Upsampling to anything other than your DAC's internal conversion rate

[Melvin]

My ears/brain prefer no software up-sampling with both my Schiit Bifrost Multibit and Chord Qute EX DACs. No big surprise considering both manufacturers are already listed. That being said, both DACs, when used with my Wyred 4 Sound re-clocker, which re-samples everything to 24/96, sound fantastic.

[Melvin]

Melvin: Without trying to single you out specifically, if I can use what you said above to make a broader point:

 

1. Your DACs are both doing internal upsampling and applying the filters the manufacturer chose to do so.

2. Your Wyred 4 Sound reclocker, to the extent it resamples everything to 24/96 is also applying its own and different set of filters

3. HQPlayer or Audirvana/iZotope would each also be applying their upsampling and filter methods

 

If we assume (which may not be a fair assumption) that all of the upsampling is bit perfect in that it applies no DSP or other changes to the signal except duplicating data points exactly, then the differences you hear will all be due to the choices of filters applied (chosen for you in the case of Schitt/Chord/Wyred and chosen by you in the case of HQPlayer/Audirvana).

 

Given the range of opinions expressed about filters/upsampling, I think it is fair to assume that the filters DO have an impact on the resulting sound. Now, if you chose the DAC(s) you have by comparatively listening to them against other DACs, part of what you were doing was showing a preference for that manufacturer's choice of filters. Thus, if you "love" that particular sound, it would not be surprising that you would prefer it over a set of filters that produce a different sound. For most folks who use their DACs with HQPlayer or Audirvana but chose no upsampling, I think that all they are really saying is "I like the filtering choices made by my DAC manufacturer."

 

The next level up though would be to ask, which of the above is closest to the original recording? I think Miska has clearly shown why upsampling data to a higher rate allows a set of filters to be applied (whether by him or by your DAC manufacturer) that produces fewer artifacts in the audible range (so has nothing to do with higher frequency hearing/response beyond 20kHz/steeper transients, etc. that often get referenced to say upsampling can't make a difference). What is obviously much, much harder is to show before and after plots for your specific DAC using its internal upsampling/filters versus your DAC using upsampled input with HQPlayer filters applied. The Meridian folks backing MQA are suggesting they can do something along those lines (ignoring anything else they are doing re compression or copy protection) that ultimately leads to your DAC producing an output more faithful to the original recording. Miska is doing the same in continuously testing/improving his filters.

 

That is the main reason I focus on these software players -- because as time progresses, the software filters can keep getting better (for those of you who are photographers, it is like running a picture you processed in the 1995 version of Photoshop and today rerunning the RAW version of that file through the latest version of Photoshop; it is amazing how much more can be done to the RAW original with the capabilities of the new software). In theory, the same will continue to be true of the music software as we keep learning beter and better filtering methods.

 

I was saying exactly what you so succinctly stated .. yes, I prefer what the DAC designers chose for me. This is also not a slight toward Miska or Damien (amongst others) whose work I admire and have paid for. It's simply a preference. We are fortunate to have so many talented folks offering so much choice.

 

My inclusion and comment on the re-clocker was to simply illustrate even with my "clear cut" preference, I love the SQ when the DACs are fed a cleaned up and ASRC'd signal. So much for absolute preference!

[Melvin]

For a while this was a very interesting and informative thread...

 

R

 

+1