In response to this earlier post:
Originally Posted by glangford View Post
Since it will function as a DAC, I wonder witll it be an upconverting DAC? My Denon 3311ci will take a 16/44 input and convert it to 24/96.
I own an 83SE, and upsample RBCD's and Squeezebox through an external DAC. When the 95 was being leaked I asked OPPO if it would upsample, and they responded "Never!"
Would that never becomes "now."
I believe that up-sampling a standard-def picture to 1080i or 1080p must be possible, due to the credibility of the companies claiming their blu-ray player, av/receiver or tv will do this, and because, though nol a toechie, I can see how software could be used to "guess" how to fill in the extra pixels from those that are already there.
But, while still not a techie, I cannot see how a low-sampled recording can be upsampled to hi-res - it would not be possible to "guess" what is meant to go into the higher frequencies.
This is a delusion Mark Waldrep of Aix Records(owner, manager, sound engineer etc) has been campaigning againt for some time. Yes, you can up the output to cover the extra frequencies ( I can set settings on my computer sound card to set the default output to 24/96 for all music, and it tricks my av receiver into reporting that it is receiving 24/96, but anything above the 44.1khz is empty!!!!
Here is some of the stuff Mark Waldrep has said about this:
"Knowing that there is nothing that can be done to compact discs to make them "high resolution", I was curious and visited their site. They have sections that sell CD, vinyl and even analog tape versions of their recordings. I wasn't able to find any additional information about the "high resolution virgin polycarbonate CDs".
The truth is that there is no such thing as a "high resolution CD". Don't be fooled. Enjoy the music as a standard CD…that's all it will ever be."
"First, he points out that this is not a new situation. At the introduction of high-resolution or high definition audio formats back in 2000, Paul Miller published an article exposing many of the early DVD-Audio productions as lacking substantial improvements over CDs. The SACD and DVD-Audio formats were specially designed to, "demonstrate the audible superiority of 96 kHz/192 kHz recordings over CD's 44.1/16-bit format [but, in fact] actually sounded worse." My contention has always been that a standard definition recording from the past placed in a container that exceeds its fidelity standards remains a standard definition recording. We might be getting the best possible rendition of that older track but it is not the same thing as having a new recording done with live musicians at 96 kHz/24-bits. And it shouldn't be marketed as such"
)Now before someone berates me for being "off-topic" for this thread - I know that. But it was in this thread that poster glangford raised the issue, and I felt it important to nip this delusion in the bud in the thread in which it has occurred.
To see more on what Mark Waldrep has said about this, and more about Aix DVD-A discs and hi-res blu-ray music discs, go to aixrecords.com and use the Articles, the Techtalk, and the About Us links on the menu top of page.
If that sounds like a plug, it ls - but only from a very satisfied customer, not someone with a vested interest in the company, nor a personal friend/ relative of anyone in the company.