Upsampling by dac, can't hear an improvement.

[Lebouwsky]

My dac is an AMR dp-777 (fed by a sms200), the dac is able to upsample pcm to 192khz. I can't notice an improvement, at most a shift sidewards. When I started streaming I used a hummingboard / gungnir running Moode and could't notice an improvement either.

 

Does upsampling in PCM make sence anyway?

[firedog]

Depends on the Dac and the system. In some it makes, a difference, in others it doesn't.

[esldude]

Not really making sense to me.  Native sample rates done well make sense.

[Panelhead]

  The answer depends on how it is done. Upsampling via hardware is usually not very transparent. 

  There are software based upsampling options that can be very transparent. Try this and see if you can hear an improvement. 

[Lebouwsky]

30 minutes ago, Panelhead said:

  The answer depends on how it is done. Upsampling via hardware is usually not very transparent. 

  There are software based upsampling options that can be very transparent. Try this and see if you can hear an improvement. 

Sotm gave me a trial of Roon, which I installed on my w10 server. Upsampling did not improve things. Will try hqplayer now that I think of it.

 

 @esldude some 16/44 of my collection sound better than 24/192 which are supposed to be highly respecten recordings. In fact I've got some 24/192 that sound dreadfull. Somehow I think 96khz sounds best, wether it's my previous gungnir or my current amr dac.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Lebouwsky said:

Sotm gave me a trial of Roon, which I installed on my w10 server. Upsampling did not improve things. Will try hqplayer now that I think of it.

 

 @esldude some 16/44 of my collection sound better than 24/192 which are supposed to be highly respecten recordings. In fact I've got some 24/192 that sound dreadfull. Somehow I think 96khz sounds best, wether it's my previous gungnir or my current amr dac.

Yes there are 16/44 recordings that better 24/192 recordings.  That is due to the recording and say nothing about the sample rates.

 

You can get a free trial of HQplayer.  If it works to your satisfaction, then purchase a copy. 

 

There are thoughts of how upsampling improves things.  I haven't been convinced by any of them.  I don't hear an improvement. It doesn't make sense to me that upsampling could make more than a very small improvement. 

[mansr]

12 hours ago, esldude said:

There are thoughts of how upsampling improves things.  I haven't been convinced by any of them.  I don't hear an improvement. It doesn't make sense to me that upsampling could make more than a very small improvement.

If the DAC chip's internal upsampling was truly awful, bypassing it would be an improvement. In reality, they're not actually that bad, so any difference is going to be marginal at best.

[Superdad]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

If the DAC chip's internal upsampling was truly awful, bypassing it would be an improvement. In reality, they're not actually that bad, so any difference is going to be marginal at best.

 

And yet the quality of the resource-constrained digital filters in DACs is often what separates a decent design from a great one.

I and many others can hear a great deal of difference between various filters and have spent considerable time selecting among different parameters (either custom as afforded by iZotope Advanced built in to Audirvana+, or with HQ Player's expertly crafted filter and dither options).

 

 @mansr and @esldude, your comments about filter quality and upsampling making marginal differences to you are fine.  But they betray something about your listening acuity which calls into question both of your frequent and withering condescension about products (like mine and like USB cables and a lot of upstream stuff) that tens of thousands of audiophiles around the world discuss and listen to daily.  

If really good digital SRC/SDM is not important to you or registered by your ears, then yeah, I guess you need not be bothered by the other "tweaks" the rest of us enjoy. (Though admittedly many of the tweaks are much more significant that the difference between some filters.)

 

To those of you on the sidelines wondering about the above: I'm just pushing back a bit against two critics who are often less than polite with regards their viewpoints.

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, Superdad said:

something about your listening acuity

Here we go again.

[esldude]

57 minutes ago, Superdad said:

 

And yet the quality of the resource-constrained digital filters in DACs is often what separates a decent design from a great one.

I and many others can hear a great deal of difference between various filters and have spent considerable time selecting among different parameters (either custom as afforded by iZotope Advanced built in to Audirvana+, or with HQ Player's expertly crafted filter and dither options).

 

 @mansr and @esldude, your comments about filter quality and upsampling making marginal differences to you are fine.  But they betray something about your listening acuity which calls into question both of your frequent and withering condescension about products (like mine and like USB cables and a lot of upstream stuff) that tens of thousands of audiophiles around the world discuss and listen to daily.  

If really good digital SRC/SDM is not important to you or registered by your ears, then yeah, I guess you need not be bothered by the other "tweaks" the rest of us enjoy. (Though admittedly many of the tweaks are much more significant that the difference between some filters.)

