Upsampling DACS: Take the Pepsi Challenge


HAs anyone used 2 of the following 3 relatively inexpensive upsampling DACs: Perpetual technologies, Bel Canto, MSB Link 3 with upsampling upgrade?? I am trying to sort out the details of the new technologies. The Perp Tech can "interpolate", while the others do not. I am under the impression that the "24 bit" part of this new technology has to do with s/n ratios aroung 140 db, which is great, but a little useless considering the other equipment in the system. The sampling freq is the part that has me all aflutter, because it seems to be getting closer to analog quality "infinite sampling" if you will... What do you think? Has anyone compared these dacs?? Thanks, gang.
gthirteen
First of all, let me get one thing srtaight about Resolution Audio. I admire Jeff Kalt very much, and respect his work on an exalted level (I love his CD player, and will likely never part with it). I think that far too much is being made of some minor misconceptions on my part(it's not as if I write for a mag that you are all paying for, so why do any of you hold my being "wrong" to such a high level of scrutiny? I mean, somebody freaking asked me to describe my view of that subject the best I could, so I did...I was partially in error perhaps...get over it...I have, and then some. Why can't the rest of you?). Here's where the GRAY AREA on that subject still is for me: According to another's post on here, Kevin Halverson of Muse has said that upsampling CAN be distinguished from oversamplng in the following manner (and this was also how I understood it to be all along, so if you say I'm wrong on this, it would seem you are saying Kevin is wrong also): THAT UP-SAMPLING is upstream of the DAC, AND employs processing that "interpolates"...and OVER-SAMPLING occurs within the DAC. Now, it all depends on what you describe as being "inside" or "outside" the DAC. The only thing I will concede on this, and Jeff has made it clear to me personally, is that with oversampling, the DAC does get a datastream which is already "not redbook", it's higher rez than that already. I did NOT realize that. If it makes all of you happy that this somehow has disproved how I conceived it before, so be it. Doesn't make me a retard, though. I have no plans to design DACS or CD players, a good thing, I guess. I am convinced not to even try any of the affordable "upsampling" dacs, though, even for kicks............I'm no bigot, and you are in need of a hine end correction from my foot. You are the one who is crass, and also judgemental, and are likely too old to realize it.
I'm fully aware of RIAA pre-equalizaation, and the reason for it. And for your information, I already am a recording engineer (I make my own, which is more than you can do), so there goes that little smug blather-theory of yours. YOU STILL DIDN'T ASNWER THE QUESTION, AND CERTAINLY NO CANECHOIC CHAMEBER IS REQUIRED. You can't hear squat, old man, get a hearing aid, already!!!
Please don't tell me that the phono stage doesn't have the equalization that re-boosts the treble response, because that is basic, and everybody should know it. Why don't either of you (Albert or George0? There is no "inherent" roll off. There is only pre_equalized roll off, that is "decoded" by the treble BOOST (like 40 dB) in the phono stage. All of you need to better eduacate yourselves about that. LP's produce harmonics well beyond 25 kHz, didn't you know that? CD's produce nothing at all above 20 kHz, that is fact. I can hear 20 kHz sinewaves on a test CD with Maggies, and the intermodualtion and squared off-ness that goes with them. Can you? You don't need an anechoic chamber, just a damped lisening room (I doubt George even has that, though). And for your info, I've been in a few dorm rooms myself, and saw no decent stereos, just stale pizza (and a few other nice things). Your comments are anectdotal, and prove ABSOLUTELY ZERO POINT. Take a break, and organize your thoughts in your brain first next time, George...
And also, don't tell me about hearing tests with headphones. They're flawed from the get go, no matter how "calibrated" they are. My HD-600's are infinitely better and more extended in the treble than the phones they use in hearing tests, and THESE SENNEHISERS ARE NOT FLAT IN THE TOP OCTAVE. My Maggies are much more flat in the top octave. I think it has to do with the fact that the trasducer is right on your ear, and phase anomalies occur, with sound wavelengths that are, what, half an inch long? Anyway, speakers in a correctly treated room, a good test CD, a mic referencing a 1 kHz sinewave to the mid 80's decibels range, is all you need. My Maggies stay focused DEAD CENTER in every band of uncorrelated third octave pink noise. They make a ball about 2 feet diameter in the upper bass, and a golfball size "ball of noise" in the top ocatves............................DOES ANYONE ELSE'S SPEAKER SETUP/HEARING YIELD THIS? Me want to know........I CHALLENGE YOU TO DO THIS TEST RIGHT NOW (the Sheffield "my Disc" will do the trick. Otherwise, don't go telling me what I can, and can't hear, through my system, old man. Go pipe your pompousity up your own keester for a while, George....
Carl you are a horse's behind, a point that you continue to prove. Oh, and BTW - come back when you get a real system. Maggies compared to Soundlab Ultimate 1's. Hardly. What a joke. You are boring. I'm out of here. Nothing to learn from you, that's for sure. How did those Barney tapes you are so famous for recording work out? Did those on 8 track tape, didn't you?