Consensus about upsampling to 512 DSD

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Yes, that's what I said. But the stuff is equally bad if either of the two fails.

 

 

My experience says otherwise ... poorly measuring gear can deliver the correct ear/brain message; expensive components that have near perfect conventional measurements can yield awful sound - dCS DACs come to mind here; I heard the top of line model, of about 15 years ago, deliver very ugly SQ; current production is apparently excellent, by all reports.

[Teresa]

On ‎7‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 6:25 PM, elcorso said:

Please forget objective measurements... the taste of each one is what is most important, because what would happen if it survives all the measures but you don't like what you hear?

 

Roch

 

On ‎7‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 6:38 PM, pkane2001 said:

If you don't like objectively accurate sound reproduction, then get a system that distorts the sound adding euphonic goodness. But please don't claim that this is somehow more accurate.

 

On ‎7‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 6:50 PM, elcorso said:

 

Oh yes, I like accurate sound reproduction, but to my own ears (not another person ears), not to please whatever white papers and books standards says.  My ear / brain system is the only 'tool' I have to communicate with music.  And yes I like 'euphonic goodness' from tubes.  I just like to add I don't want to modify my DNA ?

 

Roch

 

For me excellent specifications are just the beginning of component and/or speaker selection, next I play a wide selection of my favorite music to see if it sounds and more importantly feels more like live acoustic music to me. I have discovered that components with the same specifications can sound and feel quite different. Audio equipment has evolved to a state where it is quite easy to design equipment with excellent specifications, however designing excellent sound quality is not quite so easy. To me this means measurements do not currently tell the whole story.

 

Also, in my experience tubed equipment sounds tonally closer to how voices and instruments sound to me live in person.

 

18 hours ago, Miska said:

Then it is no go. Also if it "sounds good" but measures badly.

 

I want things to measure and sound good, at the same time. Without the other it is no-go.

 

I agree. ?

[audiventory]

18 hours ago, Miska said:

And for sure there's no need for steep filter, there's just no point in using such with DSD unless you are decimating.

 

Me seems, I have described cases when steep filtering need besides decimation.

[semente]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

My experience says otherwise ... poorly measuring gear can deliver the correct ear/brain message; expensive components that have near perfect conventional measurements can yield awful sound - dCS DACs come to mind here; I heard the top of line model, of about 15 years ago, deliver very ugly SQ; current production is apparently excellent, by all reports.

 

Most if not all reports are meaningless.

 

Measurements are useful for shortlisting and to help you track down potential causes of audible (or inaudible) shortcomings.

[beerandmusic]

On 6/28/2018 at 3:00 AM, Summit said:

There’s no consensus about best upsampling rate or tech or anything else related to SQ. What we have on CA is people that are much more in favour of upsampling to 512 DSD then what is otherwise common in the audiophile world. The reason is probably to some degree because most audiophiles haven’t tried upsampling to 512 DSD and don’t even have gear that they can try it on (computer, DAC, software).

I stated a "majority consensus" meaning 51% or more that have tried upsampling agree that it sounds better than not upsampling.  If there was not a majority consensus, that would mean that 51% or more people (note qualifier "that have tried") believe that upsampling does not improve the SQ.   I stand by my original statement that there is a majority consensus that believes that upsampling improves SQ, for those that have tried upsampling with proper resources. 

 

Run a poll, i would bet that "of those that have tried" more than 50% will agree there is improvement to upsample than to not upsample....and i do not believe it is DAC dependent (for dacs that support native dsd512 properly).  Upsample offline even for testing purposes to eliminate software if so desired....so of course, this is assuming the dac and software are designed properly to handle native DSD512.  I have seen very few, if any, that have upsampled (that have proper resources) to DSD512 that have not preferred it.

 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

I stated a "majority consensus" meaning 51% or more that have tried upsampling agree that it sounds better than not upsampling.  If there was not a majority consensus, that would mean that 51% or more people (note qualifier "that have tried") believe that upsampling does not improve the SQ.   I stand by my original statement that there is a majority consensus that believes that upsampling improves SQ, for those that have tried upsampling with proper resources. 

