Oh. So Windows 10 upsampling is 'sub-optimal'. Alternatives?

[daninthemix80]

Sigh. Just read this: http://archimago.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/measurements-windows-10-audio-stack.html
 
So there's artifacts in resampled music using the Windows, such as when playing a normal 16-bit/44.1 file when your output settings are 24/192, for example.
 
So what do people do about this?

 

[Roseval]

Using a driver that bypasses the windows mixer like WASAPI or ASIO

 

[winders]

Use a DAC that does a good job of upsampling and feed it the 16/44.1 output.....

 

[Music Alchemist]

HQPlayer does pretty good upsampling that changes the sound, but it's a little expensive for a music player, and personally I prefer foobar2000 over it overall. You can also use upsampling plugins in foobar2000.
 
Chord DACs do it much better, but they're not cheap.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

  Sigh. Just read this: http://archimago.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/measurements-windows-10-audio-stack.html
 
So there's artifacts in resampled music using the Windows, such as when playing a normal 16-bit/44.1 file when your output settings are 24/192, for example.
 
So what do people do about this?

 
Easy - don't resample. Why would you resample it anyway? It's not like a 24/96 compatible DAC can't work with Redbook.

 

[dukefx]

Mine is set to 44.1/16 and there is no need to resample except for 48kHz movies but those are of poor quality anyways.

 

[sterling1]

All,
I have two laptops, one is connected to my HT pre/pro, which decodes at 24/96, via Wi-Fi from computer to Airport Express connected to the pre/pro using S/PDIF output from Airport Express. Now, since Airport Express only outputs at 16/44. I do not see any reason to set my laptop to 24/192.but, nevertheless,I've set iTunes to output up to 24/192. The sound/music from my iTunes library sounds awesome, whether  downloaded there as an AAC file,  ALAC at ether 16/44 or 24/96. I even have a few AIFF files at 24/192 and they sound great too. But, the fact is anything downloaded at over 16/44 can not be discerned as being better in any manner that better could be defined. In other words, I suspect I could start buying 24/192 downloads, and with a new DAC I could convert those hi- res files, but would not hear better than what I hear now.
My other laptop runs ITunes also; but, with this computer, I use an external sound card to output to HT pre/pro. This USB to S/PDIF sound card will  convert all sample rates my files may be stored to 24/96. I get the feeling this does sound better than the way I've arranged thing with the other laptop; but, what I perceive as better in all reality is likely just a higher volume.
This is my experience so far; and, the only conclusion is this: since I can not distinguish 24/96 downloads as sounding better than 256k at 44, I see no reason to buy hi-res downloads unless the downloads were originally mastered at 24/96, for which there is some compelling evidence for better sound. Also, I think is the "stereo" realm all up and down conversion, bit perfect stuff is largely gobbledygook. On the other hand, "multi-channel" recorded and delivered at 24/96 is a different story. Get yourself an OPPO blu ray player and some multi-channel SACD's and hear for yourself. It is indeed meaningful.. 

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Why would you resample it anyway?

 
For superior sound quality, of course. Normal upsampling isn't worth bothering with, but the high quality type is essential. It's a little complex to explain, but research Chord DACs. Basically, they upsample thousands of times to get closer to recreating the original analog wave form. When I first heard of this, I thought it was absurd, but after buying one, by golly, I'm a convert! I can't even listen to conventional DACs now because they sound too unnatural in comparison.

 

[theveterans]

   
For superior sound quality, of course. Normal upsampling isn't worth bothering with, but the high quality type is essential. It's a little complex to explain, but research Chord DACs. Basically, they upsample thousands of times to get closer to recreating the original analog wave form. When I first heard of this, I thought it was absurd, but after buying one, by golly, I'm a convert! I can't even listen to conventional DACs now because they sound too unnatural in comparison.

 
Upsampling/oversampling is not essential BTW. There's another approach called "No Oversampling" which can also sound just as analog as your Chord DAC, i.e. no digital filter (WTA Filter in Chord DACs), no taps, just pure digital to analog conversion.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Upsampling/oversampling is not essential BTW. There's another approach called "No Oversampling" which can also sound just as analog as your Chord DAC, i.e. no digital filter (WTA Filter in Chord DACs), no taps, just pure digital to analog conversion.

