Dolby jumps on the upsampling bandwagon Options

[krabapple]

apparently it's not just 44.1 kHz that's inadequate, it's 48khz too

http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/Assets/...ormance.PDF.pdf

whistled version:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/dolby17...apodizes-truehd


The technical gist is that Dolby's using Meridian's 96kHz upsampler and 'apodizing' filter, which they say masks pre-ringing.
(which apparently is commonly audible using 48kHz SR, and apparently can be masked without introducing frequency response or phase
artifacts that are at least as audible -- right? Because otherwise there would be no point to this...right? )

Btw, my respectable but not-boutique-high-end AVR already upsamples everything to 96kHz (in order to apply DSP) so again, WTF, Dolby?

This post has been edited by krabapple: May 21 2012, 23:38

[greynol]

They're promising to eliminate preringing on the production end.

Btw, my respectable but not-boutique-high-end AVR already upsamples everything to 96kHz (in order to apply DSP) so again, WTF, Dolby?

Is there only one way to upsample?

Honestly, is it being suggested that preringing is never audible with any steep filter, no matter the implementation or how many times it is used in the production chain?

This post has been edited by greynol: May 22 2012, 00:18

[krabapple]

They're promising to eliminate preringing on the production end.

There are tradeoffs to that, of course. And it's not the only promise they're making, of course.

Is there only one way to upsample?

No, but are the ways used in mass market gear often audibly deficient?

Honestly, is it being suggested that preringing is never audible with any steep filter, no matter the implementation or how many times it is used in the production chain?

No. It is being suggested, by Dolby Labs with the help of Meridian (which has never shirked from proposing 'solutions' to problems of dubious audible import) , that 1) pre-ringing is both audible and common in 48kHz audio, and 2) common upsamplers (and upsampling has been a feature of consumer DACs for , what, 20 years now?) are audibly distinguishable from expensive ones and 3) the result of their special upsampling/filtering audibly improves the original signal (I believe the term 'restores the natural tonality' has been used in some of their copy).

Proof for any of these suggestions? Not provided. Non-blind demos to 'critics' flown in from around the country? They're on that.

[greynol]

And it's not the only promise they're making, of course.

Of course? Tell me, what other promises are they making? It seems you didn't really read the paper you linked.

No, but are the ways used in mass market gear often audibly deficient?

Non-sequitur. They made a point of saying there is no need for the end-user to buy new equipment. Again, did you actually read the paper?

the result of their special upsampling/filtering audibly improves the original signal (I believe the term 'restores the natural tonality' has been used in some of their copy).

Do you think audible pre-ringing is part of natural tonality?

Proof for any of these suggestions? Not provided.

Do you think that they don't employ double-blind testing during development? Have you ever visited their facilities?

This post has been edited by greynol: May 22 2012, 06:13

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

No, but are the ways used in mass market gear often audibly deficient?

This question is of the essence.

Non-sequitur. They made a point of saying there is no need for the end-user to buy new equipment. Again, did you actually read the paper?

With all due respect, the above question contains enough non-sequiturs to choke a horse. ;-)

The first non-sequitur is dismissing the question that is the crux of the matter. Is there even a problem to solve?

The issue of end users buying new equipment is a non sequitur because whether or not their existing equipment has an audible fault due to pre-ringing is the very crux of this matter.

If the existing consumer equipment has this audible flaw, then there can be a discussion of solutions for it.

If the flaw does not exist, then discussion of solutions for it are out of order on the grounds of relevance.

Providing proof that we have read the paper is made difficult by the fact that it is copy protected in such a way that many of us can't cut and paste from it.