Author Topic: 384kHz Upsampling  (Read 3402 times)

bitfidelity

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
MusicBee can only upsample to 192kHz at the moment. Is there a possibility of it upsampling to 384kHz in the future?

mesonto

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Came here to write the same thing.

I would really like to be able to have MusicBee doing the upsampling of FLAC files instead of my DAC. (MB could leave the DSF files alone though.) I still see that 192kHz is the maximum in 2022.

hiccup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6562
I would really like to be able to have MusicBee doing the upsampling of FLAC files instead of my DAC. (MB could leave the DSF files alone though.) I still see that 192kHz is the maximum in 2022.
-1

Upsampling is not something that indisputably brings any audible improvements.
For that reason alone I don't think MusicBee would need to have such a feature in it's toolbox by default.

Not in 2022, and also not in 2032.
Last Edit: April 04, 2022, 10:52:20 PM by hiccup

mesonto

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Upsampling is not something that indisputably brings any audible improvements.

This debate has raged for quite sometime, some people find it a clear advantage, some do not. Even some DACs like the one from PS Audio upsample everything to DSD, and others like Schitt don't want any part of upsampling. But most agree that upsampling should be done on the server side and not in the DAC. That is why I believe it is a nice to have.

Mr. Trev

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
Although I imagine adding that upsampling wouldn't be too hard and it should be a selectable feature (for example, running on a battery powered laptop will cut into battery life), IMO this probably would be better implemented as a plugin. That would let the end user select different whatever upsampling algorithm (sox, ssrc) and parameters they desire - if it's gonna be done, why not over-do it :D

I'll let others debate on the audible merits…

BoraBora

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 30
This debate has raged for quite sometime, some people find it a clear advantage, some do not.
-1

Actually, like with any other audiophoolery, there's no debate. Some say there's an audible difference, others say that makes no sense and ask for a proof. But the first group answer with mock indignation they have nothing to prove and/or measures don't tell the whole story and/or ABX listening tests are flawed. End of debate before it even begun.  ;D

Mr. Mike

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
+ 1   --    Hell if this wasn't a thing HQPlayer wouldn't exist, so I think it would be a nice to have. Even some DACs convert to DSD before playback. (already mentioned... I have PS Audio gear myself)

hiccup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6562
Same as 24 bit 'hires' audio, upsampling can have a purpose at the (early) stages of professional studio audio production.
For an end user both are not useful and do not improve the audio quality.

But it seems that only because these are tools and protocols that are  invented and used in the professional audio production world, some consumers imagine they must also be useful for improving the sound quality of the end product.

These people will sometimes also say that something like ASIO sounds better.
Same thing, invented and very useful (essential) for studio audio production. But not any better than 'consumer' Wasapi exclusive for stereo playback. (depending on the quality of the drivers by the manufacturer ASIO can even make things worse)

It's fine that some end users still think these things are absolutely 'better' and want to use them.
Imagination is a great thing.

But I don't think it makes sense to ask of a consumer (bit-perfect capable) audio player to have a build in feature that is heavily disputed and can even deteriorate the original signal.
I believe this upsampling may have served a theoretical purpose in the early days of consumer dacs that sometimes had sub-par digital filtering, but for any modern-day dac, it is best to deliver it the original, unaltered, bit-perfect signal.

As a plugin? Fine.
If the developer thinks: "I can do that, no problem". Fine.

But this should not be promoted to be some essential feature that is lacking, nor as something that would improve the sound quality.
Last Edit: April 07, 2022, 12:17:35 PM by hiccup

Mr. Mike

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
...For an end user both are not useful and do not improve the audio quality...

With your righteous statement above I think "proof" is the first thing that comes to my mind. In the audiophile world this has been debated endlessly for years with no proof either way, but of course with many audio experts saying it does make a difference and they can hear it, and the nay-sayers saying "mesurements, measurements, measurements" with ironically no measurements to disprove it. So is your assertion that it is not useful or "maybe only to you?". Or do you decide for everyone? I would think that this should be an individual's choice with this being a preference that fits their own listening enjoyment. (you could turn it off if it were baked in)

one small example but a good overview... no measurements (lol):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQmKNhHT070&t=1s

However I would also be fine if it were a plugin and I applaud choice. But as a plugin I don't see it ever happening becasue it seems as though the plugin community has become a little less vigourous in their zeal for MusicBee, at least by the dates on some of the plugins having not been improved upon in years. This is why I would frown upon the plugin, it seems rather dismissive at this point.




Bee-liever

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3778
  • MB Version: 3.5.8367 P
-1
Actually, like with any other audiophoolery, there's no debate.
So true!
Upsampling has no effect on the audio.
If you have a 48kHz file upsampled to 384kHz, instead of having one bit of info you have 8 bits with the same info.

Most DAC's use oversampling, with a buffer to "look ahead" and reconstruct the waveform and fill in the extra bits needed.  This is what "improves" the sound.
MusicBee and my library - Making bee-utiful music together

hiccup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6562
To add some precision to this matter:
The whole process of upsampling does affect the digital content of the audio, especially in the extremely high frequency range.
That's because different filters are necessary to handle all the added and useless high frequency 'garbage'.

So people fooling around with upsampling are actually playing and experimenting with digital filtering.
My dac (and many others) also has different filterings available. And when testing them out when I first got the dac, with some extreme effort and concentration, I think I may have perceived an extremely small difference between some of them, for some specific recordings.
But I couldn't be completely sure, nor truthfully blind test it. (as in 'this one definitely sounds better than that one')

So different filtering may produce a slightly different colouring of sound under some very rare and specific circumstances, but even if perceived at all, any preference is personal and subjective, and will depend on your ears, your equipment and your personal taste.
And unless the dac used has very bad digital filtering for 16/44, I am convinced that nobody will be able to reliably pass a well set-up and controlled blind test.