 

Run a poll, i would bet that "of those that have tried" more than 50% will agree there is improvement to upsample than to not upsample....and i do not believe it is DAC dependent (for dacs that support native dsd512 properly).  Upsample offline even for testing purposes to eliminate software if so desired....so of course, this is assuming the dac and software are designed properly to handle native DSD512.  I have seen very few, if any, that have upsampled (that have proper resources) to DSD512 that have not preferred it.

 

No way to prove any of this. A tiny amount of the people who read the site even post. So the poll would only be an unscientific proof of what a fraction of a percent of audiophiles prefer. 

[4est]

9 minutes ago, firedog said:

No way to prove any of this. A tiny amount of the people who read the site even post. So the poll would only be an unscientific proof of what a fraction of a percent of audiophiles prefer. 

Not to pick on you firedog as I actually think you are a very reasonable poster even when we disagree.  I think that you and others are not really answering the question he is actually asking, but getting hung up by his initial premise. His questions are about PCM>DSD512 software. If one hasn't played around with it, there is little one can add here. I am not suggesting that you haven't, but that he did have a question despite the poor way it was presented.

[firedog]

Yes, you are sort of right. But why does the initial question have to phrased in terms of a false premise about it being  "the best SQ possible". There isn't a consensus and won't be, and if even if there was, there's no way to establish it.

I don't understand why people can't just accept that we have different ideas about what sounds good; or that our idea of what sounds best can change with different playback equipment. 

 

There's a consensus among the people that already like it better that it is better.

 

Why not just ask in a non pejorative way what the people who upsample to DSD 512 think is the best way to do it? 

[Melvin]

2 minutes ago, firedog said:

I don't understand why people can't just accept that we have different ideas about what sounds good; or that our idea of what sounds best can change with different playback equipment. 

 

That would be way too reasonable. Some folks seem to be in desperate need of validation and approval from a perceived majority. Perhaps it's a lack of confidence in their ability to discern good sound. Or just mob-mentality.

[4est]

34 minutes ago, firedog said:

Yes, you are sort of right. But why does the initial question have to phrased in terms of a false premise about it being  "the best SQ possible". There isn't a consensus and won't be, and if even if there was, there's no way to establish it.

I don't understand why people can't just accept that we have different ideas about what sounds good; or that our idea of what sounds best can change with different playback equipment. 

 

There's a consensus among the people that already like it better that it is better.

 

Why not just ask in a non pejorative way what the people who upsample to DSD 512 think is the best way to do it? 

Agreed. FWIW, my interest here is because the topic is DSD512. As much as I love beer and music, I ignore beerandmusic.

[Confused]

I have tried upsampling to DSD on my own system using HQPlayer.  Like some others, I found this to be nominally pleasant to listen to, but there is some "softening" of the bass and an apparent reduction in dynamics.

 

On a number of occasions, I have also heard upsampling to DSD using a dCS Upsampler.  This was a very different story, the end result being highly engaging, no loss of dynamics or bass impact.  In fact, dynamics were exceptional.

 

So it would appear that for me the benefit of DSD upsampling is dependant on the kit used and the exact implementation, but in general terms, I do not even have a consensus with myself, let alone anyone else.

[Miska]

IIRC, dCS does only up to DSD64 which is quite different story than DSD512.

 

Are you are talking about your Devialet? It converts DSD inputs to PCM in a not so great way (like Chord too), so it is better to just send PCM to these.

 

But anyway the results certainly also depend on the DAC in question. Same as for PCM inputs too. For example I have two different discrete R2R PCM ladder DACs. One of these sounds flat and dull while the other one sounds good (and yes, they also measure very differently).

 

For example, try DSD512 with T+A DAC8 DSD or Holo Audio Spring DAC. Or even something much cheaper like iFi micro iDSD BL or Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 Digital.

[Confused]

29 minutes ago, Miska said:

IIRC, dCS does only up to DSD64 which is quite different story than DSD512.

 

Are you are talking about your Devialet? It converts DSD inputs to PCM in a not so great way (like Chord too), so it is better to just send PCM to these.

 

But anyway the results certainly also depend on the DAC in question. Same as for PCM inputs too. For example I have two different discrete R2R PCM ladder DACs. One of these sounds flat and dull while the other one sounds good (and yes, they also measure very differently).

