Upsampling really works

As an experiment, after reading on this forum about what upsamplers can do for the sound quality, I decided to take advantage of the upsampling thats available to me through my MP3 player Foobar, utilising the cards native 24-bit 96KHz mode.

Now, I know it shouldnt theoretically do much, but I feel the improvement its made is quite dramatic. It seems to sound less digital, and has opened up the sound, filling the room with sound better, and for want of a better term, just sounds more musical I guess.

Whats the general vibes on here about upsampling?

 

Well thats a constructive reply :lol:

 

I have limited experience, but I chose an upsampling CD player 4 years ago [Densen] compared to Naim, Linn, MF etc as it was less 'CD' and did the 'airy' thing better. I think you notice it in sound reflections, and, like you say, a relaxed less sterile sound. The Linn stupidname also had that relaxed feel, but with less bass speed/wallop so maybe it affects that end too?

 

I've heard people say that mp3's are improved more by upsampling than wav's.

Have you compared a 44.1 wav to an upsampled one? I'd be interested to know if you gained much this way, I don't have a capable output yet to try it myself.

 

Graham, it doesnt seem to affect the bass end of things luckily, if it did I'd probably disable it as I like bass driven music primarily.

Phil, I hear what your saying, I was using my usual MPC files, so I dont know how WAV files would compare, I dont have any at the moment, but when I got some I'll give it another try. I see no reason why they shouldnt improve WAV files too, especially given that its pretty well known that my card is supposed to perform optimally at its native 96KHz rate.

 

I use a Monarchy Audio upsampler between my Teac T1 transport and my Chord DAC64 and the improvements are pretty similar to what you decribed Paul - less digital hash and a more open sound. Quite an improvement and worth the £200 I paid for the upsampler.

Good to see we can agree on some things

Michael.

 

Hehe yeah. I have read that there is debatable truth as to whether it works, but quite honestly the difference is not even subtle, its pretty obvious really, it sounds noticably better.

Perhaps some of this improvement is due to the card being designed for use at these sample rates natively I dunno, but I am happy.

I'll be a good lad from now on, I promise

 

Nah, I've never said it works it's all, Total bollox, Paul stop dreaming, wake up and smell the beer .
I go into great depth 'how & why' it produces a different sound, but I'll leave that to you guys.
Paul for best results try direct multiples of 44.1Khz, you will get even better results I feel. Wm

PS have you upped the sample rate as well? IE from 16<>24 bits? as this will be giving most of the difference I feel, bust as graham C states it does remove some of the shit, but does tend to rob some of the rawiness as well, experimentation is the key

 

Could somebody tell me why don't the companies do the upsampling in the first place?
Aren't they interested in bringing on the market a better unit (soundwise) when it doesn't cost anything?

 

Titian, (Cynical hat on) could it just be a way of extracting more cash from the punters
A few companies are now doing upsampling cd players/ or transport/upsamplers, or even upsampling dacs.
I have an upsampling cd player, that has a switchable facility, 44.1/96 yes does make a difference, (even when used as a transport), but as yet is not implemented as well as a seperate unit, If I run the cdp/upsampler into the superdac, the result is no where as good if I run a seperate u/sampler into, Is this because it uses a seperate psu/has a reclocking latch/and or better cabling?????
The only upsampling/dac/cdp I've listened to that actualy does what it says on the tin, is the MSB Platunium Link.
However it's more cash for the U/s box and cables
Ultimately I still feel this is the best way to maximise digital. Wm

 

you know I was considering to buy that unit. I still have my MSB Gold (Transporter and Converter)....

 

Hello Tony,

The sample rate is @ 32-bit which is known as 24-bit + 8-bit pad. I dont have a clue what that really means but its a 24-bit card so it can only be outputting at 24-bit really. However, if you try straight 24-bit mode with Kernel Streaming mode (a mode which further increases quality by bypassing the windows version of tone controls) it crashes the machine. I think it has to be a straight multiple for Kernel Streaming so i think it just knocks it down to 24-bit in software.

Its currently in 96KHz which is said to be native for the card, but I may also give 88.2KHz a try like you suggested.

 

BTW some of the newer CD players are 24-bit does that mean they are upsampling to 96KHz as well?

 

