I think this is a variation on the analog/digital discussion. If your ears/mind prefer an analog sound, the non-upsampling products of Audio Note are tops. However, if you think/feel that audio has progressed by the data retrieval of modern dacs, upsampling is the way to go. Both have a reason to be.
All DACs upsample since forever because when filtering is applied, that adds a harshness to the sound. And the upsampling is done because then that effet gets moved to frequencies that we cannot hear. The reason there first was no upsampling and now there is, is simply because the early chips did not have the compute power. It has never had anything to do with creating data that simply is not there, as critics used to say, or still say, that is simply not undeerstanding why upsampling is done. You absolutely want an upsampling DAC.
It's not just, no upsampling, via R2R topology, but no I/V active filtering, just a resistor/transformer/resistor, then Class A biased valves to amplify the signal. And the level IV employs triple C core transformers to the output. Mine was definitely worth the challenge of wielding a soldering iron.
24.1/16 destroys and is furthest the analog sound of any of the digital systems other than MP3. Digital is desperately still trying to progress to the level of analog.
@@glenncurry3041 The dumbest possible thing you could say, especially below this here video. Old Paul had already said many years ago that he had given up on analog, simply becase it has nothing on digital anymore. And he only started endorsing analog again for commercial reasons since they started offering analog products again, duh ;) Yes, that's right. Now, there are a million reasons, and issues, why analog is really dead, and you are just a fanboy: there are great historic analog recordings and they are still great today - if you find a copy that has not been scratched or played a hundred times, if you have a stupid expensive turntable with an even more stupid expensive pickup, and then you have to replace that every so often with an equally stupid expensive pickup... don't take us for stupid, OK? Now, when the Poetry on Plastic channel did a review of some special highend recordings, he will tell you that despite owning a turntable for 10+ K bucks, and likewise his friends, there are recordings that are so complex and the grooves so tight, that no matter how expensive the turntable, the pickup will jump out of the groove. - How many people have a turntable for 10K? Exactly, nobody. Duh. No 10 bucks CD player will ever suffer from such a problem. So some of the issues with vinyl are that since the 90s, nothing is being recorded analog anymore, and since the revival, there are onyl limited editions pressed, no matter what it is, pop or classic, mostly a digital rip-off anyway, so basically shit, any literally any mild effort production is limited to 1000 copies, like Berlin Phil etc... and most vinyl is pressed on thin shit, with off center holes etc etc... and then you really need a vinyl washing maschine for 800-2000 buks at some point, if u even want to keep up with digital, and really, vinyl is like driving a vintage car, a hobby for the few, which is why there are only a few.. for all the above reasons. So unless you are into 60s-70s jazz and have a pristine, rarely played collection, stfu, ok? I have a 10K turntable myself, because I can, mostly, but once you have a TT, there are recordings you simply cannot get on digital, so there is that, but that argument obviously works both ways. If you think vinyl is better than digital, you just don't know what you are talking about. It is like insisting petrol cars are better than electric cars in a world where there are no fossil fuels... duh. Digital beats vinyl's ass 1000x times a day, ever day. I buy everything on digital and vinyl, even the most expensive shit, to figure which is better, even like Berlin Phil direct to disc recordings etc - but I understand that is not meaningful, just for shits and giggles... first, both recordings would have to be objectively of the same quality whatever that means, and then a 10K CD player would have to be of the same quality as a 10K turntable, whatever that means... in short, vinyl is a quirky hobby, the end.
@@Baerchenization "Old Paul had already said many years ago that he had given up on analog, simply becase it has nothing on digital anymore. And he only started endorsing analog again for commercial reasons since they started offering analog products again" Please show us all the time line during which Paul/ PS Audio stopped selling analog hardware and then "started offering analog products again". exactly which and how many years does the absolute elimination of any analog products exist in PS Audio's catalog? "analog is really dead" Also please show us ANY stereo/ multimedia... audio system that does not have analog components. Show us all the digital only, no analog output, power amps, speakers,.... "if you have a stupid expensive turntable with an even more stupid expensive pickup" DirectStream DAC MK2- $7,999.00 + AirLens - $1,999.00 =~ $10k for digital playback. $10K can buy an incredible ttble/ cart combo. Or MSB's The Select DAC for $115,000.00? But because digital is perfect we all know the Monoprice Digital to Analog Audio Converter 6884 for
A British Audiophile has just reviewed 'their' lowest tier DAC and gave it an outstanding review. My Gustard R26 DAC upsamples, but I prefer it off and upsampling 44.1 to 88.2 on Roon. Sounds more natural. All Hi Res I prefer left alone. Its only 'slightly' better than 44.1 at 88.2 and much better than any higher. We all interpret sound differently, system synergy also plays a part. This other company (yep Audionote) do use own made caps etc and a valve output stage with an old philips R2R DAC.
