.

TL:DR You want a high sample rate at an integer multiple of the base rate and you want a reconstruction filter with a suitable number of taps. Some people believe that a minimum phase filter characteristic (no pre-ringing but variable group delay) sounds more natural than a linear phase characteristic (pre-ringing, consistent group delay and a shorter ringing duration post-impulse response).


Oversampling (integer multiple of Fs) was introduced in the very first Philips 14bit CD players as a convenient way to get a SNR closer to 16 bit without actually having to have a 16 bit DAC which initially were very poor in achieving good linearity due to the challenges in laser trimming the resistors down to the LSB.
Upsampling is the same thing but not an integer multiple of Fs. True upsampling is to convert to analogue and then resample at the new Fs. However, most SRC chips take a short cut and use lookup tables and linear interpolation to calculate the new samples so the SRC actually introduces errors in the waveform compared to the original (for the same bandwidth since upsampling cannot add information which doesn't exist). Any jitter will cause further errors in the output signal although SRC chips are sometimes used as a cheat to de-correlate jitter from the input to the output.
Software SRC solutions like the Anagram Technologies Q5 upsampling as used by Cambridge Audio amongst others uses polynomial curve fitting which results in a much better approximation of the original waveform at the new sample rate so upsampling is not necessarily "bad".

Various theories about impulse response and ringing duration have been proposed as the reason why higher sample rates sound better. This is true. However, what matters far more is the reconstruction filter characteristic, the number of taps used in the filter and low jitter in the master clock.

Check out Chord's Hugo TT2 and M-scalar if you want the ultimate in Redbook playback. TT2 enables up to 705.6kHz upsampling from the M-scalar.
Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

 

RE: Chord Hugo M Scaler, posted on April 6, 2020 at 05:42:08
tketcham
Audiophile

Posts: 6701
Location: East of the 100th meridian USofA
Joined: March 21, 2005
Contributor
  Since: October 1, 2005
 I read John Atkinson's review of the Chord Hugo M Scaler with interest since he thought it improved the sound of DACs other than Chord's own DAC lineup. That makes the M Scaler a fairly versatile device. But the price is still a bit steep for a DAC reconstruction filter.

Tom

 

RE: Are increased upsampling rates the answer, posted on April 6, 2020 at 06:26:53
knewton
Audiophile

Posts: 563
Location: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Joined: May 18, 2010
 The linked AES paper written by the late Julian Dunn discusses what the implementation issues are, and far more authoritatively than I could. While published way back in 1998, some of the identified issues remain a common problem. Such as the still prevalent utilization of Half-band digital reconstruction filters, which, famously, permit a certain amount of aliasing. In other words, such filters don't fully adhere to the Nyquist band-limiting criteria. Such as the equally common equiripple digital filter implementations, which Lagadec showed indicates time-domain echoes occuring within such digital filters. Dunn's paper discusses how higher-than-CD sample rates can mitigate those issues. Not because higher rates are theoretically superior for music, they're not, but because it provides greater margin of error for these less than theoretically correct filter implementations which are so common.

http://www.nanophon.com/audio/antialia.pdf
_
Ken Newton

 

RE: Are increased upsampling rates the answer, posted on April 6, 2020 at 09:01:00
Dawnrazor
Audiophile

Posts: 12592
Location: N. California
Joined: April 9, 2004
 You are lucky. Nothing I really like will be in hires. Ever. Ever.

Its like those audiophiles who listen to Diana Krall because it sounds sooo good on their system. And they hate Diana Krall.

I think I looked at Qboz or Tidal and while being surprised at what they had, it was all 44.1 for what I liked. And well those things really wouldn't work for me. Its a long story but i don't thing they even have asio drivers right?

Cut to razor sounding violins

 

What was the question?, posted on April 6, 2020 at 13:55:03
jusbe
Audiophile

Posts: 5950
Location: North Island
Joined: April 4, 2000
 Can we throw numbers at digital audio and expect more music? Maybe. How can we bog down legions of audiophiles in a huge morass of mental masturbation and bleed them dry in the process? I guess you can ascertain my feelings on it all. How much progress are we really seeing, and if there is some, why is it accessible to so few?

