Upsampling?

[Barend]

Now For Something Not Religious!

Whaddayou think?
Upsampling in CD Players- good or nonsense?
Barend

[Arny Krueger]

"Barend" > wrote in message
l
> Now For Something Not Religious!
>
> Whaddayou think?
> Upsampling in CD Players- good or nonsense?

Depends what you mean. Just about every modern digital<->analog converter is
based on oversampling. Here, oversampling allows the use of digital filters
instead of expensive, poorer-performing analog filters.

Partially because upsampling is so pervasive, oversampling has nothing to
do. There's only so much music in a recording with a given sample rate, so
slicing and dicing the samples you got to increase quantity can't do
anything for quality.

[Arny Krueger]

"Barend" > wrote in message
l
> Now For Something Not Religious!
>
> Whaddayou think?
> Upsampling in CD Players- good or nonsense?


Depends what you mean. Just about every modern digital<->analog converter is
based on oversampling. Here, oversampling allows the use of digital filters
instead of expensive, poorer-performing analog filters.

Partially because upsampling is so pervasive, oversampling has nothing to
do. There's only so much music in a recording with a given sample rate, so
slicing and dicing the samples you got to increase quantity can't do
anything for quality.

[[email protected]]

Of course it increases the quality. You just said that over-sampling
allows the use of digital filters instead of the poorer performing
analog filters. So the resulting analog output quality is better.

CD

[Arny Krueger]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message


correction:

(thanks to "codifus")

> Partially because oversampling is so pervasive,
> upsampling has nothing to do. There's only so much
> music in a recording with a given sample rate, so slicing
> and dicing the samples you got to increase quantity can't
> do anything for quality.

[[email protected]]

Barend wrote:
> Now For Something Not Religious!
>
> Whaddayou think?
> Upsampling in CD Players- good or nonsense?
> Barend

Forgive Arny for being ignorant about upsamplers. He's an old fart
and still listens to his Sony CDP101, one of the first CD players ever
marketed. It sounds great to his tired old ears. I know very well what
you're talking about, 16 to 24 bit upsampling. It's hardly
nonsense. One of my cd players is a Shanling, which has a switch on the
remote to switch between 16 and 24 bit sampling. Most cases, the 24 bit
rendition beats the pants off the 16, but there are some Cds where in
some aspects, the 16 bit rendition is superior, at least to my liking.
If you have a DVD burner, you can get an idea by simply burning 16 bit
mp3's at 96k 24bit resolution. You will hear much more information
than the equivalent tracks on a CD. This is a total no-brainer, non
audiophiles and small children and even pet monkeys can hear the
differences between the CD and DVD copies.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Barend wrote:
>> Now For Something Not Religious!
>>
>> Whaddayou think?
>> Upsampling in CD Players- good or nonsense?
>> Barend
>
> Forgive Arny for being ignorant about upsamplers. He's an
> old fart and still listens to his Sony CDP101, one of the first CD
> players ever marketed.

I've been known to do that.

> It sounds great to his tired old ears.

Actually, the CDP 101 has been sounding just like much more modern CD
players to a lot of people.

>I know very well what you're talking about, 16 to
> 24 bit upsampling.

That is not upsampling, since the numbers of samples in equals the number of
samples out.

> It's hardly nonsense. One of my cd players is a Shanling, which has a
> switch on the remote to switch between 16 and 24 bit
> sampling. Most cases, the 24 bit rendition beats the
> pants off the 16, but there are some Cds where in some
> aspects, the 16 bit rendition is superior, at least to my
> liking.

Ah, the magic of sighted evaluations!

> If you have a DVD burner, you can get an idea by
> simply burning 16 bit mp3's at 96k 24bit resolution. You
> will hear much more information than the equivalent
> tracks on a CD.

This makes no sense at all, since MP3s are burned as data, not music.

> This is a total no-brainer, non
> audiophiles and small children and even pet monkeys can
> hear the differences between the CD and DVD copies.

Speaking of pet monkeys...

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> > wrote in message
>
> Actually, the CDP 101 has been sounding just like much more modern CD
> players to a lot of people.
>

Are you saying it improved with age?!!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[[email protected]]

" If you have a DVD burner, you can get an idea by simply burning 16
bit
mp3's at 96k 24bit resolution."

Now that what I call magic, lol!

CD

[soundhaspriority]

"Barend" > wrote in message
l...
> Now For Something Not Religious!
>
> Whaddayou think?
> Upsampling in CD Players- good or nonsense?
> Barend

It has been used for years; it is standard practice.
"Oversampling" and "upsampling" are mathematically the same thing, with
differences in the actual hardware.

For quite some years, a "digital filter" has been interposed between the PCM
stream and the actual D/A converter. The converter implements what is called
an "interpolation algorithm", converting the 16 bit PCM output to a stream
of higher bitrate and finer resolution, ie., 16/44 to 20/364. This adds no
information whatsoever. It does simply the design and reduce the effect of
the final stage of DAC output, the so-called "analog reconstruction filter."
These filters are analog, and therefore causal. Causal filters have phase
shift. Quite afew designers believe it is the phase shift of such a filter
that is responsible for much of the variation in sound between DACs. But
oversampling makes it possible to push the cutoff frequency of the analog
reconstruction filter far from the audio passband.

One "authority" decided to define "upsampling", as opposed to
"oversampling", as the case where the digital filter was more elaborate
and/or in a separate package from the DAC chip. This discrimination is
broken by a number of early examples with separate digital filters.

For whatever reason, there are a number of so-called upsampling DACs that,
at the least, provide very good sound. In some high end cases, the digital
filter may be elaborate, incorporating proprietary algorithms and even
lookup tables, in an attempt to fake a higher resolution source.
Subjectively, these efforts can be successful. Less expensive upsampling
DACs simply incorporate very good 96 or 192kbs D/A converters in conjunction
with a separately packaged sample rate converter. Converting from 44 to a
sampling rate that is not a multiple has the potential to introduce
artifacts. Nevertheless, many people like the sound of these units as well.

I have a Musical Fidelity A324 which is an example of an elaborate high end
DAC, a Perpetual Technologies P3a exemplifying the simple approach, and a
Sony EP9ES, which implements the DAC of the Sony XA7ES, a Stereophile Class
A CD player. The Sony is most neutral; the A324 "clarifies" older
recordings, while the P3a is revealing and lively. A switchable collection
of DACs can be a highly effective tweak for any audio system.

SHP

[soundhaspriority]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> " If you have a DVD burner, you can get an idea by simply burning 16
>> bit
>> mp3's at 96k 24bit resolution."
>
>> Now that what I call magic, lol!
>
> Well, it will certainly give someone an idea...
> for many here, the wrong one, probably. E.g.,
>
> "I tried it, my free mp3s now sound like $25 DVD-As, bro!"
>
It is very incorrect, but that's the kind of thing my evil twin promotes.

SHP (good twin)

[soundhaspriority]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Of course it increases the quality. You just said that over-sampling
> allows the use of digital filters instead of the poorer performing
> analog filters. So the resulting analog output quality is better.
>
> CD
>
Just to be precise, there is always an analog filter at the output stage,
except for some very tweaky players that risk overloading the amp with
ultrasonic signal. But the higher the resampled frequency, the less
obtrusive the analog filter has to be.

SHP (good twin)

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:

> Barend wrote:
> > Now For Something Not Religious!
> >
> > Whaddayou think?
> > Upsampling in CD Players- good or nonsense?
> > Barend

> Forgive Arny for being ignorant about upsamplers. He's an old fart
> and still listens to his Sony CDP101, one of the first CD players ever
> marketed. It sounds great to his tired old ears. I know very well what
> you're talking about, 16 to 24 bit upsampling.

er...*sampling* has to do with frequencies, not bits. 16bit-->24 bit is not
upsampling. 44.1 kHz --> 96 kHz is.

You don't know *what* you're talking about.


___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

[[email protected]]

What made you go with the A324 or P3a and not put the Benchmakr DAC1 in
your inventroy?

CD

[soundhaspriority]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> What made you go with the A324 or P3a and not put the Benchmakr DAC1 in
> your inventroy?
>
> CD
>
I have a buddy who sells me all kinds of things cheap.

[soundhaspriority]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> Actually, the CDP 101 has been sounding just like much more modern CD
>> players to a lot of people.
>>
>
> Are you saying it improved with age?!!
For Arny, the world ends at 10 kHz. Theoretically, 44.1 is overkill for him.

[soundhaspriority]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> Barend wrote:
>> > Now For Something Not Religious!
>> >
>> > Whaddayou think?
>> > Upsampling in CD Players- good or nonsense?
>> > Barend
>
>> Forgive Arny for being ignorant about upsamplers. He's an old fart
>> and still listens to his Sony CDP101, one of the first CD players ever
>> marketed. It sounds great to his tired old ears. I know very well what
>> you're talking about, 16 to 24 bit upsampling.
>
> er...*sampling* has to do with frequencies, not bits. 16bit-->24 bit is
> not
> upsampling. 44.1 kHz --> 96 kHz is.
>
> You don't know *what* you're talking about.
>
Correct, but both are forms of interpolation. They should be called
"interpolating DACs", but it just isn't catchy.

[Arny Krueger]

"soundhaspriority" >
wrote in message


> For Arny, the world ends at 10 kHz.

Prove it.

> Theoretically, 44.1 is overkill for him.

Practically speaking, 44.1 is overkill for everybody given a proper
listening test.