My streaming DAC has a DSD upsampler. Without changing anything else, in room measurements comparing upsampled with not upsampled are very different. The upsampled DSD boosts the entire midrange.
It’s great to see some ESD equipment! I hope the staff wear the appropriate footwear or heel straps for the ESD floor mats to work. If not done so already, deploy suitable ESD ion generators to areas with proximity to insulators such as plastics to appropriately neutralise any charges on them.
Hey Paul, I attended a conference in Denver May 13 -16 so I scheduled a tour of PS Audio on the 17th before I flew out. I enjoyed the tour and it was great seeing the facility but I was really bummed that you weren't there. I was really looking forward to meeting you and having you sign my copy of The Audiophile's Guide: The Loudspeaker. BTW, the listening room system sounded great!
Whenever you address a problem you inevitably add complexity to the chain. The question becomes, is this worth the trouble and what does it cost to do it right? I think both standpoints could be right in a sense that those who believe in the less is more philosophy prefer not to do things rather than doing them bad. Those who believe in fixing flaws and doing it right, are probably getting better sound, but if that is all over, remains the question. So it then comes down to how much emphasis do you put on different aspects of the sound. It actually always comes down to that when it comes to different design strategies.
Unless you have very high quality processing, they talk a lot of sense. Oversampling being a case in point. Lots of people will automatically upsample and immediately tell you they can hear more 'air' or a ' larger sound stage', but critical listening will show you have lost some 'body' and textural details in the timbre become less distinct, for a lot of cheaper dacs/streamers. I use a Chord Hugo TT2 Dac and for lot of dacs/streamers around the 1k range Ive found this to be true, the more correct sound for me appears to be when the bits are delivered without processing. However, Ive heard my dac with the m-scaler upscaler and this appears to achieve the bennifits of upscaling without the sacrafices. From what Ive heard, I think this also applies to high quality dsd conversion and upscaling such as used in ps audios products. I think the useual rules apply: if you are going to adjust the data stream it needs complex and well designed manipulation that is typically only offered by the better designed and more expensive options. If you are going to manipulate the data, you have to do it right or dont do it. I remain not up sampling for now while I save for my upscaler as I believe the sound I get is truer to source than upsampling in my streaming bridge. I felt the same while setting up an A6 for a friend, though I believe he prefers it on. Thats ok, we all like different things..
Besides the DSD conversion, and jitters correction for the digital signal restoration it’s the focus; all other efforts looks to me like the equalizer of the digital age, nothing else more. The original signature captures of the digital signals and the restoration, is the audiophile goal. Forget the rest.
I don't know if there is a right or wrong answer to the original question. I have never heard an Audio Note (for it is they) dac outside an Audio Note system. But I HAVE been consistently impressed with the sounds that AN systems produce.
Audio Note just had their entry-level DAC 0.1x reviewed by "The British Audiophile." I am always a bit baffled when a manufacturer of digital anything claims to have never auditioned an Audio Note DAC. AN is widely regarded as making some of the best DACs in all of audio so if you are going to go into DAC building it might help to audition the "best" so you have some sort of template on what to do. But then Stallantis builds crap so perhaps they never bothered to drive a Camry to learn how to make a reliable car. Steve Hoffman - Mastering engineer for Analog Productions (LPS) and who masters many of the biggest name artists (and also masters on SACD) owns AN digital (and AN most everything else). Both at home and now in the studio. This stuff does NOT measure well though. Art Dudley said their CD player was the best he ever heard - JA said he thought the measurements were "broken." It takes a bit of nerve for AN to basically say that every other company in the entire audio industry are wrong and only they have the answer - it sounds cultish. The only reason it doesn't sound cultish to some of us is because it sounds "right" but if they were at a show and sounded bad (happens to everybody) - then you would scoff at their views. I have owned AN gear for over 20 years - still waiting for someone's digital to sound better than an AN CD player playing Redbook CD. Have not heard it yet.
the signal is manipulated in your system as it passes through every component... its what gives a sound signature. Digital or analog...its what sounds best synergistically
Completely the other way round for me. OS just sounds better on my system and NOS sounds like it's lacking something in comparison on both my Venus 2 and Terminator 2 12th Just a question of preference I guess.
@@Sunshine_Superman ... same here with my Venus II and later firmware. I will add though, that only recently I found out that "OS sharp" by now sounds way better and snappier / PRATier if you will, than "OS slow" which was my old preferred setting.
Juat for fun i might head over to DIYAudio and ask for a design for a NOS R2R DAC with no LPF because i don't need to worry aboit noise only dogs can hear...
If the wine tastes good enjoy it without worrying about what the vineyard did to produce it. I buy the argument that music recorded by Octave at DSD256 will sound best played on a DSD256 based DAC. Down sampling and PCM conversion are all lossy events. But when it comes to a Red Book CD which represents the vast majority of available music I like NOS R2R playback without even a high frequency filter. As soon as you introduce even a simple low pass filter at 20k, to me some of the magic starts to evaporate. So I guess I am in the Audio Note camp.
my 2 cts: my streamer has an upsampling fct which can be activated or deactivated and which can be set to various levels of computational effort that can be deactivated. paired with my older dac (arcam irdac, lin psu, excellent usb aq coffee) active upsampling improved things in all sorts of musical styles. with my newr dac (chord qutest), things are different: the new dac upsamples with a lot more computational power and upsampling to higher dac input resolution via streamer turns out to sound less real than feeding the original resolution into the Qutest dac. In other words: I am sure the 16/44 only dac sounds nice, but I doubt the Qutest or a similar dac will not sound a bit better in terms of fluidity, 3d, effortless hi frequ resolution w/o glare or hardness, even prat. also pure nos dac would need to filter out harmonics somehow, at rel low cut off frequency, to avoid intermodulation distortion, or leave IM untreated. neither of which sounds like a good idea to me. Best advice however is to compare things yourself, inna transparent system, and over a couple of days.
16/44.1 seems to,if we are talking good recordings,have less irritation on my tinnitus,if any at all.These high KHZ recordings cause my tinnitus to become intrusive and louder.There must be something to this.Electronic sibilance,although not audible,is present at these high KHZ rates and can be wearing,even on those who don't suffer from tinnitus.
Most dacs both low and high end have abilities to upsample and convert these days and it’s as simple as pressing a button. Incorporating these processes into the music can have cool effects but can absolutely will introduce negative effects. It’s nothing new to see where people will always choose Non over sampling because it sounds more natural. When you compare over sampling to non you can always tell the over sampled is fake. So depends who you ask. Ask someone who does know audio and they will probably prefer the over sampled because possibly more 3 dimensional. Ask someone who knows the inside out of their music albums and they’ll probably choose non over sampling.
I guess things can go wrong with the digital signal if you don't know what you're doing, but in general it's not going to be an issue. DSP is all about 'messing' with the digital signal, and yes things can 'go wrong', but not if you know what you're doing. Cheaper DAC can certainly benefit from upsampling and sound better, or rather they won't sound as bad due to not being able to filter.
I’ve never done a comparison between DSD and PCM versions of the same music so can’t comment on the differences. For me, however, this is irrelevant as I haven’t found any music in native DSD that I would listen to so a DAC that only supports 16/44.1 is going to be sufficient for the vast majority of people.
“sufficient” is a term that hardly comes to mind, if we remember the price levels of said nos dac company, nor wrt PSA’s or any other dac supplier on comparable level.
You could try HQ Player for free and see if you prefer the DSD upsampled version of your PCM files. It's not apples to apples since your source material is PCM, but it'll give you a good approximation of the difference in sound between the formats.
MHz... MHz... that's a lot of Hertz. However we shouldn't forget that 1 bit, one lonely bit is not a bunch of bits. CD-DA tracks I have bought and listened from Octave Records sound extremely well.
