Upsampling DACS: Take the Pepsi Challenge

Gthirteen, you are more than welcome. Wonderful thing about this forum is that, with the collective knowledge and experience to draw upon, greater understanding will result in the truth. In my line of work, we use quite a bit of very sophisticated algorithm development. MUCH more sophisticated than that found in audio. But it is really hard to make digital theory easily digestible and therefore hard to bring it to a point where it makes sense to everybody. I think the author did a magnificent job in his explanation. Coming around full circle, you can see why Carl was right - digital has the infinite capability to produce more dynamic and "lifelike" quality of music than analog. But, as always, the science lags behind the enabling technology. Therefore, we will have to wait about 5 years, by my estimate, to begin to fully realize the promise of the CD. Biggest thing to remember is that the science of hearing and how the brain distinguishes sounds, transients, harmonics, etc. is really not well understood at all. Therefore, you and I hear (and "understand" music) differently. So it is catagorically incorrect to hold to one's opinion of perceived sound as an unassailable truth. It is THEIR truth but you and I might hear it much more differently than they did. Just take part in a speaker or interconnect cable double-blind study sometime. You will hear differences, sometimes, between various products. But can you really differentiate to the point whereby you say that "Number 1 is Nordost" and "Number 2 is Radio Shack"? Try it sometime. The results are going to amaze you and reveal new truths heretofor undiscovered. Therefor, you are the ultimate judge of the truth and you can only do that by comparing different equipment in your system. NEVER go by reputation. ONLY go by what pleases your ears. Music should just be equated with joy (not ego) whether you cry at an opera or bang your head with Kiss. I've done both and I am the better for it.

Gthirteen, you are more than welcome. Wonderful thing about this forum is that, with the collective knowledge and experience to draw upon, greater understanding will result in the truth. In my line of work, we use quite a bit of very sophisticated algorithm development. MUCH more sophisticated than that found in audio. But it is really hard to make digital theory easily digestible and therefore hard to bring it to a point where it makes sense to everybody. I think the author did a magnificent job in his explanation. Coming around full circle, you can see why Carl was right - digital has the infinite capability to produce more dynamic and "lifelike" quality of music than analog. But, as always, the science lags behind the enabling technology. Therefore, we will have to wait about 5 years, by my estimate, to begin to fully realize the promise of the CD. Biggest thing to remember is that the science of hearing and how the brain distinguishes sounds, transients, harmonics, etc. is really not well understood at all. Therefore, you and I hear (and "understand" music) differently. So it is catagorically incorrect to hold to one's opinion of perceived sound as an unassailable truth. It is THEIR truth but you and I might hear it much more differently than they did. Just take part in a speaker or interconnect cable double-blind study sometime. You will hear differences, sometimes, between various products. But can you really differentiate to the point whereby you say that "Number 1 is Nordost" and "Number 2 is Radio Shack"? Try it sometime. The results are going to amaze you and reveal new truths heretofor undiscovered. Therefor, you are the ultimate judge of the truth and you can only do that by comparing different equipment in your system. NEVER go by reputation. ONLY go by what pleases your ears. Music should just be equated with joy (not ego) whether you cry at an opera or bang your head with Kiss. I've done both and I am the better for it.

Gmkane, I have been reading this thread since it began, and made no comments, as I really cannot contribute. I do have a question though. In the CURRENT state of high end, home (two channel) audio, does the ULTIMATE digital transport, D to A, etc., have a better chance of reproduction of music than the ULTIMATE analog system, assuming best L.P.'s as a source (most of us cannot access master tape!) Mind you, I am including NO cost limit in the question. If you want to include a $30K digital, OK. Be sure to remember the $30K turntables (and above) and the phono stages required to complete their process. I would very much like to hear your opinion on this. I confess, in advance, that my prejudice is for L.P., as I have gone to the limit with both formats, and essentially agree with one part of your comment, where you say we are 5 years away from getting digital "fixed." If I am wrong in the way I read your comments, I apologize in advance. You seem to be very knowledgeable in the field, so I am eager to hear what you have to say.

GM Kane, I appreciate your claimed support of my thoughts on digital audio. (I should point out that I am a fan of vinyl, and am not a total "digihead". My good friend Albert would be remiss if I didn't point this out. I admire his commitment to the single format, it shows his passion for fine music reproduction in the home)..................I have some questions for you, GM: Why is it that you think my observations about women are sophomoric? I'll grant that they aren't PC, but why must that make them sophomoric? Also, does your wife, or significant other, somehow cause you to forumlate the opposite notion (that most women actually DO enjoy highend audio systems)? We all know that is false, so why argue it? Those "activists" out there would have us believe it is solely "social conditioning" that causes the vast majority of women to "not be interested in sit-down-listening-with-concentration"...but to me, that is just illogical...flies in the face of reality. Nowadays, it seems to me that women are "conditioned" to believe that they can have it all in life, and most do a very good job of accomplishing just that (and are to be admired for it). So, why would they somehow not be able to enjoy listening to an audio system, IF THEY WANTED TO? I submit that it's that they do NOT want to, not that some man somewhere told them that they could not...that it "wasn't their place". Now, we all know that there are a handful of women that are audiophiles, and I celebrate and appreciate them very much. They are the minority, though. And as for enjoying listening to a live music performance (be it symphony, jazz, or rock) THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, HERE. We're talking about 2 CHANNEL AUDIO IN THE HOME (not "home theater", not "live" music at a venue, but RECORDED MUSIC at home)............I say this not to inflame, only to exercise my right to speak in a politically incorrect manner. No one in this forum has ever felt the least bit of pause, when they have sought to offend me in some way, so do I owe it to those same folks to show the same pause? To spout PC rhetoric that I don't believe?.................This is an "open" forum (for now) on the net, not a dinner party at the boss's mansion....ahem...

Carl, for what is it worth, my wife and I have listened together to recorded music doing nothing else and in silence during the music for three to five hours at a stretch on most weekends for over 25 years. She used to joke that she married me for my stereo and record colllection. In addition we have two younger female friends who join us regularly and bring music for all of us to listen to.