2. digital
  3. 154452-3549

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

One of Roon's and Jrivers best advantages is the ability to digitally reprocess your data. 

With an appropriate server you can take for example a 16 bit 44k Tidal stream and reprocess that data stream to DSD or to reprocess to 24bit 192k, 384k, even up to 768k.

In our tests almost accross the board most listeners perfer DSD or high res PCM data streams.

The counter arguement is that if you start with 16 bit 44k sample you can't do any better as that  is the source.

Going through Facebook we got a post that showed the Lumiere brothers first film shot in 1894 with a steam locomotive. 

The second video showed the same Lumiere video reprocessed using AI to create a 4k video stream out of the same video footage. 

The first video is the native source the second shows the reprocessed video the differences aren't subtitle even if you reprocess the native video you are able to extract a signifigantly higher quality image. 

We have been saying this for years even if you don't start out with a true high res source through the magic of computer reprocessing you can create a pseudo high res data packet that still sound far better than ifs original form.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/someone-used-neural-networks-to-upscale-a-famous-1896-video-to-4k-quality/

Watch the video and see what you think. Sure it is always best to start with a true high resolution image but in the case of not having a true high resolution music fille the ability to use digital reprocessing can create a signal that will sound far better providing that your dac and server are up to the task.

Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor NJ



 
128x128audiotroy
audiotroy's avatar
audiotroy OP
3,782 posts
 
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. 


wlutke
725 posts
 
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.  
rossb
185 posts
 
I also disagree with the OP.

I have experimented with upsampling. I had the Chord DAVE with Blu 2 and then M Scaler. Upsampling to 768k initially sounded impressive but over time it came to sound unnatural and fatiguing. The sound was more detailed, but it was artificial detail - lean, skeletal and unnatural. It was also bright and tonally bleached. It’s the sort of thing that impresses in a short demo but ultimately sounds unnatural and artificial.

I sold the DAVE and upscaler and now have the Lumin X1, which can stream 768k files. So i tested the 768 upsampling in Roon. It had exactly the same effect - more apparent detail, but lean, bright, bleached and fatiguing.

Playing files at their native resolution - or with minimal upsampling - sounds best to me - fuller, warmer and more natural. All the detail is there, it just isn’t emphasised in a grossly unnatural manner.

The analogy with video images is a false one - the two work very differently.

There are no free lunches in audio or anything else. Adding digital information to a file may produce some benefits but as always there must be a cost somewhere. In my view that cost - the unnatural, artificial, fatiguing sound - far outweighs the miniscule benefits.
edcyn
1,876 posts
 
wlutke -- I only half-agree with you on the question of whether older/imperfect recordings should be massaged.  On the one hand, I appreciate any increase in fidelity.  After all, isn't that why we buy all those expensive cables? On the other hand, there's no denying the sheer charm and mellifluousness of, how shall we say, vintage recordings. And who knows what Al Jolson or Arturo Toscanini might have thought?
erik_squires
16,057 posts
 
In our tests with many high end dacs the upconverted data nearly always sounds far better than the original. 


I have not experienced this in a very long time.
More to discover