 

To those of you on the sidelines wondering about the above: I'm just pushing back a bit against two critics who are often less than polite with regards their viewpoints.

Sit for a blind test of those acuities you claim and I might believe you.  Otherwise it is so much hot air about your claims.  So let someone put your acuity to the test.  And don't back out this time. 

 

 

[lmitche]

1 hour ago, Superdad said:

 two critics who are often less than polite with regards their viewpoints.

You are being way too polite here, but I like your style.

[Speed Racer]

56 minutes ago, mansr said:

Here we go again.

 

People on this site, in general, are in love with discreet upsampling. They like to say that the upsampling code in a DAC must be worse than what can be achieved in the DAC. Just as an example, how can you call the upsampling code in Yggdrasil "resource constrained" when it upsamples in real time all the time without fail. It has a filter that is "a time- and frequency-domain optimized digital filter with a true closed-form solution".

 

My listening acuity must suck too since I disagree.....

[firedog]

One user questioning whether another has hearing acuity is just silly. You are listening in different rooms to different systems. You could both "hear" different things and still be correct.

[plissken]

5 hours ago, Superdad said:

But they betray something about your listening acuity

 

Hey Alex, when are you going to do that Double Blind test that you ran away from like a scalded pig @ WBF forum?

[Lebouwsky]

Thank you for your comment @Superdad. 

 

It would be really nice if everybody would comment like a gentleman and respect each other in this post.

 

I will give the upsampling one more (critical) try when I'm back from beatiful Mallorca.

 

cheers fellow enthousiasts.

[jabbr]

1) There are outstanding examples of software upsampling to both R2R based and SDM based DACs.

2) upsampling PCM to a SDM DAC might not have a benefit. 

3) The DAC in question is not typical and benefits of offboard upsampling depends on the DAC being able to accept.

4) Only rarely does something work for everything.

 

I think your DAC does internal PCM->SDM conversion as so if accepts DSD in, that might be better 

[plissken]

12 minutes ago, Lebouwsky said:

Thank you for your comment @Superdad. 

 

It would be really nice if everybody would comment like a gentleman and respect each other in this post.

 

I will give the upsampling one more (critical) try when I'm back from beatiful Mallorca.

 

cheers fellow enthousiasts.

 

It'd be dandy if the forum was less some incredible hypocrites. 

[Lebouwsky]

7 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

It'd be dandy if the forum was less some incredible hypocrites. 

Would buy you a double whiskey like mine if you were here, maybe you'd lighten up a bit my friend.

[plissken]

17 minutes ago, Lebouwsky said:

Would buy you a double whiskey like mine if you were here, maybe you'd lighten up a bit my friend.

 

Bottom line is that Alex said he would sit for blind test of his own product any day of the week on his system with his music. Someone asked what was the nearest airport and Alex promptly folded up tent. 

 

But yet here is the same person that ran away having the chutzpah to call out other's hearing acuity. 

[Lebouwsky]

22 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Bottom line is that Alex said he would sit for blind test of his own product any day of the week on his system with his music. Someone asked what was the nearest airport and Alex promptly folded up tent. 

 

But yet here is the same person that ran away having the chutzpah to call out other's hearing acuity. 

All good @plissken, it's just that sometimes saying nothing or odd politely is better than replying from your belly. I'm married you know.

[plissken]

I'm rather perplexed that someone can call someone else tone deaf and it's ok, but I point out the hypocrisy of a person saying they would sit for a blind session of the product they sell but really won't do it but calling someone else out. 

 

I'm not sure in what scenario simply not pointing out the brazenness is of benefit to the community at large here. 

 

I welcome and encourage Alex to eat his own dogfood. 

[k-man]

4 minutes ago, Lebouwsky said:

I'm married you know.

I didn't spot the pick up line 

[firedog]

38 minutes ago, plissken said:

I'm rather perplexed that someone can call someone else tone deaf and it's ok, but I point out the hypocrisy of a person saying they would sit for a blind session of the product they sell but really won't do it but calling someone else out. 

 

I'm not sure in what scenario simply not pointing out the brazenness is of benefit to the community at large here. 

 

I welcome and encourage Alex to eat his own dogfood. 

No one needs to be "called out" on the site by either you or Alex.

Being nasty and name calling doesn't improve the quality of your arguments.

[plissken]

11 minutes ago, firedog said:

No one needs to be "called out" on the site by either you or Alex.

Being nasty and name calling doesn't improve the quality of your arguments.

 

I didn't name call anyone FD. I simply stated a fact. 

[Ralf11]

Quite proper to note the change of position on a listening test.

 

Both parties could have stated things differently.