Upsampling - Is it really all that good?

[Ymer]

So I was in the market for a sub $300 CD player. Then I decided I want something better, in the sub $1000 range. Now that I am actually spending that much, I need to question: Is upsampling worth it? It'll probably cost a good 300-400 more, but if it is worth it :X

Somehow... I don't believe it.

 

[Stephonovich]

The Philips 963SA plays Redbook and SACD, upsamples to 192KHz (or 96), and I think it's only about $400. Perhaps $500; someone will have to clarify. Everyone I've seen highly recommends it, though. If you didn't need SACD, I'm sure there's an even better Redbook only player for the same price.

(-:Stephonovich

 

[pedxing]

Just to sidetrack the thread and give someone to think about something somwhat relavant, some manufacturers, like MOON, suggest that some of their products do not need upsampling because the CD player does some other fancy digital magic. Here's the link to that CD player:

http://www.simaudio.com/mooneclipse.htm

However, I don't think oversampling with higher bit DAC's may not be the same as upsampling as the manufacturer claims it to be.

 

[halcyon]

There are technically valid reasons for doing upsampling (to enable less steep filters with proper phase coherence and still absolutely flat amplitude response).

However, whether that is the major contributor to sound quality is dependent on so many other factors.

It is much easier to affect cd playback sound quality by really bad analog implementation, lousy power supply or jittery clock.

In fact, DAC and upsampling are IMHO perhaps the most overrated pieces of marketing. It's not that they can't have any effect on sound, it's just that many good examples of upsampling cd players with really expensive DACS also have excellent analog stage, superior power supply, really accurate master clock, etc.

But then again, we should not buy our gear (for listening) based on specs, we should buy them by first listening to them.

At least that is my motto, although it's hard to fully follow in an audiophile wasteland like Finland

 

[Watchdog]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedxing However, I don't think oversampling with higher bit DAC's may not be the same as upsampling as the manufacturer claims it to be.

In fact the current issue of Audio Ideas Guide explains how many manufacturers get oversampling and upsampling confused and use the terms interchangably, when in fact they're not the same. Funny, they used the SimAudio player as an example of how even the manufacturers manual can get it wrong.

 

[tom hankins]

The best unpsampling players I've owned have been the Audio Aero Capitole MKII, and the Cary 306/200. I use it on all music with the Cary. The Shanling CD-T100 I used it sometimes but wasn't that happy with the upsampling on it.(not near as good as normal 16/44.1 playback) The Philips 963SA upsampling is terrible! Makes the music sound weak and thin. If your buying a player and counting on the upsampling to help it out, you better try before you buy.

 

[Ymer]

I'm not really counting on the upsampling, I'm not a believer.

I just wanted to make sure, since a friend of mine keeps on telling me how I *NEED* upsampling.

 

[tortie]

Upsampling may be viewed by some like Tom as weak & thin, I might describe as a little too clean. Until now, I dont know what to think of upsampling. Sometimes I use it, sometimes I dont. I like its effect on some of my CD's but dont care for it much on some. Its just good to have that option when you want it

 

[chillysalsa]

After going from an 8X oversampling to a non-oversampling, fliter-less DAC (the TubeDAC), I have given up worrying about what technology is better. I am too busy enjoying the music that sounds 'right' and live to my ears.

 

[amol]

I personally think Upsampling rocks. i always upsample at 192 khz slow mode in foobar2000, and it throws back the soudstage and it sounds very relaxed and laid back, as compared to the default sampling 44.1 khz. 44.1 khz sampling sounds like "in your face" compared to 192 khz.

 

[fewtch]

I've noticed a real difference between 44.1/16 and high quality upsampling to 96/24 with my sound card. The overall sound is just more organic and analog-like... the difference is not dramatic, but neither is it subtle. It really must have something to do with moving those brickwall digital filters much further above the audible range of hearing... at 96 KHz upsampling, the filtering by the DAC will be done at 48 KHz rather than around 20 Khz (and the lower frequency filtering is done in the software domain rather than by the DAC, so I suspect the way upsampling is implemented will have a dramatic effect on how it sounds).

There's a guy at HydrogenAudio who got something close to "statistically significant" ABX scores when ABX'ing between 44.1/16 and 88.2/16. That's actually saying a lot... his scores were high but the standard for "significance" is through the roof on the HA forums. Let's just say it comes damn close to scientifically valid proof that he heard an objective difference/improvement while upsampling (I think he has the same card I do). To my knowledge, this is far more than anyone's been able to do ABX'ing cables and such.

 

[Welly Wu]

My impression is that an upconvertor and upsampler work well if there is a good filter through which to process the sound. I heard the Philips 963SA recently and I know that player is known to be pretty flat and neutral. With it enabled, it sounded harsh, brittle, and lifeless. My Pioneer Elite DV-59AVi has both HiBit and Legato PRO which means that it can take a 16 - 20bit / 44.1 or 48KHz signal and convert it to 24bit / 176.4 or 192KHz but it does so through three pre-defined filters. It has the effect of giving the sound much more warmth, body, texture, and weight. Switching between the different filters changes the sound even more so from bright to very dark. I think that Pioneer did the right thing by adding their own proprietary filters to the whole upsampling and upconverting business because I'm totally loving the sound. It works very well with the rest of my other components.

 

[tom hankins]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tortie Upsampling may be viewed by some like Tom as weak & thin, I might describe as a little too clean. Until now, I dont know what to think of upsampling. Sometimes I use it, sometimes I dont. I like its effect on some of my CD's but dont care for it much on some. Its just good to have that option when you want it

Only on the Philips 963SA did I find upsampling to be weak and thin. I also think the 16/44 is less than average on that player. The upsampling on the Cary and AA is great....I use it on everything I listen to. The Shanling was hit and miss depending on the CD. But never weak and thin. Only the Philips had that honor. When It's done right upsampling is great! It adds treble energy and air to all the music I use it with,

without hurting the other frequencies.

 

[pbirkett]

Upsampling on my EWX definitely makes a difference, I think its sounds more detailed, better soundstaging and just generally a bit nicer, especially when using the ASIO winamp driver in TOP quality mode, my favourite sample rate for normal audio is 88.2 KHz I've discovered, after trying it for a while.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbirkett Upsampling on my EWX definitely makes a difference, I think its sounds more detailed, better soundstaging and just generally a bit nicer, especially when using the ASIO winamp driver in TOP quality mode, my favourite sample rate for normal audio is 88.2 KHz I've discovered, after trying it for a while.

I'm also using (the equivalent of) 'top quality mode' with the WinAMP SSRC plugin. In my case I had a lot of trouble deciding between 88.2 KHz and 96 KHz... really there's probably no difference, but for some reason I just feel better using it

(even if it does eat twice as much CPU time).

P.S. also using triangular noise shaped dither with triangular distribution. I had trouble deciding on this one as well (probably because dithering has little effect at 24 bits) but decided to go with this after reading somewhere about someone else having good results with it. It's totally inaudible, as far as I can tell.