[plonter]

Hi all,
Is there a difference between these two approches?    I heard about plugins that do upsampling / resampling ,and also dacs can do it.
What plugin do you recommend using with foobar for this purpose?  I would like to upsample my CD 44.1Khz music to 96 or 192 just to experiment and for fun.   
I would also like to have a short guide on how to install and use this plugin with foobar.  
 
Thx.

 

[plonter]

Update:
I just installed the Sox plugin for foobar (it got the most recommendations) and I set it to 96Khz which is the highest My dac (Dragonfly 1.2) can handle.  
While at first listen I don't really hear a major difference, But the sound is not worse either ... and finally the Dragonfly light is changing colors  

I will keep experimenting with this.

 

[gevorg]

SoX is pretty much the benchmark for resampling. DACs own resampling can either match it or do worse since their processing power is way below modern PCs. On the other hand, upsampling x2 or x4 is pretty straightforward mathematically, so for the case of 44.1KHz, it might be better to upsample to 88.2KHz or 176.4KHz, rather than 96KHz or 192KHz. You can use SoX mod version to customize upsampling based on source sample rate.

Or none of this might make any difference, and it would be easier to just keep it at original sample rate.

 

[PurpleAngel]

  Hi all,
Is there a difference between these two approaches?    I heard about plugins that do upsampling / resampling ,and also DACs can do it.
What plugin do you recommend using with foobar for this purpose?  I would like to upsample my CD 44.1Khz music to 96 or 192 just to experiment and for fun.   
I would also like to have a short guide on how to install and use this plugin with foobar.  

 
I'm not an expert on up-sampling, but it would seem if your source is 16-bit/44.1K CD audio, up-sampling above 16-bit/44.1K should not improve anything.

 

[plonter]

SoX is pretty much the benchmark for resampling. DACs own resampling can either match it or do worse since their processing power is way below modern PCs. On the other hand, upsampling x2 or x4 is pretty straightforward mathematically, so for the case of 44.1KHz, it might be better to upsample to 88.2KHz or 176.4KHz, rather than 96KHz or 192KHz. You can use SoX mod version to customize upsampling based on source sample rate.

Or none of this might make any difference, and it would be easier to just keep it at original sample rate.

Thx for the info.
I downloaded the sox normal version,it seems to have option for x2 or x4 upsampling.

 

[plonter]

So it is better to have a non-upsampling DAC  and do the upsampling / oversampling in the PC ?
Also I have another question: Is there a way of showing the upsampled frequency in foobar ?  I mean where the file's details at the bottom of the screen.

 

[plonter]

I am bumping this thread, I am interested to know how many of you head-fiers actually upsample/oversample their music?   I was experimenting a little and so far can't detect any major improvement,but I also can't disqualify it totally.
Maybe 88.2 sounded the best...I think.   96Khz gave me a feeling like extending the highs a little..more treble energy,more air maybe but I am not sure.
Maybe the Dragonfly is not the kind of DAC that benefits from upsampling..?  
 
My system sounds very nice in normal 16,24/44.1  so no biggy.  I have a feeling that upsampling is passe, that's why  I am interested to know how many of you still do it.
As a side question, anyone know what is the difference between normal and best quality setting in SoX?

 

[castleofargh]

ok the thing is, DACs don't upsample music because it makes the music better, they do it because it helps for a few stuff like applying a low pass filter. by upsampling you extend the usable high frequency range, so the DAC can use a softer filter to roll off the unwanted ultrasounds. all this leading to better fidelity, easier filter implementation, and lower price. win/win/win. so it serves zero purpose for you to upsample your track beforehand. music is still the same, noise floor is still the same, all it does is make you use more bandwith to send the data to the DAC.
 
so let your music as it is, and if your DAC has a use for upsampling, it will do it itself at the best moment.(if you use usb it might even be used in the asynch process).
 
 
 
about NOS DACs (Non Over Sampling), you can probably find 20guys who will tell you all about how great it is and how the real sound can only be obtained with discrete NOS DACs and no filter. they will usually show some misrepresentation of the signal in staircases, or some measurements of square waves that don't exist in music as "proof" that music is better with NOS DACs. sadly when it comes to actually using music signals, NOS DACs are a pain in the butt for the designer, will cost more, and most likely will end up with lower actual performances. very few of the NOS DAC users have a clue about what they are talking about and got convinced by oversimplified marketing. the fact that almost all chip manufacturers stopped doing them is not just because of some powerful "anti good sound" conspiracy as you might guess ^_^. it's just not a great model.
 
 
all in all having a file in highrez serves little purpose in the audible range, but having a DAC that can manipulate files into higher samples or bit depth can lead to some measurable improvements in audio fidelity. so using 16/44 files into some cheap delta sigma dac that will oversample the hell out of it, is a very natural and rational way to go. and it leads to great signal accuracy.