• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Upsampling 16/44.1 collection a good idea?

Sounds ideal as a vinyl replacement activity.
I am reminded of the time that a friend visited with his ‘XXX Hi-End ‘ software, don’t get excited it was just playback software.
We spent nearly forty minutes fiddling with it but couldn’t get it to emit one note of music.
Keith
 
Sounds ideal as a vinyl replacement activity.
I am reminded of the time that a friend visited with his ‘XXX Hi-End ‘ software, don’t get excited it was just playback software.
We spent nearly forty minutes fiddling with it but couldn’t get it to emit one note of music.
Keith
I've had many debates with Peter, the author of XXX Hi-End in the past. He even sent me one of his (complex!) USB cables to test at one point. He wasn't too happy when I found that it produced no measurable effect, except for some additional noise in some configurations. I did try his player, too. It was a bit clunky to configure, but it did work for me. Can't say that it was doing something special, but it did run and play music, though the interface was particularly ugly, in my opinion :)
 
Did you ever try his ‘H’ shaped dac which always reminded me of. ’Rimmer’ from Red Dwarf .
Keith
 
Did you ever try his ‘H’ shaped dac which always reminded me of. ’Rimmer’ from Red Dwarf .
Keith
I've seen it and heard from others (and Peter) about it, but have never tested one. The claim was that it was more immune to noise generated by the PC by virtue of better isolation and low CPU usage when used with the XXX Hi-end player. Peter was trying to prove that even the act of moving a mouse on the PC would cause noise to be added for more mainstream DACs by the extra CPU utilization, while his DAC was immune.
 
PGGB is the direct result of lack of critical thinking. The author claims the error of -600dB or better for his reconstruction algorithm.
Just had a closer look at PGGB and yes, this is completely insane, throwing quad-double (256bit) math at simple audio problems. A solution in search of a problem.

For the fun of it and as I already have my own time-domain convolver in double precision, I've used a brickwall filter kernel made with rePhase for a test run of a 2x upsampler. With that filter kernel (Albrecht-11 term, -6dB @ 21500Hz for 88.2kHz target sample rate, 2048 taps, -300dB down at fs/2 and above) -- and not using any dithering for that test -- I could achieve sample identity for a full-scale signal in the 24bit integer domain for any frequency up to 21100Hz, that is, the upsampling contains all the original sample values except for an ultra narrow range at the top end. For music tracks, with much lower HF content, the match would be even better. As such, it can't get any better than this, me thinks.... and it's already overkill ;-)
 
Back
Top Bottom