 

For example, try DSD512 with T+A DAC8 DSD or Holo Audio Spring DAC. Or even something much cheaper like iFi micro iDSD BL or Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 Digital.

Yes, fair points.  So for clarity.

 

I have heard the dCS Upsampler with a Devialet D800.  This was running DSD64 and using Devialet's "MAT" algorithm.  This sounded very good indeed.  The Devialet's internal architecture (ADH) is essentially PCM, but this configuration did at least demonstrate to me that DSD64 can work well with a Devialet.  Surprisingly well, considering that this does not appear to be a particularly elegant solution technically.

 

In my own system, I have managed to run DSD256.  In this case the DSD is being fed to a Mutec MC3+USB, which converts to and outputs PCM.  So not the best implementation.  For the record, the best I have ever heard my own rig is running HQPlayer upsampling to PCM192 to the Devialet's AES/EBU input, this is basically Devialet's preferred native format, the Devialet will upsample lower PCM rates to 192kHz..

 

I have also listened to the dCS One and the full dCS rig with DAG amps.  This was running 16/44.1 upsampling to DSD128.  In both cases, the end result was good.  (although I have serious doubts regarding value for money)

 

One thing I have never tried on my own system is running HQPlayer upsampling to DSD64, which I could feed to the Devialet via USB and hence use Devialet's MAT algorithm.  When I get some time I will try this, who knows, it might just be superb and a match for that dCS upsampler.  It would also be £16k cheaper than the dCS upsampler!

 

What I suspect we can agree on is that the exact implementation in specific systems is very important, and that generalisations are often completely meaningless, which I think was the essence of my earlier point.

[jabbr]

50 minutes ago, Confused said:

 

What I suspect we can agree on is that the exact implementation in specific systems is very important, and that generalisations are often completely meaningless, which I think was the essence of my earlier point.

 

Yeah its really pointless to talk about upsampling to DSD512 to a DAC which is PCM or converts to PCM internally, or doesn't accept DSD512 etc...

[jabbr]

On 7/2/2018 at 11:03 PM, audiventory said:

 

Me seems, I have described cases when steep filtering need besides decimation.

 

My I suggest that your nomenclature and descriptions are confusing to us in English ...

 

Ok so I select "Don't make DSP for unchanged sample rates"

May I assume that no filter is being used? Or no steep 20 kHz lowpass filter?

 

The other options are:

"Optimized resampling filter" and

"Unoptimized resampling filter"

kinda suggesting that if you pick "Unoptimized ..." you are a fool...

[beerandmusic]

6 hours ago, firedog said:

No way to prove any of this. A tiny amount of the people who read the site even post. So the poll would only be an unscientific proof of what a fraction of a percent of audiophiles prefer. 

 

a tiny amount is a relative term....but the fact remains, a majority consensus of those who have tried....even if it is only 2000 of 3000 who have tried....there would still be an agreement of a majority.  Maybe people read more into what i was saying, but all i was saying is that, of those that have tried, the majority believe that upsampling is preferred to those that did not prefer.

 

you can have a majority consensus of a very small amount of people....

[audiventory]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

My I suggest that your nomenclature and descriptions are confusing to us in English

 

It may be not only language issues are complicated, but technical issues too.

 

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

May I assume that no filter is being used? Or no steep 20 kHz lowpass filter?

.

Filter is not used when "Don't make DSP..." is checked.

But without resampling filter there will dramaticaly degraded sound.

 

I plan to make non-steep filter. Though I consider aliases as more harmful, than ringing for musical signal.

[jabbr]

3 minutes ago, audiventory said:

Filter is not used when "Don't make DSP..." is checked.

But without resampling filter there will dramaticaly degraded sound

 

Hmm... I've got SACD derived ISOs and I want to split into DSF. Levelling DC is attractive but if this "dramatically degrades the sound" I'd just live with the DC offsets. I'm upsampling in realtime using HQPlayer, so really really really I don't want a steep 20 kHz filter ... that gets around the whole purpose of upsampling to start with?

 

Does leveling DC offsets degrade sound from base DSD64? (without filter)

[semente]

29 minutes ago, audiventory said:

 

It may be not only language issues are complicated, but technical issues too.

 

.

Filter is not used when "Don't make DSP..." is checked.

But without resampling filter there will dramaticaly degraded sound.

