2. pc-audio
  3. 1414588993

Is it really useless Upscaling 16/44.1 music to 24

Is it really useless Upscaling 16/44.1 music to 24/176.4 or 24/192
In the past I asked this question and from the answers I learned that converting any music from 16/44.1 to higher resolution is just adding bunch of zeros in front. But now I started seeing so many DAC’s up-sampling the music to 24/192 or 24/384, which bring up the question again “Is it really add zero in front of 16/44 or did they figure out how to create a broader spectrum in frequency from 44 khz to 384 khz and how many listeners heard the difference in quality of sound by up converting it? “We are not discussing the HD-Track’s music.”
I read the reviews and saw the picture open DACs. I don’t see much in them other than a high rez sound card. Please correct me if I am wrong.
And finally, In JRiver/Foobar we have an option to up sample the music. Questions are
1) Does up converting makes a difference?
2) What is the difference between $500 or $5000 DAC re-sampling the music verses Foobar or JRiver re-sampling?
3) Can JRiver/Foobar do the same job in re-sampling the music as a DAC does?
trcns

Showing 3 responses by lewinskih01

lewinskih01
907 posts
 
I didn't care for JRiver upsampling either. That is why I feed the DAC at the file's native resolution. However, I realize there are many factors to consider. Some DACs might sound better at higher sampling frequencies, some computers might be noisier, and some might not want to spend in a G25 - for example. But generalizations are tough to get right.
lewinskih01
907 posts
 
I think if I had the puter in the same room (i would blow my brains out)

I assume you mean because of the noise the computer makes? Fair point, with standard computers. My computer is designed to be in the listening room, only playing music. It uses very little power, so generates very little heat, so passive cooling is good enough (with a purpose-designed case, of course). The PC has no motors, fans or HDD. Makes absolutely no noise.

And a linear power supply helps in not injecting electrical noise, despite being plugged into a different AC circuit just in case.
lewinskih01
907 posts
 
Trcns,

You've gotten very good feedback. I certainly agree with Dtc, and also adding this as another example.

My PC audio goes from a highly optimized PC running Windows Server 2012 in core mode, with Audio Optimizer, JRiver, into Audiophilleo with PurePower, into Metrum Octave. The Metrum is non-oversampling so any upconversion needs to be done at the computer. In this setup I like it better to keep things native. So no upconversion.

Recently I tried Acourate (software for digital room correction, amongst other things) and to convolute it needs to turn everything to 24 bit within JRiver. The combo of convolution/correction plus upconversion I like better than the above.

A few months ago I purchased an exaSound e22 which gets rave comments from the femto clocks and its ability to play DSD256 natively, and all the fuss about DSD. This unit retails for 3.5k, while my AP+Metrum retailed for combined 2k two years ago.

- Feeding the DAC at the native rates I liked the AP+Metrum combo better.
- Upconverting to DSD in JRiver and feeding that to the e22 vs natively feeding into the Metrum, I like the Metrum better.
- Upconverting at the PC with HQPlayer (instead of JRiver) to DSD and feeding the e22 sounded as good as the Metrum. Maybe...maybe a touch better. But not enough to justify the price difference. So I sold the e22.

Goes to show that implementation is the key. Not ditching exaSound. I think it's a very good product, targeted for people who don't have such an optimized PC, not running WS2012 with Optimizer, etc.

And regarding my preference to keep things native with the Metrum, I often wonder if my speakers aren't the bottleneck to hearing the difference (B&W 804S). Another example of implementation being the key!
More to discover