Upsample CD Player, noticeable difference?

[Jon L]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wower I think the upsampling issue has been proven. If you look at Meridian's CD players (those things don't even start cheap) they sounds great. Almost Tube-y with a tremendous amount of resolution, speed and extension (Had a long seesion with some maggies a while back). They use, I don't know, magic?, to make recording void of digitial artefacts. Those units really make CDs sound their best and I think it is because of the upsampling.

Then there's a whole bunch of people who believe the upsampling Meridians are overly smooth and airy, lacking presence and dynamics, ending up boring. Probably due to upsampling

 

[bigshot]

How can upsampling compress the dynamics? I don't see how that's possible.

See ya
Steve

 

[Garbz]

On the flip side I don't see how something can be made overly smooth. If the upsampler's anti aliasing filter is running properly it will only eliminate the jagged edges of a signal that results from the changed sampling rate. At worst it kills the treble detail if the filter is too agressive.

I've never heard a life performance, setup correctly, that wasn't smooth. Boring yes, but that is more to do with ther performer.

I don't believe that a system can be too smooth, only that at one point you can't get any smoother sound. That said even recordings like Santana's Sharman DVD-A still come through harsh and there's no eliminating poor mastering.

 

[drarthurwells]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garbz On the flip side I don't see how something can be made overly smooth.

Smoothness that is achieved by blurring or softening tone edges can be very pleasant but can degrade tone image 3-D-like etching in space and can degrade inner detail in complex orchestration.


That is how smoothness can be too smooth.

In my headphone amp, if I use a Sylvania 6SN7 W tube as input, and two Sylvania JAN GT with triangle plates as output tubes, I soften tone edges and get smoothness. If I sub two Sylvania VT231 T plates for the triangle plates, I get tone edge resolution with sharp imaging and inner detail at the price of some smoothness.

Same with Raytheon 6SN7 GT tubes - the flat plates are smoother but the T plates are more detailed - here though I use the Raytheon GT as input with two Sylvania W tubes as outputs.

I much prefer the detail of the T plates over smoothness, since my sound is still quite smooth but better because of the detail, but if the rest of my headphone system was not top grade, I might prefer the smoothness to the detail in order to mask harsh components, cables, etc.

 

[gtortorella]

As I have also been interested in the 640C v2, I decided to call Audio Advisor about it yesterday. I discussed the 640 v2 with my favorite AA representative. He discussed the player in general, and then compared it to the Music Hall CD25.2. He said that the two players "are close." Overall, he said his preference is for the CD25.2, particularly on vocals. Then we discussed the 840C. He feels the 840C is quite a player. While we did not discuss the matter of upsampling, he did refer to the 840C in rather glowing terms.

Since the 840C retails for $1,375, I did not see it as a viable option. Hence, I did not purchase either player (640 or 840). I did, however, purchase a Ginkgo Cloud Ten platform. I have always admired the fact that Ginkgo posts their test results. Thus, for under $300 (shipped), I thought the best way to upgrade my sound was to provide further isolation of my 25.2. I also figured: since I like the character of the 25.2's sound, why seek a change? Therefore, if you like the character of the CD63SE, you may not (necessarily) have to replace your CD player. I, too, had owned (and liked) the CD63SE. It is a very nice player. In retrospect, the only thing I do not particularly care for is the unit's volume control. It seemed to work fine, but I would rather not have this feature. Sonically, though, it is a solid performer.

I hope this helps...

 

[Garbz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells Smoothness that is achieved by blurring or softening tone edges can be very pleasant but can degrade tone image 3-D-like etching in space and can degrade inner detail in complex orchestration. That is how smoothness can be too smooth.

What I am saying is if smoothing isn't done to the extent where it will affect a 20khz signal, just quick jagged which if you look at in a wave editor would be many times more than 20khz, how can it degrade detail. Or ignoring detail, how could it possibly kill dynamics which often aren't present untill far lower.

If either of these are happening you're no longer smoothing, your low-pass filtering within the audio band the way I see it.

 

[bigshot]

I think folks are extrapolating basic concepts without any regard for scale.

See ya
Steve

 

[Duc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtortorella As I have also been interested in the 640C v2, I decided to call Audio Advisor about it yesterday. I discussed the 640 v2 with my favorite AA representative. He discussed the player in general, and then compared it to the Music Hall CD25.2. He said that the two players "are close." Overall, he said his preference is for the CD25.2, particularly on vocals. Then we discussed the 840C. He feels the 840C is quite a player. While we did not discuss the matter of upsampling, he did refer to the 840C in rather glowing terms. Since the 840C retails for $1,375, I did not see it as a viable option. Hence, I did not purchase either player (640 or 840). I did, however, purchase a Ginkgo Cloud Ten platform. I have always admired the fact that Ginkgo posts their test results. Thus, for under $300 (shipped), I thought the best way to upgrade my sound was to provide further isolation of my 25.2. I also figured: since I like the character of the 25.2's sound, why seek a change? Therefore, if you like the character of the CD63SE, you may not (necessarily) have to replace your CD player. I, too, had owned (and liked) the CD63SE. It is a very nice player. In retrospect, the only thing I do not particularly care for is the unit's volume control. It seemed to work fine, but I would rather not have this feature. Sonically, though, it is a solid performer. I hope this helps...

So if the 640c and your Music Hall 25.2 are close and you have owned a 63SE, how does your CD 25.2 hold up to the 63SE?

Bryan

 

[gtortorella]

While the CD63SE was (and still is) a good player, the CD25.2 is, in my view, a level above the Marantz. If I were in your position, I would seriously consider a CD25.2. It is an excellent, well-built player. Before I forget: I also had the Rega Apollo ($995, retail). In my view, the 25.2 is clearly superior...especially in the bass region. In fact, I traded my first 25.2 for the Apollo. I ended up going back to the 25.2.

 

[Duc]

Well, just ordered the Cambridge 640, so we'll see what happens...

Thanks for the replies!

 

[Roblin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtortorella While the CD63SE was (and still is) a good player, the CD25.2 is, in my view, a level above the Marantz. If I were in your position, I would seriously consider a CD25.2. It is an excellent, well-built player. Before I forget: I also had the Rega Apollo ($995, retail). In my view, the 25.2 is clearly superior...especially in the bass region. In fact, I traded my first 25.2 for the Apollo. I ended up going back to the 25.2.

How did the RA-1, RS-1, and CD25.2 sound together? I'm in need of a dedicated source as well, and I'm awaiting my RA-1 to arrive, and I'm thinking of getting Grado headphones as well. Hope fully you owned that combo at the same time...