 

I plan to make non-steep filter. Though I consider aliases as more harmful, than ringing for musical signal.

 

Is it possible to make two files of the same piano track snippet showing those differences (ringing vs. aliases) filtered within the audible range at say 16 or 18KHz?

That could prove educational.

[Andyman]

6 hours ago, firedog said:

No way to prove any of this. A tiny amount of the people who read the site even post. So the poll would only be an unscientific proof of what a fraction of a percent of audiophiles prefer. 

 

That’s a very odd argument FD. Drugs for example are tested on a very small number of people who have a particular condition. And in turn those with said condition are usually a very small percentage of the population. Number of testees thus minuscule in the grand scheme of things. This does not invalidate the science.

[firedog]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

 

a tiny amount is a relative term....but the fact remains, a majority consensus of those who have tried....even if it is only 2000 of 3000 who have tried....there would still be an agreement of a majority.  Maybe people read more into what i was saying, but all i was saying is that, of those that have tried, the majority believe that upsampling is preferred to those that did not prefer.

 

you can have a majority consensus of a very small amount of people....

How many people do we think there are in the world who have upsampled music to DSD 512 at all? Maybe a few thousand total in the entire world, no?

Then what percentage of those will see and answer a poll here?  Not so many, I'd guess a small fraction of the total number in the world who've tried it. How many answer other polls here? 100, 200, 300? And some of those polls appeal to a much larger potential audience

So the poll doesn't won't prove much. It will just be a small unscientific sample. 

[audiventory]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

Hmm... I've got SACD derived ISOs and I want to split into DSF. Levelling DC is attractive but if this "dramatically degrades the sound" I'd just live with the DC offsets. I'm upsampling in realtime using HQPlayer, so really really really I don't want a steep 20 kHz filter ... that gets around the whole purpose of upsampling to start with?

 

Does leveling DC offsets degrade sound from base DSD64? (without filter)

 

I meant resampling filter. If resampling performed without filtering, sound is degraded.

 

DSD editing (fixing DC offset issue as example) without filtering can lead to:

- increased ultrasound noise level (can  cause audible noise);

- broken stability of sigma delta re-modulator.

 

One way there is using lesser steep filter, but it can't solve both these issues.

 

Broken stability may be solved via reducing loudness on several dB.

 

Increased noise level can not be fixed, unfortunatelly. But, fortunatelly, it is not issue of each audio system.

[audiventory]

2 hours ago, semente said:

Is it possible to make two files of the same piano track snippet showing those differences (ringing vs. aliases) filtered within the audible range at say 16 or 18KHz?

That could prove educational.

 

I thinks about re-working of the article about ringing audio. May be there I'll describe the matter in details with pictures.

 

[Jud]

7 hours ago, firedog said:

Yes, you are sort of right. But why does the initial question have to phrased in terms of a false premise about it being  "the best SQ possible". There isn't a consensus and won't be, and if even if there was, there's no way to establish it.

I don't understand why people can't just accept that we have different ideas about what sounds good; or that our idea of what sounds best can change with different playback equipment. 

 

There's a consensus among the people that already like it better that it is better.

 

Why not just ask in a non pejorative way what the people who upsample to DSD 512 think is the best way to do it? 

 

Agreed.

 

I must say, however, though I wasn’t expecting it, DSD512 sounds appreciably better to me than even DSD256. I can’t think of a good reason why this should be so, but that’s my subjective impression.

[tailspn]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Hmm... I've got SACD derived ISOs and I want to split into DSF. Levelling DC is attractive but if this "dramatically degrades the sound" I'd just live with the DC offsets. I'm upsampling in realtime using HQPlayer, so really really really I don't want a steep 20 kHz filter ... that gets around the whole purpose of upsampling to start with?

 

Does leveling DC offsets degrade sound from base DSD64? (without filter)

DC offset in a Pulse Density Modulation (DSD) bitstream is a consequence (and specified not to exceed -50dB) of the modulation process, just like the rise of modulation noise with frequency. Except for track to track clicks/ticks from incorrectly prepared slicing operations, and independent track start and stop clicks,  why is the DC offset an issue with you?

 

I prepare and master  DSD edited masters for NativeDSD, and am just curious.

 

Thanks!