Consensus about upsampling to 512 DSD

[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

[Ralf11]

I thought you clocked out, GUTBS

[Ralf11]

I just use Helium

[Ralf11]

4 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Enough vague blather ... obviously if the content has value, then it’s not worthless. 

 

Regarding the actual topic of this thread: upsampling allows the recording to present itself in the best fidelity (which might be counterintuitive to some folks) — the reason being that the analog filter operates well outside the audible range. Noise shaping effectively pushes the noise into the high frequency range eg Mhz where it can be thus selectively filtered away.

 

using a filter with a gentle slope and avoiding the problems of "brickwall" filtering - which are ??

[Ralf11]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

http://soundlab.cs.princeton.edu/learning/tutorials/sensors/node35.html

 

 

as a kid, I loved Ms. Butterworth's syrup...

[Ralf11]

did both you whiners miss the allusion?

 

or do you need a limbic system adjustment?

 

you are both welcome to put me on ignore - LMK if you need help on how to do that

[Ralf11]

digital chattering??

 

Frank, you may need to predictively update your state space, Gaussian or not.

 

 

(Yes, Kal, I had to look some of that up - but is the Hungarian filter maximally flat?)

[Ralf11]

distinguish audiophiles from audiophools

[Ralf11]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

There's a third category: GUTB.

 

he seems to be under-clocked

[Ralf11]

10 hours ago, Summit said:

 

Audiophiles let their ear decided that’s sound good and bad. They don’t need measurements or technical prof for what they hear, but can be interested to know them.    

 

Audiophools buy gear based sole on market claims and what other says sound good. They need measurements or technical prof because they don’t trust their ears.     

 

ears need to be distinguished from perceptions

 

 

 

 

[Ralf11]

apparently, they lost bits with attenuation some years ago

[Ralf11]

"well-matched preamp"

 

- what does it have to be well-matched to?  and what does that have to do with adjustable gain?

[Ralf11]

9 hours ago, Summit said:

I would probably go insane if I could not trust my senses and constantly doubt if they are real or just imaging. I guess am lucky that my ignorance of so called “prof” can be such a blessing.  

 

you are probably already insane - there are numerous perceptual deficits in vertebrates including 'ghosts' (from the invaginated 'blind spot' in the retina) and many many others

 

you have the FDA to thank for saving you from death and disease caused by patent meds and similar placebos

 

but you are welcome to blunder along in your unicorn adorned universe -- just don't waste other people's money with bad advice

[Ralf11]

Many DACs are designed to obviate a separate pre-amp.  The DACs listed just above are quite expensive.  I am not going to claim that a $100 DAC will sound better than a $10,000 pre-amp.

 

Nonetheless, if the output stages in a DAC are well implemented, and the control functionality is present, then there is no reason to buy a separate pre-amp.

 

But, mea culpa, I have an ARC LS25 Mk II which gives me more functionality and euphonicizes the sound with its tubey goodness.  I happen to like the way it sounds with a simple outboard DAC.  I am likely to change to a DAC built in to a universal disc player (Oppo 205) next.  After that, I may think about some expensive DAC ...

 

What I don't understand is why (or even whether) a $25,000 sounds better than a $5,000 DAC, and if either sounds better than a $1,000.  I assume it's in minor things like component matching and precisions, pcb layout etc. accumulating but don't know.

 

I am quite sure it ain't the volume controls...

[Ralf11]

37 minutes ago, mansr said:

Compare the specs for the Benchmark DAC3 and the dCS Vivaldi. The latter is 10x the price and delivers worse (pretty average, in fact) performance. I haven't personally heard either, but John Siau seems like a no-nonsense kind of guy.

 

Shoot out

 

meet you at the ok corral

[Ralf11]

Yes - the thing is - the ARC seems to have quite a bit of accuracy & bass control.  I'm sure the newer ones are better...

 

I also never heard such a "sense of pace/rhythm" until I got it (also with newer, bigger Maggies) - I had dismissed that trope as audiophilournalism until then.

[Ralf11]

Just now, fas42 said:

listen to live, non-amplified music at close quarters

 

sidle up to buskers

 

around here, the threat of disease transmission is too high for that

[Ralf11]

Yes, I'm aware Frank.

 

Thx barrows.  The QX-5 is $9k.  I googled it and got a large number of ayrey looking coffee cups...

[Ralf11]

I need a head banging emoticon for Frank

 

 

 

tubey sound could be more accurate due to the type/sequence of distortion products produced - but I have never seen a study of this

 

or one could emulate a tube stage via MOSFET or J-FETs

 

 

now... DSD ... upsampling - how do we know if a DAC upsamples?

[Ralf11]

Hmmm... how do we measure accuracy ?

 

We have a series of things we talk about, including various types of distortion.  Do we take each factor, and add them up?  Do we multiply them by some sort of factor loading to equalize for psycho-acoustic preferences?

[Ralf11]

9 hours ago, semente said:

 

Pass a signal through an equipment, compare with the original signal. How simple is that?

 

it is too simple

 

re your other question, some distortion products are a given - so, we want the sequence of distortion products to be of minimal psycho-acoustic effect

 

 

agree with your measurements correlate with SQ comment

[Ralf11]

virtually every poll is based on a sample form the overall popn - this poll may or may not be "scientific" (by which I assume you mean a statistically valid sample representing the entire popn)

 

- there is a lot more to designing a good poll too....

 

but why not do it?

[Ralf11]

consensus - 

agreement, harmony, concurrence, accord, unity, unanimity, solidarity; etc.   maybe he meant corn-sensus??