Upsampling by dac, can't hear an improvement.

[Speed Racer]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm all for freedom of each person to chose what they want to do when enjoying a hobby. If this was an FDA trial where people could die and they were scientists, that's a different story. This is a fun hobby and some people don't want to become scientists just to listen to audio gear. 

 

I am not suggesting that everyone become a scientist of even a objectivist. It just gets a little funny when you read some of the stuff that goes on here. It gets really funny with the DC power cable stuff. People hear improvements because the improvements must be there, right?

 

But whatever....

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, barrows said:

I did not see anyone saying that the oversampling filters in EVERY DAC suck.  But it is true that hardware based filters often are at a loss to what can be accomplished with a more powerful device.  In my experience though, it is possible to implement very good filters with a powerful FPGA or other type of separate DSP chip these days, as is done in a lot of better DACs.  But the filters built in to most DAC chips do seem to be a bit weak...

The filters in any high-end DAC from the usual vendors (AKM, ESS, TI, etc) are perfectly adequate. While it is possible to construct mathematically superior filters, the differences in the actual analogue output are too small to be audible.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

I am not suggesting that everyone become a scientist of even a objectivist. It just gets a little funny when you read some of the stuff that goes on here. It gets really funny with the DC power cable stuff. People hear improvements because the improvements must be there, right?

 

But whatever....

Why do you care? If someone hears something and says they hear it, that's no skin off your back. 

 

If the Government makes you purchase something that you believe can't possibly work, that's another story.

[barrows]

9 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

But they do.....

This is sarcasm, right?  Or are you suggesting that the only dAC with a good onboard oversampling algorithm is the Yggi?  

[Speed Racer]

1 minute ago, barrows said:

This is sarcasm, right?  Or are you suggesting that the only dAC with a good onboard oversampling algorithm is the Yggi?  

 

There are plenty of people here that think the only way to go is discreet upsampling because DACs couldn't possible do it right themselves.

 

No where have I suggested that Schiit has a monopoly of proper in-DAC upsampling. I only used Yggdrasil as an example.

[barrows]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

The filters in any high-end DAC from the usual vendors (AKM, ESS, TI, etc) are perfectly adequate. While it is possible to construct mathematically superior filters, the differences in the actual analogue output are too small to be audible

Respectfully, that is not my experience, not even close.  I can easily compare the ESS 9018 chip's first stage of built in oversampling and the the custom intermediate minimum phase filter in the FPGA in my DAC and there is no contest between them.

As with the constant harping about confirmation bias, listening is a learned skill, and some people are much better listeners than others, and indeed some people will be bothered by digital filtering artifacts more than others.  Psycho acoustic testing done mostly with lay persons are not (much) applicable to audiophiles who have spent years developing critical listening skills.  

[barrows]

3 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

There are plenty of people here that think the only way to go is discreet upsampling because DACs couldn't possible do it right themselves.

We are in agreement here.  There are certainly some DACs which can, and do, apply more complex than usual oversampling algorithms and exhibit superb sound quality.  In every case I am aware of these DACs utilize a separate chip (DSP/FPGA) with quite a bit of processing power to do this.  Chord does a fairly complex algorithm, even in the tiny MOJO.  More and more processing power in chips is making onboard filters, for the DAC designers with the chops, better and better.

For those who want to play around with different filters themselves though, I can see the attraction of OSF in the computer for all the flexibility programs like HQP and Audirvana offer.

[copy_of_a]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

soak your cables in this:

are you referring to my post?

(asking because your post follows mine...)

[Superdad]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

The filters in any high-end DAC from the usual vendors (AKM, ESS, TI, etc) are perfectly adequate.

 

LOL.

 

2 hours ago, mansr said:

While it is possible to construct mathematically superior filters, the differences in the actual analogue output are too small to be audible.

 

Says the person (you) who coded the DSD stuff for A+?

 

Really mansr, you need to either: a) Spend some time actually listening to different filters; b) Get a better system; c) Have your hearing checked; d) Find a different hobby.

 

[mansr]

21 minutes ago, Superdad said:

Says the person (you) who coded the DSD stuff for A+?

And that somehow disqualifies me?

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

 

Nor is ignoring confirmation bias......which runs rampant around this place.

 

I agree (tho it is worse on other sites), and that is why I posted the pic.

 

I am not fond of consumer fraud, Chris.

 

As to DC power cables, it is plausible that a star quad rewrap might make a difference so I differ with SpeedRacer on that.  As for AC power cables, I don't see how a cable could matter unless the transformer is very poorly designed - see @jabbr 's post on the foil for more.

[Ralf11]

57 minutes ago, copy_of_a said:

are you referring to my post?

(asking because your post follows mine...)

 

No - just one possibility as to why a difference could not be heard.

[Lebouwsky]

Fellow audio enthousiasts, were talking about music here, let's not forget that. Music is emotion, which reaches our inner core. This forum is all about how to reproduce this music at our homes. Sure, we're talking about the techniques how to do so and we can differ from that. But still, it's music. 

 

Cheers

 

 

[Ralf11]

Music???

 

Who cares about that?  It is about equipment!!

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Music???

 

Who cares about that?  It is about equipment!!

And, more importantly, the price of the equipment.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

The filters in any high-end DAC from the usual vendors (AKM, ESS, TI, etc) are perfectly adequate. While it is possible to construct mathematically superior filters, the differences in the actual analogue output are too small to be audible.

 

Dare I say your crusade against MQA filters is all for naught?

 

If it's too small to be audible, you shouldn't really care about MQA filters. 

 

Perhaps I've misunderstood something. Or, we should establish a threshold of audibility, below which you can't complain about things :~)

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Or, we should establish a threshold of audibility

Well, biology or whatever already did that.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

Well, biology or whatever already did that.

 

Have people agreed upon the thresholds other than frequency?

 

Does this mean your MQA filter teardowns we all about smearing (no pun intended) the company because the issues are inaudible anyway?

[lmitche]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Deleted

[hurka]

my stupid question:

What about the gears in the studios?everithing perfect over there?

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, hurka said:

my stupid question:

What about the gears in the studios?everithing perfect over there?

 

In my view that doesn't matter. The studio is creating sound, whereas we want to reproduce the sound created. 

 

The worst equipment in the world may create the sound the artist wants. So be it.