Upsampling the way to go? ?

Zaikesman--I'm not an engineer and I could be wrong, but upsampling is upsampling and is totally separate from increasing the word length, which I believe is done via an interpolation algorithm. I was told this by Rick Schultz at EVS who has designed his own DAC and has modified a few in his time. Many DACs claim to upsample to 24/96 or even 24/192 but do not really interpolate to 24 bits. The Crystal chip does do both and may be what is used in the MSB DAC--I'm not sure. Hey, if it's working it's working, whatever it is. Better systems are used by Audio Aero(STARS) and dcs, but they obviously come at a premium.

I still maintain that an upsampling DAC does not necessarily sound better than a non-upsampling unit--it depends more on how the whole DAC is designed and implemented, and there are a LOT of variables there(i.e. Sean's point about filtering, damping, shielding, parts quality, power supply, circuit design, etc.). I'd say just pick the DAC/CD player that sounds best to you--if it happens to upsample great, if not that's fine too. Personally I think Sam Tellig has gone way overboard on this upsampling thing and is misleading many to think it's the second coming when it's only one small link in a very long chain.

Tim

I have a Cary 303/200, and just recently began to use the upsampling feature, because I wanted to get a feel for how the unit sounded in the standard mode. To me, there is only a subtle difference; and I am not sure that I like it. There seems to be more extension and "air" to the treble, but at the expense of losing some fullness in the mids. Am I too quick to judge--Does the upsampling circuitry have to be "broken in" as well?

Yesterday(6/29).I listened to the MF DAC unit that Sam Tellig raved on about recently.It was hooked up to Mark Levinson & B&W gear. Upsampling was different but not all that great. warmth? no I'd say more like fuzz,like a badly recorded live club perfomance.CD in question was solo piano on Naxos--- it sounds just fine on my MF A3 player.

Not to prolong the point, Tim, but why would an interpolation process be needed to generate an extra 8 bits of *random* dither? As I understand it, this dither acts as sort of a "digital bias", and is not related to the actual signal. I think the increase in word length simply helps the DAC remain linear deeper into the noise floor. It does seem to me, however, that interpolation would be appropriate to aid in generating the "extra" samples needed to raise the sampling rate from 44k to 96k, or whatever higher rate is chosen. With only a finite frequency of voltage samples available off the disc, some sort of algorithim that interpolates new sample voltages in between the recorded ones would have to be implemented to raise that frequency, no? So I agree that upsampling is separate from increasing word length, but wonder if you might be confusing which of the two processes incorporates interpolation algorithims. (I already know that *I'm* confused!) And since I'm certainly no digital engineer either, I hope someone who is can come along in this thread, and soon!

Zaikesman--I certainly don't mind this point being prolonged because I think there are a lot of CD players and DACs out there that claim to upsample to 24/96 or 24/192 and really don't increase word length in the more strict and proper sense(whatever that is--help). I too would appreciate anyone who knows more about the process by which upsampling is done vs. increasing word length, and maybe even give us a way to identify the "pretenders" from those that truly do increase word length along with upsampling--there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding out there regarding this point.

My sense is that upsampling by itself will not make a huge difference and could do harm if not implemented with care due to the added circuitry involved(some of the above comments seem to bear this out to some degree), but that combining it with a longer word length can bring about even more dramatic changes if done properly. Where's an engineer when you need one?

Tim