Upsampling and Stereophile

My integrated CD/DVD payer (Muse 9) definitely passes a 24/96 signal through the decoder. The sound of 24/96 discs is better than all except the most astounding regular CDs. Upsampling on the other hand does not have theoretical advantages. I recommend the white paper in the Muse site or the recent Stereophile article. In any event, the quality of the analog stage is more important than the above considerations. I believe a good CD player with good parts where they count, will in most cases sound better even with regular CDs, than a cheap DVD player at 24/96. Likewise, the sound of an upsampling DAC or CD player is more likely to be affected by its analog stage than by the upsampling itself.

Joe: I certainly agree with you about the quality CD player vs. the cheap DVD player, as the power supplies and analog stages have an awful lot to do with sound quality. With respect to upsampling, I'm not sure, and actually doubt, if it is upsampling alone that makes the Purcell improve the sound of an already excellent transport/dac combo, but the unit certainly makes an improvement to my ears in my system. I have also heard the MSB unit with and without the upsampling, in an A/B test (you can switch it on the back), and felt there was a slight improvement with the upsampling engaged. Could it be that the chip used for the upsampling module in the MSB and Bel Canto units has an effect apart from its upsampling claims (much like the Crystal chip used in HDCD players was thought to provide at least some of the improvements apart from the HDCD encoding)?

Sol322; Thanks for the references re: DVD players that output a 24/96 digital signal. I'll check them out. Craig.

Rcprince, thank you, interesting thoughts. My own sense is that the analog domain (in a digital player), and the recording and production have a much bigger effect in sound quality than the word length and the sampling rate (once you are above redbook CD). From listening to 24/96 material in my Muse, I do get a sense that a more quiet background can be achieved (i.e. dynamic range) than in CDs, but the differences are smaller between a good regular CD and a 24/96 DAD than between a good CD and a badly recorded/produced CD. My opinion on vynil, by the way, is that unless you spend $30K or more you will be hearing the groove, the wow and the flutter, etc, and that it is definitiely not worth it.

Joe: I'll agree with you on the first points. I recently had the Audio Logic analog stage replace my Sony SACD player's analog stage, and the increase in resolution and involvement was a comparative quantum leap vs. the SACD/CD comparison (with very good CDs). The difference between a good CD and a badly recorded one also tends to be a gross, as opposed to subtle, difference. The difference between 24/96 and SACD vs. CD is significant, but not always as easy to spot in an A/B comparison, when you're comparing to a very good CD; it's something that grows on you as you realize it sounds more natural and unrestrained. We'll be having our December NJ Audio Society meeting at my house, where I'll see what the members think of SACD vs. CD; I'm curious as to their reactions. On your last point, we'll have to agree to disagree--I think my Basis Ovation/Graham 2.0tc/Benz Ruby combination still sounds more natural to me with good records, and that's less than $30K (of course, you add in the phono preamp, you're getting closer). Realize, of course, that I've been living with my vinyl for a long time, have a fairly large collection (though nothing compared to some of our posters here) and am probably more tolerant of its shortcomings than many. But that's another thread.....