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.

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.

Albert (my name is George, BTW) there is a real problem with vinyl. In another discussion thread on vinyl versus digital, there is a lot of REAL information from recording engineers regarding the inherent limitations of vinyl (mostly) and why it sounds better to some, worse to others. Basically, if I recall correctly, there seemed to be a consensus of opinion that there is a very vocal minority out there in the real world that prefer analog. (You might find the same type of minority out there that prefer tube over transistor). I don't know how good your hearing is, but I was blessed with perfect pitch and great hearing. I can hear things that others can't who are sitting right beside me. Now, this begs the question - do I hear these things because of genetically superior hearing, does my brain just process the information better, or was I actively listening to the music and the other person passively listening? As a follow-up question: is this gender based? I don't believe that it is gender based at all and enough real science has gone into the quest for that answer. The first part of our hearing to USUALLY suffer degredation is reception of the high frequency pitches. If you've ever operated an air gun, etc. without ear protection you might notice a ringing in your ears afterwards. Not good. Repetition of the same stress to your hearing over time will result in your loss of the ability to pick up certain high frequencies. The one thing that vinyl does is truncate the high frequencies because of the way they were rolled off or limited in the recording process. I've picked this up since the first time I listened to vinyl, more years ago than I care to admit. I personally like the higher frequencies to shine through on my music (this is why I prefer digital and I have done enough A/B testing on my own equipment to validate my opinion). But I also want a balance throughout my hearing range and hopefully some impact caused by subsonic frequency air displacement. So vinyl does not recreate the high frequencies that I look for, but it does the rest fairly well and it still offers constant streaming information to my brain. But it does not offer the wide dynamic range necessary to recreate a true "lifelike" representation or recreation of the musical event. Neither does digital - yet. It is very close. Everybody's hearing is different. Digital can reproduce those high frequencies that I am listening for while vinyl cannot. I seriously suspect that this is why some people get what is referred to as "CD fatigue." The higher frequencies are reproduced (above what is reproduced by vinyl) causing an adverse impact on the most sensitive frequency reception range of hearing. Suppose you have the best audio gear that money can buy - either analog or digital. I think analog offers the best state of the art at this point in time. Why? Analog is in its old age and is a very mature technology. Digital is in its infancy. As algorithms mature and newer hardware generations turn over, digital will eventually reach an even keel with analog in two to three years at the high end of equipment. But very quickly digital will surpass the vinyl recreation of what your brain perceives as a constant or unimpeded and fluid stream of information that we call music. Then we will have the trickle down effect into the mainstream or affordable digital equipment lines or models. As we learn more about digital reproduction of music and upsampling or oversampling (and how the brain processes these digital bit streams), the one thing that vinyl can NOT do is offer the incredible dynamic transients that digital can. And this will eventually make digital more "lifelike" or offer a more realistic recreation of a live musical event. But this is a double edged sword. Your amps and preamps may not be able to keep pace with the dynamics that the digital signal will bring forth. Speed will be the essence. In the end, right now, both methods of musical recreation can offer satisfaction to the listener. Depends on how your brain processes the input. The key is to find balance between the individual components that make up your system so that it is optimized for your listening preference. Right now vinyl is ahead by one run in the bottom of the ninth but digital's clean-up hitter is coming to the plate with nobody out and the bases loaded.