What do you think about upconverted files?

machone

I wanted to get your opinion on upconverted files.
Do you upconvert? If so what do you use to upconvert? If not, why? What formats do you use?

I see many different opinions in different forums.

I rip my CD's to .wav files for storage on my PC, upconvert them to DSD128 on the fly using Korg Audiogate and play them through a Korg DSDAC-100. When I compare the original .wav file with an upconverted DSD file the DSD always wins no matter what the album. It's just better sound, more natural with less fatigue.

I have yet to upconvert and save a file for later playback. Nor have I made a direct comparison between an upconverted file and a DSD download of the same file.

This is all new to me and I find it fascinating.

That's my experience. What say you?

polkfarmboy

I dont like pcm to dsd so Irun pcm and only play native dsd. I upsample redbook butnothing lesser.

sucks2beme

upsampling- huge waste of time
The file isn't going to get any more accurate

jeremymarcinko

Maybe not more accurate, but wouldn't it have the potential to fill in the gaps and created a smoother or less jagged digital sine wave. I think it could be possible for a more organic wave to produce an arguably better sound. Doesn't an up-converting dvd player provide an improved picture over the standard. Maybe filling in the gaps with similar data can work in audio as well.

Speedskater

jeremy, please come back to the real world.

jeremymarcinko

Okay I'm back...maybe. All I am saying is there is there may be some premise to support his conclusion. If the OP believes it, then awesome. I have certainly read more outrageous claims. I think maybe.

machone

With my equipment let me say that upconverted DSD certainly sounds different.
IMO it is better.
I have tried upconverting PMC 44.1 to 96 and 192. To me 44.1 and 96 sound the same but 192 sounds more like upconverted DSD. After listening to upconverted DSD the PCM 44.1 and 96 image has no depth.
I realize that you cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear but something is going on that works for me. I wish I knew more about the process and why the difference.

polkfarmboy

The higher the sample rate the less room there is for errors to come through although that does not always translate into better sound.

SCompRacer

Going up also takes advantage of different filters. I've had it work both ways depending on DAC chip and found it was system dependant as well. IMO there is no absoloute with up-anything that applies to everyone.

tonyb

I don't think there are any absolutes in audio anything. Like already said, upsampling varies depending on it's implementation. Sometimes it works well, other times not so much. Broad brushes don't do well in audio.

I much prefer a native signal, I figure the less monkey business going on the better, but my ears tell me some upsampling can be a good thing. If nobody told me it was upsampled, and I judged solely on what I heard, you might be surprised.

Speedskater

If the analog output of the upconverted file is in any way different than the original, then the upconverter has a problem. Don't we sometimes read about digital components doing things to files that we don't expect or want.

machone

I was planning on downloading Jeff Beck's "Blow By Blow" in DSD for comparison with the same album as a CD, 44.1 wav, upcoverted 96 and 192 files as well as upconverted DSD.

The reason for this album is that it is available from acousticsounds.com in a DSD download and I already have the CD.

Is it worth the money or is it a waste of time. The website says "DSD file created by Gus Skinas from the original Sony Super Audio CD cutting masters." Would this not sound different because it is probably mastered differently than the CD?

machone

If the upconverted file has better imaging and dynamics is more natural, transparent and revealing then something is different but I don't see this as a negative or a problem.

There are some that say SDA speaker technology is a gimmick but I don't agree. It works for me.

My goal is to reproduce music that gives me goosebumps. Isn't that what we are all trying to accomplish?

polkfarmboy

Aint sacd and dsd the same thing?

tonyb

machone wrote: »

If the upconverted file has better imaging and dynamics is more natural, transparent and revealing then something is different but I don't see this as a negative or a problem.

There are some that say SDA speaker technology is a gimmick but I don't agree. It works for me.

My goal is to reproduce music that gives me goosebumps. Isn't that what we are all trying to accomplish?

Bingo....absolutely. How you get there is irrelevant.

machone

"Aint sacd and dsd the same thing?"

Quote by Andreas Koch:
"Direct Stream Digital (DSD) actually has been around for a while already, but it has been so married to a physical media, SACD, that it has yet to receive the attention from audiophiles that it deserves. It is only recently with the growing interest in downloading high resolution audio via the internet that DSD surged to the surface of news coverage. What were compelling reasons to use this encoding scheme for SACD over 10 years ago are now becoming convenient truths for the new era of high resolution internet audio."

afterburnt

How does one "upconvert" files?

polkfarmboy

afterburnt wrote: »

How does one "upconvert" files?

You buy a Dac from either me or Dskip and press a button.

afterburnt

But I have stacks of Dacs already but they are all built into stuff.

polkfarmboy

Most dacs these days should give you the input sample rate and have controls to allow you to double it. Like cds and high res pcm can all be upsampled further.

BlueFox

As PFB says, press a button. Or, if software controlled then select the option. The Lumin will play a file at 'native', or upconvert to a higher PCM rate, or to DSD. I have tried the various options, and while DSD does sound 'smoother', at the end of the day I prefer 'native'.

machone

Ditto. The software allows you to select the desired output.