Upsampling the way to go? ?


As if we didn't have enough to decide with the format wars, the latest issue of Stereophile implies upsampling is the magic to make cds as good as sacd. ARC however, disagrees. Has anyone actually listened to the ARC CD3 vs the MF NU Vista 3D,Cary, EMC 1,or other comparably priced players with upsampling?
tonyp54

Showing 8 responses by zaikesman

Tim, I thought interpolation *was* "upsampling", whereas increasing word length was accomplished by adding randomly generated dither below the signal level, so it sounds to me like *you* might be confusing two separate things. But then again, what the heck do I really know about this stuff?! Not a lot, let me tell you!!

To address the main question, I just yesterday received a new-to-me MSB Gold Link upsampling DAC bought here on the 'Gon, to compare with my reference Theta DSPro Basic IIIa (Theta also seems to disagree with the theory). I've just started auditioning, and will post my findings when I've had enough time to make a meaningful decision about which unit I will keep. But I can tell you right now that the MSB with upsampling engaged definitely sounds different not only from the Theta, but from itself with the upsampling turned off, so it ain't doing nothing. Finding an upsampling-capable unit and auditioning it against your reference may well prove to be an educational experience - I think it will be for me.
Not to prolong the point, Tim, but why would an interpolation process be needed to generate an extra 8 bits of *random* dither? As I understand it, this dither acts as sort of a "digital bias", and is not related to the actual signal. I think the increase in word length simply helps the DAC remain linear deeper into the noise floor. It does seem to me, however, that interpolation would be appropriate to aid in generating the "extra" samples needed to raise the sampling rate from 44k to 96k, or whatever higher rate is chosen. With only a finite frequency of voltage samples available off the disc, some sort of algorithim that interpolates new sample voltages in between the recorded ones would have to be implemented to raise that frequency, no? So I agree that upsampling is separate from increasing word length, but wonder if you might be confusing which of the two processes incorporates interpolation algorithims. (I already know that *I'm* confused!) And since I'm certainly no digital engineer either, I hope someone who is can come along in this thread, and soon!
Sean T., sorry to second-guess, but your first sentence strikes me as being just a *little* bit confused itself! :-) Tim and I don't disagree about what upsampling is (as opposed to increasing word length), we are just, again, a *little* confused about how it happens!

You say the upsampling "...uses the extra samples to interpolate." That seems backwards to me. Wouldn't upsampling have to *use* interpolation to *arrive* at those "extra" samples? Then the DAC would use *all* the samples, including the "added" ones, to reconstruct the wave? Or, yet again, do I "misunderestimate" this process completely? My new MSB Gold Link DAC mentions in the manual that "oscillators" are used to upsample the signal. My dictionary defines "algorithm" as any mechanical or recursive computational procedure. "Recursive" is defined as descriptive of a mathematical expression like a polynomial, each term of which is determined by applying a formula to preceding terms, or of the formula that generates the successive terms of such an expression. The definition of "mechanical" that would seem to apply in the case of an oscillator is "governed by mechanics". Sounds simple, doesn't it?

The Gold Link comes with two oscillators to choose between, and seems to sound better on CD's with the upsampling set to use the one at 132KHz instead of 96k, which is recommended by MSB since 132k is an even multiple of 44k. The math has got to come out better this way in a "mechanical" process, no? Still confused, Z.
No, Sean T. - pedantic is *all* I'm being! Sorry if my writing seems obscure, it's not deliberate. I just tend to write densely (or is it that I'm just a dense writer?!).

