Upsampling DACS: Take the Pepsi Challenge

And also, don't tell me about hearing tests with headphones. They're flawed from the get go, no matter how "calibrated" they are. My HD-600's are infinitely better and more extended in the treble than the phones they use in hearing tests, and THESE SENNEHISERS ARE NOT FLAT IN THE TOP OCTAVE. My Maggies are much more flat in the top octave. I think it has to do with the fact that the trasducer is right on your ear, and phase anomalies occur, with sound wavelengths that are, what, half an inch long? Anyway, speakers in a correctly treated room, a good test CD, a mic referencing a 1 kHz sinewave to the mid 80's decibels range, is all you need. My Maggies stay focused DEAD CENTER in every band of uncorrelated third octave pink noise. They make a ball about 2 feet diameter in the upper bass, and a golfball size "ball of noise" in the top ocatves............................DOES ANYONE ELSE'S SPEAKER SETUP/HEARING YIELD THIS? Me want to know........I CHALLENGE YOU TO DO THIS TEST RIGHT NOW (the Sheffield "my Disc" will do the trick. Otherwise, don't go telling me what I can, and can't hear, through my system, old man. Go pipe your pompousity up your own keester for a while, George....

Carl you are a horse's behind, a point that you continue to prove. Oh, and BTW - come back when you get a real system. Maggies compared to Soundlab Ultimate 1's. Hardly. What a joke. You are boring. I'm out of here. Nothing to learn from you, that's for sure. How did those Barney tapes you are so famous for recording work out? Did those on 8 track tape, didn't you?

Carl, a couple of points for your "gray area": 1.) oversampling/upsampling without "interpolation" is meaningless!!! Interpolation is simply selecting the best bit value to assign to an oversampled data point. You could linearly "interpolate" between (real/original) data points or you could fit some base curve between those data points. If you increase the sample rate, you MUST interpolate! 2.) The ONLY difference Kevin Halverson mentioned was semantic (and I'm sure he meant it as such)!! "Upsampling" units started as stand alone oversampling digital filters to improve the performance of lesser processors. There is NO difference!! The term "upsampling" caught on, in part, due to ignorant journalists, and now everybody is using the word to claim some magic improvement. Also, both external oversampling digital filters ("Upsamplers") and internal oversampling digital filters are upstream of the "DAC". A digital processor and the DAC(s) are quite different. A digital processor has 4 main sections: Input receiver (reclocking), oversampling digital filter, DAC (digital-to-analog convertor), and analog output. So, we have once again come full circle: upsampling and oversampling are the SAME THING!! SYNONYMS!! Ask Gmkane for further details. Jordan

Merriam-Webster: "brag: engage in self-glorification" There is no point in competeing with a master so I restrain my posts to the simple facts of my direct experience.

There is an article being written on this very subject that should go a long way towards clearing up the confusion. Contributors include many of the individuals mentioned here and the author has assured me that it will be as free of marketing hype as possible. I am uncertain of its intended completion date, but should be within the next month.