More often than not, it seems to be a matter of preference these days, as there is satisfaction to be had at all levels of computation. I've listened to a number of DACs which offer DSD and some are great, silky even. I even owned a SCD-1 back in the day, to spend time with SACD.

We can be glad to see experimentation but I follow the music (published content). Most of the DSD warfare is a tremendous turn-off for me. My preference still lies with 16bit/44.1kHz PCM and multibit converters, even if my DAC has the ability to upsample in order to use kinder filtering (Lite Audio DAC 83, 4x 1704K). I've settled on that for now, and dedicate myself to digging out great music and buying discs I missed the first time around. I won't live forever and I'm more of a music-lover and less of a hobbyist, playing with audio IT. I'm not alone.



Big J

"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."


 

No, posted on April 6, 2020 at 13:55:17
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46307
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 The quality of the DAC and it's analog output stage will have a more significant impact on overall CD sound quality than any upsampling will ever achieve.

You HAVE TO audition and not rely on the marketing hype. The whole upsampling of CDs had a big marketing blitz behind it a couple decades ago. There are good and not so good sounding CD players regardless of whether they implement whiz-bang upsampling - or not.



 

RE: Chord Hugo M Scaler, posted on April 6, 2020 at 16:49:04
flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011
 I agree. However, audiophiles are generally suckers for anything that is perceived to improve SQ so I don't blame Chord for trying to extract as much cash out of the curious as possible - they are clearly trying to do an Apple and tie you in to their system if you want to take full advantage of the x16 capability.
Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

 

Excellent Post!, posted on April 7, 2020 at 01:46:47
Mike C
Audiophile

Posts: 1074
Location: Essex
Joined: November 23, 2000
 Very clear and a fine unbiased conclusion.
I'd just add that synchronous upsampling is ofen called oversampling, and of course it retains the original data points.

 

RE: Excellent Post!, posted on April 7, 2020 at 04:56:22
knewton
Audiophile

Posts: 563
Location: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Joined: May 18, 2010
 Thanks, Mike. Yes, that's true about usage of the term oversampling within the audio industry. My view is that 'oversampling' is a term that makes more sense in regards to the sampling of the original analog signal, while 'upsampling' makes more sense in regards to imcreasing the sample rate (via interpolation) of an already sampled digital signal. In this view, upsampling is more correctly termed, 're-sampling'.
_
Ken Newton

 

RE: Are increased upsampling rates the answer, posted on April 8, 2020 at 11:47:27
zacster
Audiophile

Posts: 2180
Location: NYC
Joined: November 22, 2003
 Don't you ever want new music? So many of the new releases in all genres are in hi-res. I just don't buy the argument that nothing you like will ever be in hi-res. That's just short sighted.

My family complains that I listen to all kinds of weird music, but what I'm doing is sampling all the new releases starting every Friday. Each week there is at least one new artist/album that catches my ear, and inevitably it is in hi-res. And obviously even though I used the classic rock example in my post above it ain't gonna be classic rock if it's new. Jazz, classical, rock, folk, vocal, instrumental, whatever.

Yea, I always played Diana Krall because they sound good, not because I like her. I don't hate her, it's just that all her records sound the same with recycled standards. I remember being in Virgin Records (remember them?) and hearing her the first time. Sounded good but so what. She has something like 15 albums in the top 50 on Qobuz jazz. Go figure.

 

RE: Are increased upsampling rates the answer, posted on April 8, 2020 at 14:58:51
Dawnrazor
Audiophile

Posts: 12592
Location: N. California
Joined: April 9, 2004
 Weird is relative. All the bands I like seem to be over and haven't released anything in years. Or they are around in some form but suck now.

I spent some time looking for new music on band camp and didn't see anything I liked and or was in high res.

