![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
99.250.132.23
Bryston designers claim that upsampling results (using 192k) is dependent on the technique used. Asynch upsampling is fatigueing and unsatisfying to many. So I must ask, is there a technique that is better or are all implementations going to be inadequate for people who do not like asynch upsampling (not to be confused with asynch usb computer audio)?
I'm not talking about effective power supplies, but differing digital implementation.
Follow Ups:
AFAIK There is no fundamental difference between the old oversampling technology (4x or 8x) which has been around for decades, and 'synchronous upsampling'. The decision to 'upsample' was just a decision to implement a solution able to accept a digital signal from varying sample rates (32k, 44.1k, 48k, 96k, etc.) and output a signal at a higher resolution.Sonically, it may be true that that was a step in the wrong direction. OTOH, I would be very surprised if you could differentiate in a listening test between a 44.1 signal oversampled to 176.4k and one upsampled to 192k. In fact designing such a test would be difficult.
Edits: 06/20/11
You can try fancy algorithms and interpolation to fill in the gaps, but in the end you are just guessing.
With mass storage getting ever larger and cheaper there is no point in ripping at anything less than the maximum bit and sample rate you have.
Then make lower quality copies for devices with less storage.
"With mass storage getting ever larger and cheaper there is no point in ripping at anything less than the maximum bit and sample rate you have".
Agreed.
I was simply talking about DAC that take a redbook CD and turn it into 192kHz. The Bryston got pretty good reviews. Many of us feel that asynch upsampling is fatigueing.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: