Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cazzesman]

You may be right about upsampling  would be better done in software than in hardware. I don't know as I'm not an engineer, I'm only paraphrasing what I've read on the 'net and in publications. In any event, the OP should try it and see if makes a difference in his system, it certainly would not hurt anything or cause permanent damage. The nice thing about MC is that you can do this by simply pressing a few buttons in the Audio Config menu. Try it. 

Jimmy

One of the reasons I got interested in MC was because of the upsample possibilities it gives me.   To my hearing (52yr old ears) and on my audio system I am convinced the upsample from 16/44.1 to 24/96 or greater just takes the sharper edge off some vocals.    The 'ssssssss' sounds smoother on many female voices and not grating at higher volumes.

Before I found MC I trialled Cirlinca software.   Before I go on I will stop and ask, can I talk about Cirlinca software here or is it frowned upon?

Regards Cazzesman   

[jimmy neutron]

I've never heard of Cirlinca software, but I don't see any reason why you could'nt be able to discuss it here.

BTW, I do believe that upsampling 16/44 to 24/96 (or beyond) makes an audible difference. I can easily hear a change in the music (for the better IMO) when I convert my music on playback. Normally I don't like to make any conversions and just play all my files at their native formats. But lately I have been playing with upsampling - from both software in MC and in hardware in my DAC's - and I'm liking very much what I am hearing. Like you I've noticed less sibilance on voices. Violins, piano, and acoustic guitar also sound more realistic. A sense of airness, i guess, is what I am hearing around these vocals and instruments. It seems to be more pronounced in the midrange area than anywhere else, but it's definetly there. I also want to say the soundstage appears wider, but this may be the airiness that I'm noticing more than an actual widening of the soundstage.

I have 3 very nice audio systems in my home that I use for primarily music playback. I hear the difference in all 3, but to varying degrees. On my McIntosh pre and amp/Carver Ribbon speaker system I can clearly hear it the most. It is an improvement, no doubt. In my gameroom with my Krell pre/McIntosh amp/B&W speaker system I hear it a bit less than the previous system, but it's still there - an improvement. Lastly, our bedroom system which is a Pioneer reciever and Klipsch speakers it is the least affected by upsampling, though it is still noticable and still an improvement. I believe it is system dependant, and obviously listener dependantand room dependant too. There are a thousand things going against any person when it comes to "hearing" - age, knowledge, cleaness of ear canal, etc., that it's easy for most people to dismiss it, or just not be able to hear it. I'm not one that believes in hype or snake oil. I believe only what I hear. And to my ears, on my system, upsampling is doing a great job at refineing lower resolution material - not adding to it.

Jimmy

[Cazzesman]

Thanks Jimmy.  New here so didn't want to rock the boat. 

Cirlinca is a software program that purports to do many things but one of the things they do push is their highly regarded (as it appears from some online research) algorithms that do a similar job to MC with increased bit depth and upsampling.

The difference is that Cirlinca's changes are a permanent change to the audio file.  Unlike MC, that does it on the fly thought the DSP and 64bit thingamyjig.    I have been exchanging some emails with a very well credentialed DAC builder/seller and even though he suggested he wasn't necessarily a fan of upsampling, he said it was worth the effort to see what my ears thought.    What he did suggest was he thought it best to have any upsampling done by software and not hardware i.e. DAC chips. 

So just to throw it out there for some discussion..............If you go down the path of playing with upsampling............Is it better to take a 16/44.1 file, use software (i.e. Cirlinca) to upsample it to 24/192 (hypothetically) and then play that file through MC without the need to tweak any DSP and/or output settings along the way.     Is that going to be a smoother audio path??

I used Cirlinca in their trial format and upsampled some audio tracks and IMHO I thought they came up a treat.   

What I plan to do is play some audio tracks that were originally flac 16/44.1 and now Cirlinca-fied into flac 24/192 and pit them against the same original flac 16/44.1 run through the MC and outputted at flac 24/192 and see what I can hear.   To be honest I strongly doubt I will tell the difference but what the heck.

Is there anyone from MC that has any thoughts on the discussion?   Initially I presume it is just algorithm vs algorithm but I suspect there is more to it.

Why is one V8 motor better than another V8?   I guess it is all in the design and the parts used.

Regards Cazzesman 



 

[jimmy neutron]

Well Cazzesman, different V8 motors are indeed better than others. Chevy L82 will smoke the Toyo Tundra V8 in speed 

I used to believe it was better to play back the files in their native format without upsampling - the best form of playback is the one that has little to no interaction with the file other than to decode it. But then I started to...........read  Yep, I just went online and read everything I could about upsampling, why it's the current trend among DAC and CD builders, why high end media playback units employ it, etc. I also started to try MC's upsampling capabilities to see if I could hear any difference for myself or if it was just snake oil. Well, I heard a difference....each and every time. THere is science to upsampling a 16/44 file, and it's not what most people assume it is. Many think that upsampling tries to "add" information back into the music. This is not true nor how it works. Simply, upsampling moves distortions that are effects of steep filters used in the DAC's (like brick walling) that affects music in the range of human hearing, further out by upsampling the music, ie going from 44 kHz to 88 or 96. Those effects are moved up the ladder as well and the result is a smoother playback file in the range that we can hear.

Personally, I don't hear a difference in upsampling beyond 24/96. This may be system dependant, room dependant, or listener dependant as they will all influence and affect what someone hears or *percieves* to hear. I've now set MC to upsample my regular redbook 16/44 files to 24/96 full time. And I'm happy with the results.

Jimmy

[Cazzesman]

I'd be interested to hear from a MC employee in this thread.  No doubt it is a tricky situation to discuss another software designer but I'm more think along the lines of why, from a technical aspect, did JR think this is the best way to build a V8 i.e. temporary adjustment to a file in real time vs a permanent change of a file format.    Obviously MC have built a huge amount of flexibility into their program with this design.    Is flexibility the major aspect they were after or do they just think it works/sounds better this way? 

Have I missed it somewhere in the program or does MC provide a permanent change of a file via upsampling?   I know I can change files from one format to another i.e. flac to Wav to mp3 etc, but can I change my native flac 16/44.1 file to a flac 24/96 file and save it as such in my Library?

Regards Cazzesman

[Matt]

from a technical aspect, did JR think this is the best way to build a V8 i.e. temporary adjustment to a file in real time vs a permanent change of a file format.

I'm a strong believer in storing the highest quality original possible, and applying processing at playback time.

That processing may change with equipment or time, and baking it into a file permanently is a mistake.

[Cazzesman]

Thanks Matt.    The Why is always good to know.  The How I have to sort on my own 

Regards Cazzesman