Also remember that most PCM DACs, unless RtoR , are one bit Sigma/Delta conversions that just guesses at what the actually voltage level is supposed to be. Sigma/Delta DACs ae ignorant of the actual PCM data file voltage level at a sample. They just try to guess whether to turn on for that clock cycle or not. So increasing the sample rate allows the system to more accurately follow signal changes one bit at a time. IOW operate as a true Sigma/Delta system instead of kluging it into a PCM stream.
@@glenncurry3041 There's a lot going on inside the DACs that I can't see. What I can see with a RTA analyzer is what is in the file. Sometimes I find a «surprise» that I would rather not get. I might be an ecological «audiophile».
@@Jorge-Fernandez-Lopez It does not take an RTA to see what any specific individual sample's voltage representation is. Just look at the bits for that sample and they will tell you the voltage at that point in time is. In fact an RTA requires a passage of time, multiple samples combined into a signal and only shows the output of the device's stream processing that data. Not the individual data points themselves. Digital has many surprises I would rather not have nor listen to.
@@glenncurry3041 The voltage for one point is a useful information. Although, RTA is useful to see all frequencies at the "same" time, which are music and which are high level noise. Different tools for different goals and conclusions.
@@Jorge-Fernandez-Lopez The voltage at one point is the entirety of what PCM is based on. That is 100% of the spec's definition. How to determine one sample and how often to do that. And an RTA does not provide the digital data stream of a sample. The point is other than when using an RtoR DAC, the DAC is a one bit Sigma/Delta!
It’s really super simple. Let the DAC decode exactly the sample data totally lossless of the source file with no sample rate conversion or attenuation. The DAC run on the exact sample rate frequency of the source file with no conversion. The reason this topic becomes messy is when more than one clock master exist where you suddenly end up with data flow issues yielding jitter concerns. Perfect is one single clock master in the DAC and all data being pulled through asynchronous transfer from the source and played in exactly the clock of the source file with no transcoding of any sort. It’s a bit sad the obvious is not how it’s typically done. Especially too often the source device has its own clock that battles with the DAC clock and with synchronous transfer you end up in some cases transcoding the stream to a different sample rate. It’s a bummer because there is no major cost in running a streamer fully asynchronous (one clock in the DAC). How about making I2S work with the DAC as clock master (pulling the data)? Or is PS audio doing this better way of I2S already?
UR Statement is correct with caveats!! Digital is and always has been capable of error correction there is no real need for the " master clock" with current CPU, MEMORY capabilities Audiophiles should demand the same error correction technology that's been around for 60+ years. The first transmission of Audio over long-distance occurred in 1887. An Orchestra concert in France. I use a DDC/Rendering combo that buffer's the whole track so less error correction is need @ DAC level
@@thinkIndependent2024 Error correction is a thing you need for CD playback due to optical read errors (typically from scratches). Streaming data over IP is using TCP and that ensures your data to be error free. The DAC controls the conversion from digital to analog and the timing thereof. With precise master clock in the DAC you can avoid jitter. The term “master clock” means the DAC is in full control of timing and doesn’t need to adjust itself to any other clock such as a source having a clock. This is achievable by adequate music data buffering and asynchronous data transfer. Audiophile streaming is possible thanks to asynchronous data transfer.
I love these chats with the weekend cleaning guy. I think I've watched every one of them.
I think this is a variation on the analog/digital discussion. If your ears/mind prefer an analog sound, the non-upsampling products of Audio Note are tops. However, if you think/feel that audio has progressed by the data retrieval of modern dacs, upsampling is the way to go. Both have a reason to be.
All DACs upsample since forever because when filtering is applied, that adds a harshness to the sound. And the upsampling is done because then that effet gets moved to frequencies that we cannot hear. The reason there first was no upsampling and now there is, is simply because the early chips did not have the compute power. It has never had anything to do with creating data that simply is not there, as critics used to say, or still say, that is simply not undeerstanding why upsampling is done. You absolutely want an upsampling DAC.
It's not just, no upsampling, via R2R topology, but no I/V active filtering, just a resistor/transformer/resistor, then Class A biased valves to amplify the signal. And the level IV employs triple C core transformers to the output. Mine was definitely worth the challenge of wielding a soldering iron.
24.1/16 destroys and is furthest the analog sound of any of the digital systems other than MP3.
Digital is desperately still trying to progress to the level of analog.
@@glenncurry3041 The dumbest possible thing you could say, especially below this here video. Old Paul had already said many years ago that he had given up on analog, simply becase it has nothing on digital anymore. And he only started endorsing analog again for commercial reasons since they started offering analog products again, duh ;) Yes, that's right. Now, there are a million reasons, and issues, why analog is really dead, and you are just a fanboy: there are great historic analog recordings and they are still great today - if you find a copy that has not been scratched or played a hundred times, if you have a stupid expensive turntable with an even more stupid expensive pickup, and then you have to replace that every so often with an equally stupid expensive pickup... don't take us for stupid, OK? Now, when the Poetry on Plastic channel did a review of some special highend recordings, he will tell you that despite owning a turntable for 10+ K bucks, and likewise his friends, there are recordings that are so complex and the grooves so tight, that no matter how expensive the turntable, the pickup will jump out of the groove. - How many people have a turntable for 10K? Exactly, nobody. Duh. No 10 bucks CD player will ever suffer from such a problem. So some of the issues with vinyl are that since the 90s, nothing is being recorded analog anymore, and since the revival, there are onyl limited editions pressed, no matter what it is, pop or classic, mostly a digital rip-off anyway, so basically shit, any literally any mild effort production is limited to 1000 copies, like Berlin Phil etc... and most vinyl is pressed on thin shit, with off center holes etc etc... and then you really need a vinyl washing maschine for 800-2000 buks at some point, if u even want to keep up with digital, and really, vinyl is like driving a vintage car, a hobby for the few, which is why there are only a few.. for all the above reasons. So unless you are into 60s-70s jazz and have a pristine, rarely played collection, stfu, ok? I have a 10K turntable myself, because I can, mostly, but once you have a TT, there are recordings you simply cannot get on digital, so there is that, but that argument obviously works both ways. If you think vinyl is better than digital, you just don't know what you are talking about. It is like insisting petrol cars are better than electric cars in a world where there are no fossil fuels... duh. Digital beats vinyl's ass 1000x times a day, ever day. I buy everything on digital and vinyl, even the most expensive shit, to figure which is better, even like Berlin Phil direct to disc recordings etc - but I understand that is not meaningful, just for shits and giggles... first, both recordings would have to be objectively of the same quality whatever that means, and then a 10K CD player would have to be of the same quality as a 10K turntable, whatever that means... in short, vinyl is a quirky hobby, the end.
@@Baerchenization "Old Paul had already said many years ago that he had given up on analog, simply becase it has nothing on digital anymore. And he only started endorsing analog again for commercial reasons since they started offering analog products again" Please show us all the time line during which Paul/ PS Audio stopped selling analog hardware and then "started offering analog products again". exactly which and how many years does the absolute elimination of any analog products exist in PS Audio's catalog?
"analog is really dead" Also please show us ANY stereo/ multimedia... audio system that does not have analog components. Show us all the digital only, no analog output, power amps, speakers,....
"if you have a stupid expensive turntable with an even more stupid expensive pickup" DirectStream DAC MK2- $7,999.00 + AirLens - $1,999.00 =~ $10k for digital playback. $10K can buy an incredible ttble/ cart combo. Or MSB's The Select DAC for $115,000.00? But because digital is perfect we all know the Monoprice Digital to Analog Audio Converter 6884 for
A British Audiophile has just reviewed 'their' lowest tier DAC and gave it an outstanding review. My Gustard R26 DAC upsamples, but I prefer it off and upsampling 44.1 to 88.2 on Roon. Sounds more natural. All Hi Res I prefer left alone. Its only 'slightly' better than 44.1 at 88.2 and much better than any higher. We all interpret sound differently, system synergy also plays a part. This other company (yep Audionote) do use own made caps etc and a valve output stage with an old philips R2R DAC.
My streaming DAC has a DSD upsampler. Without changing anything else, in room measurements comparing upsampled with not upsampled are very different. The upsampled DSD boosts the entire midrange.
