Consensus about upsampling to 512 DSD

[beerandmusic]

It may not be 100% or even 80%, but i believe there is a majority concensus for everyone that has tried, that software upsampling your music to DSD 512 ->NOS DAC is best SQ possible.....

 

Two questions:

 

1.  What are the different software programs that allow you to do this?

 

Roon

HQPlayer

Jriver

 

Any others? 

 

2.  Is there also a concensus of which software program does it best, or are they all pretty comparable in terms of SQ (not talking interface benefits, SQ only)?

 

 

[One and a half]

Well, HQplayer output to either DSD256 or DSD512 sounds thin, the dynamics are gone. 

Jriver upsampled to a pedestrian DSD128 sounds raspy and also tinny.

Also depends on the material and honestly could not be bothered fiddling until a sweet spot is found.

 

Consequently, I don’t upsample at all and feed DACs the natural sample rate of the file. 

[Kal Rubinson]

I do not upsample either nor do I use NOS DACs.

[firedog]

There is no consensus and doesn't need to be. Every system and set of ears are different. What works best on/for one may not for another. 

[asdf1000]

9 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

It may not be 100% or even 80%, but i believe there is a majority concensus for everyone that has tried, that software upsampling your music to DSD 512 ->NOS DAC is best SQ possible.....

 

As above, there's definitely is no majority consensus.

 

Some DACs may benefit more than others.

 

In my own experiences with HQP, it can elevate the performance of DACs that use crap sounding filters (crap to my ears only). 

 

For DACs by Playback Designs, Chord, PS Audio (DirectStream) etc etc, you are paying for high quality filters (among other things that make a DAC sound great like power supply and analogue sections). Plus with those DAC's you can't upsample to their maximum sample rate and avoid digital filtering - they up-sample to very high sample rates.

 

Up-sampling to DSD512 with HQPlayer with an iFi iDSD Black Label and a Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC sounds fantastic. HQPlayer's Jussi has measurements to show why it might sound better.

 

So like everything - it depends on a lot of things and you can't generalise unfortunately.

 

A better question may be for people to share which DACs they believe benefit from up-sampling DSD256 or DSD512 and with which software and which filters.

 

And it doesn't need to be a NOS DAC strictly.

 

tly

[GUTB]

Any DS-type DAC would benifit from upsampling if for no other reason than to skip the SRC. DSD512 using a high end filter (poly-sinc-x) offers the utmost fidelity possible from a DS-type DAC.

 

The decision in modern DACs should only be about going ladder / multi-bit or going DS. High end ladder DACs are best for PCM sources, but you lose the native DSD playback capability of DS style DACs (oddball DACs like the Holo Spring / Cyan aside). Native DSD recordings are the best quality currently possible in digital audio, but PCM is the vast majority of high-res music.

[Miska]

Also most of the on-chip delta-sigma modulators are poor and suffer from all kinds of problems.

 

It is just technically unfeasible to put very fancy DSP algorithms inside a $10 DAC chip that has both DSP and the sensitive analog stuff on the same silicon, a less than 1 mm away.

 

With suitable DAC, DSD512 is so far best way to bypass both the on-chip digital filter and on-chip DS-modulator and leave DAC do only the digital to analog conversion without additional DSP...

 

Whether someone subjectively likes sound of one way or the other is another matter. I personally first look at things form objective side and only then from subjective.

[mansr]

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

Any DS-type DAC would benifit from upsampling if for no other reason than to skip the SRC.

That depends. The TI/BB DSD1793 performs better with 192 kHz input and SRC enabled than with 384 kHz and SRC bypassed.

[christopher3393]

22 minutes ago, mansr said:

performs better

 

Hi Mans. Can you say what you mean by this?

[jabbr]

I upsample to DSD512 with SDM DAC or 768k with PCM DAC (max that the PCM1704 chip is recommended for)

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

Hi Mans. Can you say what you mean by this?

With inputs up to 192 kHz, the DSD1793 does an 8x upsampling, the 1536 kHz output of which is sent to the sigma-delta stage. In filter bypass mode, the sigma-delta modulator is fed directly with the (max) 384 kHz input.