Paul, not neccessarly the new naim cds3 doesn't, my wadia cdp doesn't (850) although the dacs do, all the arcams except the fmj33 don't, the much vaulted dac 64 usually only recieves 44.1khz, the cdfix we use in the test room can, but you can switch it off.
This morning Timpy & myself, we trying out some new items we've produced, and testing some new mods I did with the super dac, although with the wadia 25, Timpy's, not had nuch listening time of late (hence the saturday morning jaunt), but switching through the bit/sample rates, was quite illuminating for him, if the bit rate is same, then as a rule the further up the upsample rates you go, the more cleaner/detailed/open and airy the sound becomes, it does also tend to lose the drive/rawiness and overall dynamics as well, although direct multiples of red book, do offer a better trade off in my humble opinion, as the computer/cmos section doesn't have to interpolate 'inbetween' the direct sample rates, although very accurate, the computer still has to 'fill in the dots' on the upsample curves
I personaly find 88.2khz my fave (although if you can get to here 133.3khz it's stunning), as it subjectively appears top keep the drive and dynamics, whilst gaining the detail and depth of field & image.
96 & 192khz tend to flesh the sound out too much for me, giving that 15 foot guitar solo in a thin & meger presation.
All those string heads, should give 176.4khz a whirl, and us rockers should dail up 88.2khz.
However I'm standing by with my thermo-nuclear suit on the further up the sampling range you go, the more important cables become (this is my personal view, and only influenced by the hours of trialing various cables and boxes, in many different configurations, some successful others not), as more detail/ambience is released the quality of the components becomes more of an issue.
This is one of the items we would like to demonstate in more detail, along with not just cables and mains, but isolation from sorbethene feet to voodoo platforms, from the green pen to brass coasters,is a transport and dac, better than a one box, does a transport make that much difference? a sort of you show us why/what/how you feel it don't/can't/or just shouldn't work and have abuse Timpy & myself (free of charge) plus we'll feed and water you. got to worth a day out, just to laugh at Timpys rover Wm

 

personally i think that upsampling is the biggest load of old marketing bollocks ever.

upsampling is just a slightly more complex way of oversampling, which instead of the sample rate becoming a direct multiple of 44.1khz (oversampling) it's now not syncronised to the origional data. to my mind the machine is just giving you it's best guess about the data (admittedly there are some pretty sophisticated algorythms out there for this guessing or interpolation like wadias digimaster) but at the end of the day it's still a guess.
the real reason that upsampling has caught on is that there are a huge number of cheap 96/24 or 192/24 dacs now available thanks to the explosion of a/v.
put it this way 96khz is just over 2x oversampling whereas the lowliest sonys and technics of yesteryear were 8x, 16x or even 256x hardly a step forward.

i'm not saying that it doesn;t change the sound and for some people that this change is for the better though. just that it's not the universal panacaea or major brakthrough that some claim.

cheers


julian

 

JU, lots have jumped on the band wagon, interesting how certain manufacters only calibrate their upsampling ability into direct mulitiples maybe they know some thing possibly ?.
Interesting if you take the output digital signal from an 861, take it into an upsampler/processor, the refeed it back into the 861 especialy at 88.2khz .

Here's a basic explaination of wad's theroy over over/up sampling.

What is up-sampling?
Up-sampling is the process of mathematically generating digital samples to “fill in the blanks†in a digital data stream. Up-sampling increases the digital data rate, reducing the demands on the analog filters used to smooth the signal during digital to analog conversion. Well-executed up-sampling can have a dramatic sonic benefit, resulting in a more realistic and natural musical presentation. However, up-sampling cannot somehow magically recover information not captured in the original recording.

Can up-sampling convert a CD into 96 kHz?
Some products use asynchronous interpolation to increase the data rate from a CD to 96 kHz or 192 kHz. While this process does increase the number of samples, it does not recover any additional information that would have been captured during a true 96/192 kHz recording. In fact, asynchronous interpolation discards the original CD data and can actually reduce the clarity and detail of the original recording.

basicaly, some do sound shite, others rather good .Wm

 

The very first CDP from Philips upsampled to 176kHz, almost every DAC upsamples, and has always upsampled.

Information comes in bits, a CD has 44100x16x2 bits per second. You cannot make more than that. Upsamplers can only be effective in the presence of inadequate DACs. Keep it simple, buy a good DAC. FWIW the best place for a DAC is right beside its CDP sharing the same clock and not having to solve any data transmission problems....

Paul (It might be time for relocation, where next?)

 

I'd agree with commentators who say that the benefits in upsampling/oversampling have more to do with the way in which they make the DAC work, rather than that fact that the process recovers any more information that wasn't there in your original source (i.e. red book CD, MP3, etc). More a case of preserving and extracting information better, whereas non upsampled there is more chance of corruption - margin of error tolerences... moving of ultra sonic noise higher up the audio band, etc... (What Paul R basically said whilst I was typing/correcting this post)

Yes, I use an upsampler, and for me I like what it does and reckon it's an improvement. I've had a DAB tuner for about two weeks now pipe its digital output through the upsampler before it gets to the outboard DAC I normally use for CD playback. With DAB there is an improvement, albeit a subtle one it has to be said (turd polishing etc). Upsampled DAB still sounds worse than un-upsampled red book CD, no surprises, although I was very surprised by a visitor to my place last weekend who was very complementary about the sound of my system even though DAB was being played quietly in the background at the time of his visit (I'll keep his identity secret unless he were to reveal himself but save to say he is an audiophile who occassionally posts on hi-fi fora - this place isn't his regular home ).

Anyway, I get a much bigger improvement / more noticeable difference upsampling redbook CD than DAB. I prefer 24/176.4 for CD. The DAB get upped to 24/176.4 too, but I haven't tried 24/96, as this should theoretically as the original data output from the DAB tuner is @ 48 Khz. I tend to fit'n'forget, playing about with all the options can be very distracting even if I do happen to have them available at a push of a few button.

 

I thought DAB was 32kHz? Either way, 96 would work nicely....