It’s great to see some ESD equipment! I hope the staff wear the appropriate footwear or heel straps for the ESD floor mats to work. If not done so already, deploy suitable ESD ion generators to areas with proximity to insulators such as plastics to appropriately neutralise any charges on them.
I have an Aurender A15 and I keep sampling rate OFF, I find it more analog than up sampling, but that's just me.
Hey Paul, I attended a conference in Denver May 13 -16 so I scheduled a tour of PS Audio on the 17th before I flew out. I enjoyed the tour and it was great seeing the facility but I was really bummed that you weren't there. I was really looking forward to meeting you and having you sign my copy of The Audiophile's Guide: The Loudspeaker. BTW, the listening room system sounded great!
Whenever you address a problem you inevitably add complexity to the chain. The question becomes, is this worth the trouble and what does it cost to do it right? I think both standpoints could be right in a sense that those who believe in the less is more philosophy prefer not to do things rather than doing them bad. Those who believe in fixing flaws and doing it right, are probably getting better sound, but if that is all over, remains the question. So it then comes down to how much emphasis do you put on different aspects of the sound. It actually always comes down to that when it comes to different design strategies.
Unless you have very high quality processing, they talk a lot of sense. Oversampling being a case in point. Lots of people will automatically upsample and immediately tell you they can hear more 'air' or a ' larger sound stage', but critical listening will show you have lost some 'body' and textural details in the timbre become less distinct, for a lot of cheaper dacs/streamers.
I use a Chord Hugo TT2 Dac and for lot of dacs/streamers around the 1k range Ive found this to be true, the more correct sound for me appears to be when the bits are delivered without processing. However, Ive heard my dac with the m-scaler upscaler and this appears to achieve the bennifits of upscaling without the sacrafices. From what Ive heard, I think this also applies to high quality dsd conversion and upscaling such as used in ps audios products.
I think the useual rules apply: if you are going to adjust the data stream it needs complex and well designed manipulation that is typically only offered by the better designed and more expensive options. If you are going to manipulate the data, you have to do it right or dont do it.
I remain not up sampling for now while I save for my upscaler as I believe the sound I get is truer to source than upsampling in my streaming bridge. I felt the same while setting up an A6 for a friend, though I believe he prefers it on. Thats ok, we all like different things..
Besides the DSD conversion, and jitters correction for the digital signal restoration it’s the focus; all other efforts looks to me like the equalizer of the digital age, nothing else more. The original signature captures of the digital signals and the restoration, is the audiophile goal. Forget the rest.
I don't know if there is a right or wrong answer to the original question. I have never heard an Audio Note (for it is they) dac outside an Audio Note system. But I HAVE been consistently impressed with the sounds that AN systems produce.
... absolutely. On any HiFi show, their demo room is always amongst the best. And their choice of demo music is very refreshing, too!
Audio Note just had their entry-level DAC 0.1x reviewed by "The British Audiophile." I am always a bit baffled when a manufacturer of digital anything claims to have never auditioned an Audio Note DAC. AN is widely regarded as making some of the best DACs in all of audio so if you are going to go into DAC building it might help to audition the "best" so you have some sort of template on what to do.
But then Stallantis builds crap so perhaps they never bothered to drive a Camry to learn how to make a reliable car. Steve Hoffman - Mastering engineer for Analog Productions (LPS) and who masters many of the biggest name artists (and also masters on SACD) owns AN digital (and AN most everything else). Both at home and now in the studio. This stuff does NOT measure well though. Art Dudley said their CD player was the best he ever heard - JA said he thought the measurements were "broken." It takes a bit of nerve for AN to basically say that every other company in the entire audio industry are wrong and only they have the answer - it sounds cultish. The only reason it doesn't sound cultish to some of us is because it sounds "right" but if they were at a show and sounded bad (happens to everybody) - then you would scoff at their views. I have owned AN gear for over 20 years - still waiting for someone's digital to sound better than an AN CD player playing Redbook CD. Have not heard it yet.
the signal is manipulated in your system as it passes through every component... its what gives a sound signature. Digital or analog...its what sounds best synergistically
Audionote British company ❤
AD1865 DAC IC
It can't be anyone else except Audio Note UK. I have had electronic communication with Peter Qvortrup.
What's wrong with naming another high-end audio company? That's not very friendly.
