Did not know so many delta-sigma audio DACs lacked a decent out of band noise low pass filter. AKM FTW!

One of the supposed benefits of upsampling is that it pushes that crap farther away from the upper limit of audible frequencies.  If the brickwall filter is at 96kHz instead of 22.05, the argument runs, it's much less likely to "bounce back" weird artifacts into the audible frequency range.  I'm inclined to believe this due to my experience with the Concero (and many Concero users have reported the same preference): regardless of which filter you choose, 44.1 and 48 source material sounds noticeably better when upsampled by 4x.

Quote from: ultrabike on December 10, 2013, 07:15:57 AM

Did not know so many delta-sigma audio DACs lacked a decent out of band noise low pass filter. AKM FTW!

One of the supposed benefits of upsampling is that it pushes that crap farther away from the upper limit of audible frequencies.  If the brickwall filter is at 96kHz instead of 22.05, the argument runs, it's much less likely to "bounce back" weird artifacts into the audible frequency range.  I'm inclined to believe this due to my experience with the Concero (and many Concero users have reported the same preference): regardless of which filter you choose, 44.1 and 48 source material sounds noticeably better when upsampled by 4x.

I still don't run any upsampling myself.  I find it similar to negative feedback.  It pushes out music as well, not just noise.  Things just tend to sound flatter and flatter the further you take it.

I know some folks were taken aback by our opinion of the Teac UD-501.  Therefore, I decided to offer this commentary to clarify. http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,1276.0.html

Moved from chatbox:
SanjiWatsuki: I think these comparisons are really dangerous in general. I really wish we had more non-sighted amp/DAC tests around. Otherwise, expectation bias is probably going to swallow up a lot of the meaningful data.

Agreed.  The bias can go both ways.  This is why purrin and myself often do personal comparisons in our own environments and then compare notes.  Then have mini meets and invite others over to see if they independently confirm or deny our experiences without any predisposition when possible.  He later admits to starting to hear differences again w/ the Yulong.    What people are failing to appreciate is that thread is an ongoign OJT process for the OP.  You use directsound w/ a veiled LCD2 or 3 w/ poor resolving abilities using god knows what amp, pretty much everything will sound the same.  Then move up to WASAPI, oh a slight difference, but just this one time I swear!  Then ASIO, oh wait, what's that I hear?  Amazeballs DAC!  Got a better headphone now, oh shit my previous 15 DACs compared might be quite misleading.     The comment on the HD800 adding detail which is not on a recording was hilarious, again with a slight about having no bass lol.  Yeah, the LCD2/3/X/XC are real recording microscopes.    Not like imaging, soundstage, and microdynamics mean a thing for comparing DACs.  Jeebus.  I applaud the effort, I really do.  I don't even mind the implied bias.  I would be wary of people bying into those impressions as accurate or authoritative.  Hell, the guy thought a 176flac was a native DSD file and can't even get JRiver to work for more than one hour.

LOL they actually want to donate to buy that Gary guy a new DAC.

Guy can't hear for shit.