Why you want upsampling and upconversion in a server and why it sounds way better!

I have to agree with @tom6897

The AI is actually adding texture.

Mind you, Sony claims they do the same with some of the MP3 restoration work they are doing, but up and oversampling algorithms do not. At worst, they extrapolate a line. At best they use a curve fitting algorithm. Far from AI based, but interesting to think about for the future.

In my mind, DACs used to perform better with high rez data, and that's changed recently. The quality of performance between Redbook and high resolution has vastly improved.


Best,

E

video upconversion adds noise. And neither is acceptable if you’re a purist.

The AI based video upconversion is something brand new and cool. They teach an AI to extrapolate textures, but they are all just guesses. The AI is just adding aesthetically pleasing candy.

The video/film analogy is a stretch IMO.  However, my impression is that the general consensus is that upsampling Redbook CD's usually does result in audible improvements, and I agree.  I've been doing it for years, though in hardware rather than software. 

CD's clearly improve when upsampled through my old-but-beautiful Assemblage D2D-1 upsampler/dejitterer.  It feeds a Sonic Frontiers SFD-2 MK-III via I2S-e interface.  This system only goes to 24b/96khz, but so what?  How many of us can really hear the difference between 24/96 ans 24/192 or whatever?  [And please, nobody whine about the old kit or "digital has improved dramatically," etc etc unless you've actually heard it.  It's bold, but I'll say it - at the very high end this stuff hasn't actually been sonically improved on.  But all that is a topic for another thread.]
What sonic improvements?  Very subtle but also very real.  More space and depth in the soundstage.  Clearer placement of instruments, less "smeared."  Just a little clearer, better defined and simply more real.

Most significant to me, is that the same improvements occur when playing upsampled 16/44, "CD quality" material from Quobuz and Tidal through the BlueSound Node 2i.  In this case it's the s/pdif output of the Node 2i to the D2D-1, thereby bypassing the DAC in the Node 2i.  The D2D-1/SFD-2 sounds >>vastly<< better than the Node 2i's internal DAC. 

Interestingly, playing Tidal MDA material through the D2D-1/SFD-2 (which wouldn't be unfolded or decoded or whatever, I guess) sounds better than when using the Node 2i's internal DAC with full MDA unfolding.  Admittedly, this probably isn't a fair comparison.

Sorry guys you just don''t watch the video. It is clear that the 4k Lumiere video is much more watchable then the original. 

There is no contest between the two film examples.

For most people upconverted or transcoded audio mirrors the same experience with video. Farjouda video processors were a huge improvment over early high quality video display technology in the 90's and it was clear to see that a reprocessed video image was clearly better than the original one that was not.

In our tests with many high end dacs the upconverted data nearly always sounds far better than the original. 

I have the digitally massaged, cleaned up, improved and higher fidelity LP of old songs from the soundtrack of “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”.  At first listen it’s impressive as heck and I’m sure it would get a giant thumbs up across the board too.  The songs are so much clearer and fidelity is massively improved.  Can’t listen through even one side.  The tunes are great, it doesn’t connect.  Some things are better left alone.