@@stephenchen1420what do you want a biscuit
I'd love to hear their DAC though.
In my system, oversampling sounds "polished". 16/44.1 seems to have more analog grip and dynamics. Ref: Denafrips Ares II R-2R.
Completely the other way round for me. OS just sounds better on my system and NOS sounds like it's lacking something in comparison on both my Venus 2 and Terminator 2 12th
Just a question of preference I guess.
@@Sunshine_Superman ... same here with my Venus II and later firmware. I will add though, that only recently I found out that "OS sharp" by now sounds way better and snappier / PRATier if you will, than "OS slow" which was my old preferred setting.
Juat for fun i might head over to DIYAudio and ask for a design for a NOS R2R DAC with no LPF because i don't need to worry aboit noise only dogs can hear...
NOS DAC has high frequency signal loss due to aliasing.
If the wine tastes good enjoy it without worrying about what the vineyard did to produce it.
I buy the argument that music recorded by Octave at DSD256 will sound best played on a DSD256 based DAC. Down sampling and PCM conversion are all lossy events.
But when it comes to a Red Book CD which represents the vast majority of available music I like NOS R2R playback without even a high frequency filter. As soon as you introduce even a simple low pass filter at 20k, to me some of the magic starts to evaporate. So I guess I am in the Audio Note camp.
my 2 cts: my streamer has an upsampling fct which can be activated or deactivated and which can be set to various levels of computational effort that can be deactivated. paired with my older dac (arcam irdac, lin psu, excellent usb aq coffee) active upsampling improved things in all sorts of musical styles. with my newr dac (chord qutest), things are different: the new dac upsamples with a lot more computational power and upsampling to higher dac input resolution via streamer turns out to sound less real than feeding the original resolution into the Qutest dac. In other words: I am sure the 16/44 only dac sounds nice, but I doubt the Qutest or a similar dac will not sound a bit better in terms of fluidity, 3d, effortless hi frequ resolution w/o glare or hardness, even prat. also pure nos dac would need to filter out harmonics somehow, at rel low cut off frequency, to avoid intermodulation distortion, or leave IM untreated. neither of which sounds like a good idea to me.
Best advice however is to compare things yourself, inna transparent system, and over a couple of days.
16/44.1 seems to,if we are talking good recordings,have less irritation on my tinnitus,if any at all.These high KHZ recordings cause my tinnitus to become intrusive and louder.There must be something to this.Electronic sibilance,although not audible,is present at these high KHZ rates and can be wearing,even on those who don't suffer from tinnitus.
The proof is in the pudding. AudioNote rocks. Period
Most dacs both low and high end have abilities to upsample and convert these days and it’s as simple as pressing a button. Incorporating these processes into the music can have cool effects but can absolutely will introduce negative effects. It’s nothing new to see where people will always choose Non over sampling because it sounds more natural. When you compare over sampling to non you can always tell the over sampled is fake. So depends who you ask. Ask someone who does know audio and they will probably prefer the over sampled because possibly more 3 dimensional. Ask someone who knows the inside out of their music albums and they’ll probably choose non over sampling.
I guess things can go wrong with the digital signal if you don't know what you're doing, but in general it's not going to be an issue. DSP is all about 'messing' with the digital signal, and yes things can 'go wrong', but not if you know what you're doing.
Cheaper DAC can certainly benefit from upsampling and sound better, or rather they won't sound as bad due to not being able to filter.
All good an well, but that two major audio companies never listened to their respective reference products doesn't sound great...
I’ve never done a comparison between DSD and PCM versions of the same music so can’t comment on the differences. For me, however, this is irrelevant as I haven’t found any music in native DSD that I would listen to so a DAC that only supports 16/44.1 is going to be sufficient for the vast majority of people.
“sufficient” is a term that hardly comes to mind, if we remember the price levels of said nos dac company, nor wrt PSA’s or any other dac supplier on comparable level.
@@gioponti6359 You make a good point, although we don't know the cost of the DAC the questioner is referring too.
Any old school SACD sourced from analog master.
You could try HQ Player for free and see if you prefer the DSD upsampled version of your PCM files. It's not apples to apples since your source material is PCM, but it'll give you a good approximation of the difference in sound between the formats.