So in my opinion upsampling can be considered a sound effect.
(and a money-maker for very commercial businesses such as PSA and HQPlayer)

It's not some 'audiophile quality sound improver'.
And it certainly isn't something that should be expected to be a by-default available feature, such as e.g. an equalizer, or (what I myself would find useful) a 'speaker simulator' (cross-feed) feature for when listening with headphones.


edit:
Mr. Mike posted a commercially branded and motivated weblink in an earlier reply.
I'll leave it to the mods if they think that's o.k.
Last Edit: April 08, 2022, 01:01:31 PM by hiccup

mesonto

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
I would think that this should be an individual's choice with this being a preference that fits their own listening enjoyment. (you could turn it off if it were baked in)

However I would also be fine if it were a plugin and I applaud choice. But as a plugin I don't see it ever happening becasue it seems as though the plugin community has become a little less vigourous in their zeal for MusicBee, at least by the dates on some of the plugins having not been improved upon in years. This is why I would frown upon the plugin, it seems rather dismissive at this point.

Completely agree with you on both points.

Just my guess but I think you and I maybe but a few people here have systems that can distinguish a difference in output. But alas I am far too old for this, I think this is a hopeless battle with the 'measurement' people.

As for the DAC doing it suggestion, of course this is much smarter to do in a software implementation. All I could do was shake my head...

BTW, your example link was good information, thank you for that!

Edit/addition: If all for not, I would love to have an HQPlayer plugin then.
Last Edit: April 08, 2022, 03:00:25 PM by mesonto

hiccup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6562
Just my guess but I think you and I maybe but a few people here have systems that can distinguish a difference in output. But alas I am far too old for this, I think this is a hopeless battle with the 'measurement' people.

That's cheap and a bit lazy.

Am I one of these 'measuring guys'?
I explained clearly that I am convinced that if you indeed HEAR differences that you have verified by doing objective and blind LISTENING tests, preferably verified by others, you are HEARING differences due to different filtering.
And as you seem to agree with me, that is a completely subjective matter. Since as you say, these things can't be measured.
(which I also don't believe is a correct statement b.t.w.  Effects of digital filtering can easily be measured)

Also, you have no idea what experience other people here have, and what equipment they have used, and are using.
(and I am not going to turn this into some pissing contest)

Instead of addressing the arguments against this being a 'needed feature' on their content, you chose to simply discredit people that don't share your opinion by saying that those people are simply 'measuring guys', and/or suggesting they have less expensive equipment then you?

At first I was neutral in case the developer of MusicBee would decide to implement this. It wouldn't have any negative affect on me.
But now I am against it.
Features like these are prone to generate more useless discussions like this one.

And then the next request will probably be someone asking to have MusicBee support MQA out of the box.

The horror.

The horror.
Last Edit: April 08, 2022, 04:21:12 PM by hiccup

mesonto

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
That's cheap and a bit lazy.

No it was accurate and there are decidedly 2 camps of thought. People who go by measurements and others who listen for differences. (blind or not)


I explained clearly that I am convinced that if you indeed HEAR differences that you have verified by doing objective and blind LISTENING tests, preferably verified by others, you are HEARING differences due to different filtering.
And as you seem to agree with me, that is a completely subjective matter. Since as you say, these things can't be measured.
(which I also don't believe is a correct statement b.t.w.  Effects of digital filtering can easily be measured)

I don't disagree with hearing a difference as you state, because even with my old ears the difference is clear especially when using software for this task. Now whether you surmise it is from 'filtering' or not is beside the point. Whether it is more pleasurable to listen to is the point that Mr. Mike was getting at. (and myself)


Also, you have no idea what experience other people here have, and what equipment they have used, and are using.
(and I am not going to turn this into some pissing contest)

No I do not, nor do I care, nor should anyone else for that matter but it will make a difference on what you are able to discern yourself.


Instead of addressing the arguments against this being a 'needed feature' on their content, you chose to simply discredit people that don't share your opinion by saying that those people are simply 'measuring guys', and/or suggesting they have less expensive equipment then you?

I already expressed my argument for this being a wanted feature, not necessarily a 'needed' one and I think Mr. Mike, also attached a very good link explaining the merits. But I also agreed with Mr. Mike and yourself that as a plugin it would be terrific to have. Perhaps just being able to plugin HQPlayer!

On an apologetic side of things:  Obviously my statement of "measurement guys" made you upset, for that I apologize. I do really think that you are trying just like everyone else to better this wonderful application. I meant no harm, it is just my experience of the 2 camps of thought. Hopefully you can honestly forgive me, it was never my intention to 'enter a pissing contest' as you said. Again, sorry for that.


hiccup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6562
Obviously my statement of "measurement guys" made you upset, for that I apologize.
I do appreciate that. But whenever somebody on a forum uses the word 'upset' to imagine and describe the state of mind of someone he is debating with, I take it as condescending. I'm sure you didn't mean it like that though. (I'm also not a native English speaker. Perhaps I am understanding 'upset' in a wrong way)
Just so you know, I am hardly ever upset on internet fora. But I am triggered to voice my opinion once in a while ;-)

It's a pity you still seem to think this is about 'measurers' vs. 'listeners'.
I won't explain that that is simply not true in a better way then I already did.

So let's end this discussion? I think more than enough arguments have passed now for the developer to make up his mind on the matter?