"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:30:09 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:11:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
"DJ" wrote in message
It's supposed to upsample CDs to SACD. Has anyone
heard about this player, and better yet, auditioned
or own one?
Reference -
http://www.emmlabs.com/html/audio/cdsa/cdsa.html
The basic premise is ludicrously flawed. No mechanical
or electrical process can accurately recreate music
that isn't already present in the recording.
True, but oversampling does tend to make Redbook CDs
sound better.
....Right up until you level-match, time-synch, use a
really good resampler, and start trying to control bias.
Perhaps its the removal of that brick-wall
filter at 22.05 KHz that makes things sound "better",
Similar means of comparison shows that a brick wall as
low as 16 KHz can be difficult or impossible to hear.
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm
I don't know.
Nobody knows because it never seems to actually happen.
But something sure sounds better.
Interesting that removing trivial audible cues and the
power of suggestion has such predictable effects.
I've
performed double-blind tests with my friends, and
everyone preferred the oversampling on my outboard D/A
converter turned on rather than turned off, could dteect
the difference almost every time and I concur.
Just addressing bias isn't enough. The level-match and
time-synch thing is very important.
I also
find that
44.1KHz digital upsampled to 88.2 KHz sounds better than
upsampling it to 96 KHz, but DAT (48 KHz digital) sounds
better upsampled to 96 KHz than it does upsampled to
88.2 KHz.
If there's an audible effect, then it speaks to the
quality of the resampling. I've definately seen
resampling gone wrong. Resampling down usuallly
involves two stages of low-pass filtering, and that
makes two places where audio products can and have gone
wrong. Upsampling involves at least one stage of
low-pass filtering, and while there's less chance for
error, it doesn't mean no chance for error.
I don't pretend to understand why. It must have
something to do with one upsampled rate being an exact
multiple of the original sampling rate of the disc/DAT
and the other not.
It is well-known that resampling involving integer
multiples or integer fractions has no special magic
involved with it, no matter what naive intuition tells
some people.
Well observed criteria is at odds with your assessment.
You forgot to add that the observations that are at odds are highly flawed.
Like most people, I tend to agree with people I trust and
people who have made the same observations that I have.
I prefer to agree with reliable information. If someone is my friend and
they are wrong, then it would be a friendly thing for me to do, to help them
find the correct information out for themselves.
In these cases, some pretty high-powered players in both
pro and consumer audio seem to agree with my observations
as opposed to your facts.
Hardly anybody buys into the pseudo-science behind those overpriced,
oversold toys. Note that the SACD and DVD-A formats are slowly dying in the
marketplace.
Like I said. I'm not here to
make enemies or to pontificate (unlike some others that I
have noticed). I am here to discuss the things in audio
that interest me.
I prefer to discuss how the real world actually works and debunk, not
promote old wive's stories.