Are high sample rates making your music sound worse?

mzkmxcv381 posts
It is abundantly clear that this chap has NOT experienced upsampling and is spouting verbage about measurements he does not understand anyway and he gains satisfaction from writing and seeing his own words in print that have NO BENEFIT TO ANYONE. Can he please desist from irritating sensible people who DO know what they are talking about and have EXTENSIVE listening experiences of the benefits. Can we have a rule on this forum that if you have not tried DO NOT MAKE SPURIOUS comments on those who HAVE, disputing their ears and findings.

" know the Chord upsamples, so does the Benchmark, and so do many others, I’m specifically referring to upsampling before the DAC. DACs do this as it helps with jitter, doing this before the DAC doesn’t help."
No, they do it to interpolate and reduce the challenge for the reconstruction filter.  Again, don't believe me, read a Burr-Brown application note if you prefer.
There was also a point about up sampling being no longer bit perfect.  If you understand interpolation, which is a distinction without a difference. If you understand interpolation, you know that it creates new data points which a) raise the frequency of the noise to be filtered and b) invent a new intermediate level - beyond 16 bits -- which in effect raises the resolution.  It is absolutely true that no new data exists and it is absolutely true that in a world of perfect, phase-coherent, 200 dB/octave filters, it would be un-necessary. But we are not in that world. So, at 88.2 kHz we get effectively 17 bits.  at 176.whatever we get 18 bits.
I acknowledge that at 96 we do nto have a simple multiple, BUT -- HUGE BUT -- all the original data points remain adn can be reconstructed so in practice it is bit perfect.  Its like saying "i used to have $100, this crook gave me $2 and now I don't have $100 anymore".  Uh, true, you have $102.  You are free to throw $2 on the ground - and the DAC is free to toss any bits on the ground; but it will use them to make its later job easier.
And yes, there are differences pre-DAC and in-DAC but they are ALL BEFORE the actual conversion - either via PDM (sigma-delta) or PAM (ladder).

@itsjustme

Using a multiple to upsample is an easier job and hard to mess up. Using a non-multiple helps with jitter but is harder to implement.

As for up/over sampling before the DAC, it matters whether either side takes care of intersample overs, the Benchmark models for instance does take this into account and lowers the level before oversampling.

Interpolation does “destroy” the original data while synchronous upsampling preserves the original data. It matters how good the interpolation is. Going with your currency analogy, it would be like if I had a $100 USD but someone took it and gave me $100 in Bahamian currency, which averages a 1:1 conversion with USD, but sometimes it’s not, it has been worth 0.98:1 and sometimes 1.02:1. 

Stereophile’s measurements of DACs shows how much aliasing occurs by using a high frequency test tone, if you look at the AudioQuest DragonFly Red’s measurements for instance, the aliasing image at 25kHz is below -100dB.

I can’t comment on phase though as I haven’t seen that tested before, but we are very forgiving of phase errors (not talking phase mismatch) in the treble that I doubt any decent DAC will have an issue.

Snopes is a very reliable source for debunking urban legends such as the green marking pen used on CD's. Where's the evidence they are unreliable? ... thought so.

Cables can sound different in different systems, but above a certain level of materials and build quality you are hearing ONLY differences. They may sound small to some and significant to others. A $5000 power cable DOES NOT sound better than a $500 power cable. This is even more true with USB and other cables carrying a digital signal. Super expensive cables often look really cool, but you're kind of getting ripped off once you get into the four and five figure pricing. If you can afford it and think you like the resulting changes it makes to your system then just rock on!

As Stereophile has reported when testing high-end 16bit CD players and DACS, either technology, 16b or 24b, or a 44k sampling rate or much higher like a 196k rate can both sound fantastic when implemented in well designed gear. It is not at all a given that the higher sampling rates always sound better. So no, more is not always better.

Personally I prefer the sound of vinyl records and all analog playback over digital despite some of the advantages of the latter. It's just a personal thing, but vinyl sounds more "musical" to me. 

There is a LOT of snake oil being sold to audiophiles and there is little doubt in my mind that many of these products rely more on psychology than they do science. Your mind will change what you hear based upon your own confirmation bias-- and of this there is no doubt.

Every system will sound different based upon the combination of gear and the room that it's in. Your room will have a vastly greater impact on the sound of your system than anything achieved changing to more expensive cabling-- assuming you are already using something decent.

My phono cartridge will have a much greater impact on the sound of my system than my amplifier. So will my speakers. So will my phono preamp. Digital gear has improved immensely over the last fifteen years or so regardless of the bit rate. Does that mean I'd prefer a lower bit rate? Nope. Just saying...

Where is the evidence Snopes is nothing more than a bunch of mud-raking know-nothings? What would they know about the Green Pen? I’m guessing about as much as you do. No offense to you personally.