Or could it be that maybe you're just not closely reading my posts (certainly your perogitive)? Your first three paragraphs above essentially reiterate things I believe I've already stipulated throughout my posts on this thread. Thanks for trying to be of help, though. :-)
Anybody interested in reading about the results of my auditioning of my new upsampling DAC against my reference that I referred to above, should be able to see it shortly on the forum in a new post titled Upsampling Put To The Test (hopefully it'll show up there later today). It's a long article though, don't say you haven't been warned... :-)
JC - Thanks for the kudos and backup. As I took pains to point out in my new thread, what I wrote wasn't supposed to focus on which of these DAC's 'slayed' the other, although of course for my own purposes this determination was important (and I also didn't mention the fact that the Basic prevents me from eventually using my DAC with formats other than 16/44 CD, which the Link handles). Rather, I wanted to examine in some kind of sensible way how it was that I could have experimented with an upsampling DAC that has been well-thought of and reviewed, and yet still come to the conclusion, both subjectively and objectively, that the upsampling process, now matter how subjectively pleasing it might have been on certain material in the short run, was basically degrading in its result, and seemed somewhat spurious and arbitrary in its implementation.

The fact is, I have always agreed with you about my Theta, believing that it had many discrete 'hi-fi' virtues, but was not the most 'musical' DAC in any overt way. In my new post, I deliberately omitted my lengthy listening impressions so that I could zero in on the issues I wanted to raise (I actually went on for several paragraphs about what I heard from the Gold Link and the Basic playing music, and all their strengths and weaknesses, in my original version, but wound up erasing all that, as it took too long, and wasn't really pertinent to my main points).

But here I will briefly say that the Basic IIIa has always impressed me as being a DAC that features a sound I would describe as having great clarity, power, and fullness. It shows a large soundstage with solid objects that are well-separated. It has a high degree of tonal neutrality where nothing predominates, but does possess notable air and weight. Dynamics at both ends are fully expressed. Transparency and detail are both of a high degree. It is not obviously smooth in its presentation, and adds no warmth. Tonal colors have strong intensity. Transients, with a clean digital feed, are very concisely portrayed, with no smear or overhang. I can hear very little in the way of phase or timing anomolies. No haziness or flatness. So what's not to like?

Well, as I mention in the new post, the Basic has always struck me as being slighty cool and dry in character. Maybe a tiny bit bright, with a little emphasis on leading edges of sounds that can seem somewhat clinical. There is a very slight background texture of a fine-grained 'digital burr', that sort of rides over the top of music like a light scrim or a fingerprint on glass, which is not really obscuring, but is there if you listen for it (which, to be fair, is true of most CD sound I have ever heard, unless some greater form of distortion or omission covers it up). It is not in any way romantic or intimate in its sound, but very matter-of-fact. It sounds correct, but not terribly personal.

One of the important things my controlled bypass test seems to have shown me, however, is that most of what I assumed were the somewhat less than completely captivating aspects of its character, are in reality probably an accurate representation of what's on the CDs. These caveats basically do not make an appearance when doing the controlled real-time comparision. They are not, I now suspect, intrinsic to the DAC, but rather to the majority of available disks. If another player could successfully render disks in a subjectively more sensuous way and still score as highly on the objective bypass test, then that would be an advance, and I concede the possibility - probably for much more money though. And I still fully sympathize with the subjectivists' wanting to love their CDs' sound, not just respect it. That desire may cloud one's judgement, however. I can't love anything (or anyone!) that isn't essentially honest with me, because that's the only way I can place my trust in something. I'm not blindly partial to my Basic, but I haven't ever been let down by it either. (And I can afford it!)

P.S. - To anyone investigating one of these used, you'll need a quality transport, jitter-box, balanced power conditioning, and digital interconnects to hear its best, in my experience.
As far as I know, an unfiltered DAC's analog output will only affect the speakers negatively if it affects the amp negatively. In other words, it's the amp that will potentially damage the speakers if it is made unstable by the unfiltered ultrasonics. The resulting amp distortion artifacts would cause any speaker damage; the speaker is actually a filter in and of itself, and would not be damaged the ultrasonics alone. Fortunately, I think few amplifiers would be disturbed to this degree, but the possibility always exists (presumably, AN electronics would not be among these).