Why wouldn't you name the company? You name companies in the videos all the time. The company he's taking about is clearly Audio Note.
Who knows if it is AN. But AN is such a snake oil company. They claim research on their products but never provide any data to back it up.
That could actually be seen as a round about way to take the high ground in the discussion.
@@hugobloemers4425You are correct imo but the more predatory types might see it as a sign of weakness, which I don't believe.
@@hugobloemers4425 That's never stopped him before. I remember when he once thought Denafrips was a joke company.
Settle down, you're going to give yourself a heart attack
What we need in a switch, let the listener turn on Paul"s magic, and off for pure original.
MHz... MHz... that's a lot of Hertz. However we shouldn't forget that 1 bit, one lonely bit is not a bunch of bits. CD-DA tracks I have bought and listened from Octave Records sound extremely well.
Also remember that most PCM DACs, unless RtoR , are one bit Sigma/Delta conversions that just guesses at what the actually voltage level is supposed to be. Sigma/Delta DACs ae ignorant of the actual PCM data file voltage level at a sample. They just try to guess whether to turn on for that clock cycle or not. So increasing the sample rate allows the system to more accurately follow signal changes one bit at a time. IOW operate as a true Sigma/Delta system instead of kluging it into a PCM stream.
@@glenncurry3041 There's a lot going on inside the DACs that I can't see. What I can see with a RTA analyzer is what is in the file. Sometimes I find a «surprise» that I would rather not get. I might be an ecological «audiophile».
@@Jorge-Fernandez-Lopez It does not take an RTA to see what any specific individual sample's voltage representation is. Just look at the bits for that sample and they will tell you the voltage at that point in time is. In fact an RTA requires a passage of time, multiple samples combined into a signal and only shows the output of the device's stream processing that data. Not the individual data points themselves.
Digital has many surprises I would rather not have nor listen to.
@@glenncurry3041 The voltage for one point is a useful information. Although, RTA is useful to see all frequencies at the "same" time, which are music and which are high level noise. Different tools for different goals and conclusions.
@@Jorge-Fernandez-Lopez The voltage at one point is the entirety of what PCM is based on. That is 100% of the spec's definition. How to determine one sample and how often to do that. And an RTA does not provide the digital data stream of a sample.
The point is other than when using an RtoR DAC, the DAC is a one bit Sigma/Delta!
This is the company that wanted to make a 14 bit DAC to 'p*&^ everyone else off'!
SW1X
It’s really super simple. Let the DAC decode exactly the sample data totally lossless of the source file with no sample rate conversion or attenuation. The DAC run on the exact sample rate frequency of the source file with no conversion. The reason this topic becomes messy is when more than one clock master exist where you suddenly end up with data flow issues yielding jitter concerns. Perfect is one single clock master in the DAC and all data being pulled through asynchronous transfer from the source and played in exactly the clock of the source file with no transcoding of any sort. It’s a bit sad the obvious is not how it’s typically done. Especially too often the source device has its own clock that battles with the DAC clock and with synchronous transfer you end up in some cases transcoding the stream to a different sample rate. It’s a bummer because there is no major cost in running a streamer fully asynchronous (one clock in the DAC). How about making I2S work with the DAC as clock master (pulling the data)? Or is PS audio doing this better way of I2S already?
UR Statement is correct with caveats!! Digital is and always has been capable of error correction there is no real need for the " master clock" with current CPU, MEMORY capabilities Audiophiles should demand the same error correction technology that's been around for 60+ years.
The first transmission of Audio over long-distance occurred in 1887. An Orchestra concert in France.
I use a DDC/Rendering combo that buffer's the whole track so less error correction is need @ DAC level
@@thinkIndependent2024 Error correction is a thing you need for CD playback due to optical read errors (typically from scratches). Streaming data over IP is using TCP and that ensures your data to be error free.
The DAC controls the conversion from digital to analog and the timing thereof. With precise master clock in the DAC you can avoid jitter. The term “master clock” means the DAC is in full control of timing and doesn’t need to adjust itself to any other clock such as a source having a clock. This is achievable by adequate music data buffering and asynchronous data transfer. Audiophile streaming is possible thanks to asynchronous data transfer.
I think most music lovers know the company this guy won't name...and just remember UK and not Japan.