2. digital
  3. 974949609

Upsampling and Stereophile

Last summer there were several threads here on Audiogon about digital upsampling and over sampling (a couple long and heated), but the opinion(s) of the audio press were conspicuously absent. In the Dec. 2000 issue of Stereophile, page 3, John Atkinson, has an editorial explaining their position on this in his "As We See It" column, page 3. I encourage everyone interested in the subject to look up the article. I have excerpted the following quotes that I think sums up Stereophile's opinion, and that may pique your interst: (1) "....the audio industry has settled on an 8X-oversampling ratio, the 44.1 kHZ CD data being converted to a 352.8 kHZ datastream before D/A conversion." (2) "no matter how good these upsampling products can sound-- and the dCS, Bel Canto, and MSB products indeed sound excellent-- there is no conceptual difference between them and traditional CD playback systems. I am now convinced that the sonic differences we have heard and reported on are merely due to the different choices in digital filters made by the designers of these products." (3) "In the meantime don't buy a digital product because it has "24/96" emblazoned on its front panel. Buy it because it makes your CDs sound great". Cheers. Craig.
garfish
joe_coherent
130 posts
 
Rcprince, thank you, interesting thoughts. My own sense is that the analog domain (in a digital player), and the recording and production have a much bigger effect in sound quality than the word length and the sampling rate (once you are above redbook CD). From listening to 24/96 material in my Muse, I do get a sense that a more quiet background can be achieved (i.e. dynamic range) than in CDs, but the differences are smaller between a good regular CD and a 24/96 DAD than between a good CD and a badly recorded/produced CD. My opinion on vynil, by the way, is that unless you spend $30K or more you will be hearing the groove, the wow and the flutter, etc, and that it is definitiely not worth it.
rcprince
3,073 posts
 
Joe: I'll agree with you on the first points. I recently had the Audio Logic analog stage replace my Sony SACD player's analog stage, and the increase in resolution and involvement was a comparative quantum leap vs. the SACD/CD comparison (with very good CDs). The difference between a good CD and a badly recorded one also tends to be a gross, as opposed to subtle, difference. The difference between 24/96 and SACD vs. CD is significant, but not always as easy to spot in an A/B comparison, when you're comparing to a very good CD; it's something that grows on you as you realize it sounds more natural and unrestrained. We'll be having our December NJ Audio Society meeting at my house, where I'll see what the members think of SACD vs. CD; I'm curious as to their reactions. On your last point, we'll have to agree to disagree--I think my Basis Ovation/Graham 2.0tc/Benz Ruby combination still sounds more natural to me with good records, and that's less than $30K (of course, you add in the phono preamp, you're getting closer). Realize, of course, that I've been living with my vinyl for a long time, have a fairly large collection (though nothing compared to some of our posters here) and am probably more tolerant of its shortcomings than many. But that's another thread.....
joe_coherent
130 posts
 
Thanks Rcprince. I think we're pretty much on the same page. I'd be interested in hearing more about the Audio Logic to the SCD-1.
rcprince
3,073 posts
 
Joe: Take a look under the thread SACD Demo. I had the 777ES modified, not the SCD 1-- it came down in price to $1600 and I didn't want to spend too much for an analog stage I was going to bypass and a medium I hope survives but hasn't been marketed all that well yet.
More to discover