AudiogoN
Search Buy Sell Learn MyPage
 Learn > Forums > Digital > 1106699790  Start New Thread | Log In | Bookmark This
  Upsampling. Truth vs Marketing
Has anyone done a blind AB test of the up sampling capabilities of a player? If so what was the result?

The reason why I ask because all the players and converters that do support up sampling are going to 192 from 44.1. And that is just plane wrong.

This would add huge amount of interpolation errors to the conversion. And should sound like crap, compared.
I understand why MFG don't go the logical 176.4khz, because once again they would have to write more software.

All and all I would like to hear from users who think their player sounds better playing Redbook (44.1) up sampled to 192. I have never come across a sample rate converter chip that does this well sonically and if one exist, then it is truly a silver bullet, then again....44.1 should only be up sample to 88.2 or 176.4 unless you can first go to many GHz and then down sample it 192, even then you will have interpolation errors.
Izsakmixer  (Reviews | Threads | Answers | This Thread)

01-25-05
  Responses (1-40 of 40)
Click title to read one, or click date to read all below it.

01-25-05   Non-integer sampling frequency conversion is no big deal. th ...   Eldartford

01-26-05   This is the one and only experience i have had in listening ...   Trelja

01-26-05   Treja, i would have loved to have been there. i have only co ...   Muralman1

01-26-05   Upsampling may or may not sound better depends on overall de ...   Megasam

01-26-05   I own an ah! 4000 cd player with the optional upsampler boar ...   Darrenlite

01-26-05   If an when you got an upsamiling player do you know what the ...   Izsakmixer

01-26-05   An above response having to do with individual preferances r ...   Unclejeff

01-26-05   I agree with megasam, specs dont tell you anything about the ...   Blkadr

01-26-05   Check out what audio research has to say about it with their ...   Brauser

02-02-05   Get an 8.5 x 11 piece of paper and a pencil. now draw a s ...   Sean

02-02-05   Sean, basically your "kinda - sorta the "quick and ...   Bombaywalla

02-02-05   Bombay: your own description answers the problems that you q ...   Sean

02-02-05   Mathematically, there are no differences between upsampling ...   Germanboxers

02-02-05   Phillips used 4 times oversampling in their first cd players ...   Eldartford

02-02-05   The term "error correction" applies to a scheme wh ...   Eldartford

02-02-05   Thanks for the feedback sean. putting your orig. & 2nd post ...   Bombaywalla

02-03-05   El said: "in sean's explanation the second set of 20 do ...   Sean

02-03-05   El said: "in sean's explanation the second set of 20 do ...   Sean

02-03-05   Eldartford's sentence: "in sean's explanation the secon ...   Bombaywalla

02-03-05   Sean...the sampling (your first set of dots) is at 44.1khz. ...   Eldartford

02-03-05   Bombaywalla...your check is in the mail :-)   Eldartford

02-03-05   Sean....homework is to read.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/r ...   Eldartford

02-03-05   Sean, in fact, jeff kalt of resolution audio was marketing a ...   Germanboxers

02-03-05   The connect-the-dots metaphor is really unfortunate, because ...   Pabelson

02-04-05   Pabelson...according to nyquist, just two (error free) sampl ...   Eldartford

02-04-05   You guys are all correct. where i "fell down" on ...   Sean

02-04-05   Pabelson...according to nyquist, just two (error free) sampl ...   Eldartford

02-04-05   You guys are all correct. where i "fell down" on ...   Sean

02-04-05   Not quite, eldartford. a digital system cannot accurately re ...   Pabelson

02-04-05   Germanboxers, basically, you are correct in pointing out tha ...   Bombaywalla

02-04-05   Pabelson...i guess you mean that if the sine wave frequency ...   Eldartford

02-04-05   Since sean has confessed his error, i will do the same. my e ...   Eldartford

02-04-05   The esoteric dv-50 is another player that does not use 96k, ...   Irishdog

02-04-05: Sean
Hmmm... I'm surprised that nobody jumped all over me for stating the obvious. That is, digital is a poor replication of what is originally an analogue source.

I'm also glad to see that nobody contradicts the fact that having more sampling points can only improve the linearity of a system which is less than linear to begin with. After all, if digital was linear, we could linearly reproduce standardized test tones. The fact that we can't do that, at least not as of yet with current standards, would only lead one to believe that analogue is still a more accurate means of reproducing even more complex waveforms.

Converting analogue to digital back to analogue again only lends itself to potential signal degradation and a loss of information. One would think that by sampling as much of the data as possible ( via upsampling above the normal sampling rate ), that one would have the greatest chances for better performance with a reduction the amount of non-linearities that already exist in the format. Evidently, there are those that see things differently. Sean
>

Sean  (Threads | Answers | This Thread)


02-04-05   Sean, thank you for all the diagrams, and patient tutoring. ...   Muralman1

02-04-05   More corrections! they don't affect the basic idea, but coul ...   Eldartford

02-04-05   As long as human beings are analog, the initial & final musi ...   Bombaywalla

02-04-05   El: thanks for correcting my previous errors, your previous ...   Sean

02-05-05   Bombaywalla...it's an interesting question about whether the ...   Eldartford

02-06-05   Eldartford, good observation indeed! it would be like splitt ...   Bombaywalla


  Post your response
Subject


Your response

No html, but you may use markup tags


Username
Members only

Password