 
I know about NOS DACs. But I don't know anyone who thinks any NOS DAC sounds better than the Chord DAVE, for example. I meant essential to get the best sound. You can get pretty good sound out of all sorts of DACs, obviously.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

 
Why would you resample it anyway?

For superior sound quality, of course. Normal upsampling isn't worth bothering with, but the high quality type is essential. It's a little complex to explain, but research Chord DACs. Basically, they upsample thousands of times to get closer to recreating the original analog wave form. When I first heard of this, I thought it was absurd, but after buying one, by golly, I'm a convert! I can't even listen to conventional DACs now because they sound too unnatural in comparison.

That's oversampling being done in different ways by different DACs and quite different from upsampling being done before reaching a DAC which is quite unnecessary.

Not that I have any objections to systemwide resampling done right for pragmatic reasons (making audio streams of different sample rates compatible with each other for gapless / concurrent playback)

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Sigh. Just read this: http://archimago.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/measurements-windows-10-audio-stack.html

So there's artifacts in resampled music using the Windows, such as when playing a normal 16-bit/44.1 file when your output settings are 24/192, for example.

So what do people do about this?

If true... Windows 7 / 8 are alternatives?

Windows 7 had crappy resampling too until it was fixed in an optional hotfix (you have to download it yourself, it's not part of any auto update) while Windows 8 had good resampling.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bcnpd3vezvgpzrl/44s%20perceptual%20sweep%20linear%202015.flac?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z51lvx376ft7t28/48s%20perceptual%20sweep%20linear%202015.flac?dl=0

This is a pair of audio files I use to check on resampling quality of devices. Set your playback device's sample rate to either 44.1kHz or 48kHz and play both sine sweep files back to back. If resampling is bad, you'd hear warbling over/undertones to the file that doesn't match your current device sample rate. If you don't, well... maybe the resampling isn't that bad after all?

 

[castleofargh]

 

  Upsampling/oversampling is not essential BTW. There's another approach called "No Oversampling" which can also sound just as analog as your Chord DAC, i.e. no digital filter (WTA Filter in Chord DACs), no taps, just pure digital to analog conversion.

 
I know about NOS DACs. But I don't know anyone who thinks any NOS DAC sounds better than the Chord DAVE, for example. I meant essential to get the best sound. You can get pretty good sound out of all sorts of DACs, obviously.

 
you should make it clear that what you call best is your subjective opinion. because this is very confusing. 
oversampling and filters are at the heart of all modern DACs for basic legitimate reasons. Chord has a special sauce, Shiit has a special sauce, Ayre has one too... and any delta sigma chipset has its own oversampling value and type of filter(sometimes they offer setting for the designer to pick whatever rocks his boat), if only for the sake of saying they're special or that they didn't steal the stuff from someone else.
the only thing really special with Chord is that they "go to 11" with the FIR filter. IMO, for the sole purpose of having Rob spam about it as a marketing stunt.
 
anyway, about the topic, for the most part DACs nowadays will oversample at much higher rates than what oversampling in windows will do, and for many it can in fact be slightly counter productive to oversample before sending to the DAC it would probably be such a situation with the Chord stuff, but I didn't try). the most significant advantage to oversampling is for NOS DACs, but doing it is like admitting that NOS DAC are an error in the first place which is probably true.
so my advice would be for people to learn a little about the DAC they have. and for those who like to know instead of just believing stuff they read on the web, make measurements with various resolutions.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Everyone has their own idea of what's essential to get the best sound. For me I say it's essential to EQ your earphones to your ears and apply HRTF processing tailored to your ears to get the best sound out of any headphone

 

[Music Alchemist]

That's oversampling being done in different ways by different DACs and quite different from upsampling being done before reaching a DAC which is quite unnecessary.

Not that I have any objections to systemwide resampling done right for pragmatic reasons (making audio streams of different sample rates compatible with each other for gapless / concurrent playback)

 
The designer still calls it upsampling, but I know what you mean.
 
I used to upsample with HQPlayer but ended up liking foobar2000 without upsampling more.
 

Everyone has their own idea of what's essential to get the best sound. For me I say it's essential to EQ your earphones to your ears and apply HRTF processing tailored to your ears to get the best sound out of any headphone

 
I agree that EQ is far more essential.