 

This is the output of the DAC chip before analogue filtering with 384 kHz input in filter bypass mode. The input signal is a simple ramp consisting of the four steps easily visible in the scope image.

 

This is the output from a "ramp" of two steps at 192 kHz. The 8x interpolation has expanded this to 16 smaller steps. This makes the job of the analogue filter much easier.

[jcbenten]

14 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

It may not be 100% or even 80%, but i believe there is a majority concensus for everyone that has tried, that software upsampling your music to DSD 512 ->NOS DAC is best SQ possible.....

 

Two questions:

 

1.  What are the different software programs that allow you to do this?

 

Roon

HQPlayer

Jriver

 

Any others? 

 

2.  Is there also a concensus of which software program does it best, or are they all pretty comparable in terms of SQ (not talking interface benefits, SQ only)?

 

 

XiSRC is another program to upsample to DSD512 offline.

[Miska]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

That depends. The TI/BB DSD1793 performs better with 192 kHz input and SRC enabled than with 384 kHz and SRC bypassed.

 

Well it is not so clear, because the digital filter has quite poor stop-band attenuation and high pass-band ripple compared to better ones. So it is quite inaccurate. You can also run the chip with up 768k PCM inputs, depending on configuration.

 

But since the 3rd order modulator it uses is very simplistic, it also generates spurious tones and such. So it is certainly best running with DSD inputs as that will bypass the modulator too. And then you can run proper digital filters to the maximum DSD rates.

 

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Miska said:

Well it is not so clear, because the digital filter has quite poor stop-band attenuation and high pass-band ripple compared to better ones.

Some attenuation is better than none.

[Miska]

12 minutes ago, mansr said:

Some attenuation is better than none.

 

Yes and no, depends on how much crap you will tolerate in 96 - 192 kHz band and in your passband. (It has -75 dB attenuation and +-0.002 dB ripple with sharp filter)

 

At 384k input I can certainly still see instability on leading edge of 7 kHz square, at 768k input it is much better. And at DSD256/DSD512 so good that the performance tends to depend more on the analog filter after the DAC chip.

 

[jabbr]

I’m coming to the impression that once upsampled to DSD512, that SQ entirely depends on the analog electronics ...

[NOMBEDES]

Worthless thread.  A DSD - (whatever) copy of a bad recording sounds like.....well,  a bad recording.

@jabbr has it right.

 

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

I’m coming to the impression that once upsampled to DSD512, that SQ entirely depends on the analog electronics ...

 

[audiventory]

4 hours ago, jabbr said:

I’m coming to the impression that once upsampled to DSD512, that SQ entirely depends on the analog electronics ...

 

I'd say that analog parts are important for any DSD sample rate.
Digital filtering (in addition to analog one) may be applied though.

[Ralf11]

4 hours ago, jabbr said:

I’m coming to the impression that once upsampled to DSD512, that SQ entirely depends on the analog electronics ...

 

an if not upsampled, SQ may still be largely determined by the transducers and the analog electronics ...

 

I use a tube based euphoniciser to help tie up the pretty ribbons on my system

[GUTB]

2 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

Worthless thread.  A DSD - (whatever) copy of a bad recording sounds like.....well,  a bad recording.

@jabbr has it right.

 

 

 

This is an audiophile topic: non-audiophiles may not get much value from it.

 

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, GUTB said:

This is an audiophile topic: non-audiophiles may not get much value from it.

Everybody out!

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

This is an audiophile topic: non-audiophiles may not get much value from it.

 

 

無

[GUTB]

Audiophiles place high value in improving SQ. Upsampling and advanced filters are ways to improve SQ -- and so audiophiles are interested in the topic. Non-audiophiles place low value in improved sound quality. In fact some non-audiophiles place such low value in improving SQ they even state than one DAC isn't very different from any other. Needless to say if you think a USB stick DAC is in the same ballpark as a high end ladder DAC than worrying about Upsampling up-sampling is a waste of time.

[Ralf11]

I thought you clocked out, GUTBS

[davide256]

I choose not to up-sample nor do I use equalization. I regard both as degrading to SQ resolution because of the added manipulation of source signal.