More > JRiver Media Center 22 for Windows

Upsample in a DAC or in MC?

(1/3) > >>

kstuart:

--- Quote from: Magellan on August 11, 2016, 05:26:43 am ---I can see the point when it comes to downsampling, but I canīt see the point doing this in real time. Why not just use a stand-alone resampler and resample the audio files or convert them if needed?
When it comes to upsampling I donīt see the point at all. Could anyone explain whatīs the point with upsampling? (Upsampling in the DAC is another matter)

--- End quote ---
In some DACs, upsampling with SOX in MC22 is better quality resampling than the hardware chip upsampling in the DAC.

This is highly dependent on the design of the DACs.

Some do not upsample internally, and some have patented upsampling algorithms.

Asawendo:

--- Quote from: kstuart on August 11, 2016, 12:07:43 pm ---In some DACs, up sampling with SOX in MC22 is better quality resampling than the hardware chip upsampling in the DAC.

This is highly dependent on the design of the DACs.

Some do not upsample internally, and some have patented upsampling algorithms.

--- End quote ---

Noted Kstuart. I'm using iFi iDSD Nano and Chord Hugo for my Laptop. Both of them seems to prefer SOX enabled in MC22. The difference is not night and day but on the specific song it become cleaner and clearer.

Magellan:

--- Quote from: kr4 on August 11, 2016, 11:27:50 am ---Because then I would have to store multiple copies of the same files to accommodate different needs at different times.

--- End quote ---
OK. That make sense.

Magellan:

--- Quote from: kstuart on August 11, 2016, 12:07:43 pm ---In some DACs, upsampling with SOX in MC22 is better quality resampling than the hardware chip upsampling in the DAC.

This is highly dependent on the design of the DACs.

Some do not upsample internally, and some have patented upsampling algorithms.

--- End quote ---
But in real life, this seems to be a very theoretical issue. Considering the impact of speakers, listening room, amplifiers, source material (i.e. recording quality) and the design of the analogue parts of the DAC itself, it seems to me the upsampling algorithm in the DAC has to be very poor if external upsampling makes a significant difference.

If the DAC do not upsample internally, then I guess it probably wont play the upsampled audio either, i.e. the only reason I can see for say a 24/192 DAC is the need for internal upsampling.

kstuart:

--- Quote from: Magellan on August 12, 2016, 05:55:43 am ---But in real life, this seems to be a very theoretical issue. Considering the impact of speakers, listening room, amplifiers, source material (i.e. recording quality) and the design of the analogue parts of the DAC itself, it seems to me the upsampling algorithm in the DAC has to be very poor if external upsampling makes a significant difference.

--- End quote ---
That sort of analysis almost never works for sound quality issues.

If you have an imperfection early in the reproduction chain, then later stages - analog output stage*, amplifiers, speakers, and listening room only magnify the imperfection.

And thus, source material is the most important.  (This is why I have no interest in Tidal, because for pre-1980 recordings, as a general rule - with some exceptions - the earlier the mastering, the better the sound quality.)

----

* The DAC that I use comes in two flavors - one with a delta-sigma DAC chip and an elaborate analog output stage, and one with a multibit DAC chip, patented internal upsampling and (due to board space contstraints) a more simple analog output stage based on an IC-chip provided by the DAC chip maker.  The latter sounds significantly better, especially on 16/44.1 material.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page