Upsampling the way to go? ?

The upsampling is only as good as the implementation. If the implementation isn't done with care the added circuitry can easily overwhelm any benefits of upsampling. Better to buy a well-executed non-upsampling DAC than a mediocre upsampling DAC. Also, it's important to understand that upsampling is not analogous to interpolation where the word length is increased to 24 bits or so--they are two separate things and should not be lumped together. I'm drunk and going to sleep now--night night.

Tim

Zaikesman--I'm not an engineer and I could be wrong, but upsampling is upsampling and is totally separate from increasing the word length, which I believe is done via an interpolation algorithm. I was told this by Rick Schultz at EVS who has designed his own DAC and has modified a few in his time. Many DACs claim to upsample to 24/96 or even 24/192 but do not really interpolate to 24 bits. The Crystal chip does do both and may be what is used in the MSB DAC--I'm not sure. Hey, if it's working it's working, whatever it is. Better systems are used by Audio Aero(STARS) and dcs, but they obviously come at a premium.

I still maintain that an upsampling DAC does not necessarily sound better than a non-upsampling unit--it depends more on how the whole DAC is designed and implemented, and there are a LOT of variables there(i.e. Sean's point about filtering, damping, shielding, parts quality, power supply, circuit design, etc.). I'd say just pick the DAC/CD player that sounds best to you--if it happens to upsample great, if not that's fine too. Personally I think Sam Tellig has gone way overboard on this upsampling thing and is misleading many to think it's the second coming when it's only one small link in a very long chain.

Tim

Zaikesman--I certainly don't mind this point being prolonged because I think there are a lot of CD players and DACs out there that claim to upsample to 24/96 or 24/192 and really don't increase word length in the more strict and proper sense(whatever that is--help). I too would appreciate anyone who knows more about the process by which upsampling is done vs. increasing word length, and maybe even give us a way to identify the "pretenders" from those that truly do increase word length along with upsampling--there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding out there regarding this point.

My sense is that upsampling by itself will not make a huge difference and could do harm if not implemented with care due to the added circuitry involved(some of the above comments seem to bear this out to some degree), but that combining it with a longer word length can bring about even more dramatic changes if done properly. Where's an engineer when you need one?

Tim

Anyone interested in reading a little more about the process of upsampling, oversampling, interpolation, dither, etc. and how it can benefit(or hurt) the musical signal may find this interesting from the Perpetual Technology folks(see link below--sorry if someone else already referred to this). I found the Level III explanation(see link at the bottom of that page) to be the most interesting and it doesn't take all that much time/effort to read. What I took away was that it seems like it is the companies that go to the trouble of creating proprietary interpolation algorithms to meaningfully increase word length(i.e. not simply just adding dither) in addition to the upsampling that are the ones that are really taking CDs to a higher level with this concept(obviously a lot of non-upsampling players sound fantastic too). In addition to the PT P1A, the Audio Aero Capitole(STARS system) and I assume the dCS Purcell do this to great effect--anyone know what Electrocompaniet does with the EMC1(24/192)? This makes sense to me, but it also again makes the important point that all upsamplers are not created equal--not by a longshot.

http://www.av123.com/pt_interpolate1.html

Tim

The only comparison I've seen between an upsampling CD player and the CD3 is the one below from audioreview.com comparing it to the Electrocompaniet EMC1(24/192 version)--for what it's worth. I know the Electrocompaniet EMC1 is highly thought of and the fact that the CD3 stays with it in this comparison is a good indication that it will hang with well-executed upsampling players, but in this case it seems the CD3's higher price was not justified for this person given the two units similar level of performance. Anyway, here it is:

"My unit is the 24/192 version and all I can say is the EMC-1 has everything that I am looking for; smooth, transparent, deep & wide sounstage, and very, very analogue! I compare this unit to Audio Research's latest CD3 side by side and my conclusion is I like the performance of both units, but not the price. CD3 is double the price of EMC-1 (and very ugly, too)...so I end up with the EMC-1.
BTW, please use the XLR outputs to achieve a better sonic performance than the unbalance outputs. I could not believe my ears when I switched to the balanced output."

I have also heard there have been some issues with the Perpetual Technologies P1A, and I don't know if it is an ongoing problem or if PT has fixed the problems. In any event, I posted the link purely for informational purposes and not to endorse any particular product--just to be clear. Although PT's implementation of the technology may leave something to be desired(although a friend of mine was quite happy with his P1A and there have been some very favorable reviews of the product as well), the general overview still provides useful insights into the basic components of the upsampling process(i.e. not specific to Perpetual Technologies), which is what I thought would be interesting given the many questions and misconceptions on upsampling that seem to repeatedly appear here.

Tim