At HD Tracks, here are some searches with the results:

Lebanon Hanover- nothing
Ayria- nothing
iScintilla- one album at 24/44.1
The Birthday Massacre- nothing
Fields of the Nephilim- nothing
collide- nothing
This Ascension- nothing
Chiasm-nothing
The Cure- 3 titles. 24/48 was the highest res
The Sisters of Mercy- they had several titles some with 24/192. But all that stuff was recorded 30 plus years ago. How is it not just 44.1 upsampled?

If HD tracks is a bust its unlikely I will find much if anything.

Its not my fault all the good music has been made and I have very narrow tastes. The modern stuff is pretty bad. I do occasionally find some stuff and recently bought about 5-6 cds. Its probably like 5-6 every couple of years unless I stumble upon something special. But even then I can listen to the same stuff for a long time. So while I bought 5-6 cds, I basically only listened to the 2 Ayria ones. Have 3 I think I haven't listened to.

And all in 16/44

And its not my fault bands seem to be able to only last for 2-3 albums before breaking up and making crap.

Even the ones that are still going like Tool are just wrong these days...



Cut to razor sounding violins

 

RE: Are increased upsampling rates the answer, posted on April 9, 2020 at 03:42:16
flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011
 Hi Pete,
I think you meant 192dB SNR (32bits * 6dB per bit)
Human hearing has a dynamic range of about 20bit to 21 bit (or about 126dB) so a 24 bit recording with a typical consumer grade DAC which typically achieves 21 bit resolution is absolutely sufficient.

Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

 

RE: Are increased upsampling rates the answer, posted on April 9, 2020 at 04:10:39
PAR
Audiophile

Posts: 1732
Location: South London, UK
Joined: June 4, 2019
 Thanks Anthony. Actually I didn't do the maths myself but just quoted from the piece linked below.

I very much agree with your point about excessive word length for audio purposes. Many years ago I was at Decca Recording Services in West Hampstead, London and was shown a production area where they were building custom ADCs to be used with their modified JVC video recorders which they used for audio recording in preference to the Sony PCM machines then predominant in studios elsewhere. They were building 20 bit processors which lies close to your figure.

Best Wishes

Pete
"We need less, but better" - Dieter Rams

 

Amen, posted on April 10, 2020 at 09:21:34
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 15703
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
 Another Amen.

 

You are definitely not alone !!!, posted on April 14, 2020 at 07:24:11
Mike C
Audiophile

Posts: 1074
Location: Essex
Joined: November 23, 2000
 I have tried several CD players (mostly delta/sigma), a good SACD player with valve output stage, and high res downloads into a Luxman DAC with usb input.

I am so fortunate now to have sound that I absolutely love to bits; far better than any of the above. It is from an ANK DAC 4.1x dac; non oversampling, multibit dac, valve output stage. Source is CD using an excellent Pro-ject RS2-T transport.
Words almost fail me as to how good this setup sounds; it is smooth and sweet but not by rolling off the top end or flattening dynamics; details, resolution, dynamics are all there. And with fine tonality and subtleties in addition, I thoroughly enjoy the music.

So for me, with some (but not complete) experience, like you I've settled on CD for now and I don't think higher bit rates are my answer.
I'm also busy getting hold of great music.

I don't think we are both alone!

 

RE: You are definitely not alone !!!, posted on April 23, 2020 at 13:47:29
immatthewj
 Thanks for your reply, Mike. COVID19 changed a few of my plans (but not permanently, I am sure) so I am still window shopping.

 

RE: Are increased upsampling rates the answer, posted on May 1, 2020 at 06:57:36
digepix
 I don't think hi resolution sounds better than analog maybe different. I don't spend a lot of money on digital but my Scott Nixon NOS dac from 2006 is all I need and it's 16/44.1

 

RE: Are increased upsampling rates the answer, posted on May 10, 2020 at 08:39:01
digepix
 I forgot to mention when I stopped listening to equipment and started listening to music I realized the newer equipment wouldn't allow me to do that. It seems like upsampling just gives you a way to fix things and if you don't break things you don't have to fix it. The best digital I've heard is from Audio Note and they follow that philosophy and one day I'll get one of their cheap dacs until then I'll stick with my Scott Nixon dac.

 

Page processed in 0.041 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]