Arc vs Anti Image

[Scroobius]

Hi Peter,

My Pace Car reclocker has 96k and 88.2k clocks (well ok 48 and 44.1 both x2). That allows me to play the following configs for 16/44.1 files
1)  arc prediction x2 giving 88.2 output  OR
2)  anti image x2 with 96k box ticked giving 96k output
Well comparing the two configurations arc prediction (88.2 output) is much better sound quality. In fact I just tried it again to be sure and there is a very big difference.
I was  just wondering is it due to arc prediction? or is it the up/over sampling need to get to 96 from 44.1? what is the difference between anti image and arc prediction as I would have thought any upsampling helps move the images away.

Just curious & I still cannot get over how good xx sounds in my system it has transformed it.

All the best

P

[PeterSt]

Hi Paul,

I wonder, why Anti Image x2 without 96K box ticked isn't on your list ?
That would give a more fair comparison.

The outcome will not differ much, because indeed it is the principle of both filters (that's what they are in the end) which is completely different. So, Anti Image (or a version of it) is what will be in most DACs while Arc Prediction is completely new and from the ground created by me. The main difference with other filters is that Arc Prediction doesn't ring at all. It is that what brings the audible difference.

In your case A.P. works quite as intended because of the filterless DAC, which (no filtering) actually is a wrong thing. BUT, better than the common filtering always applied (A.I.). You can try all three versions : Your DAC as intended by Audio Note (no filtering); your DAC with A.I. - as always done in a non-filterless DAC (worse); your DAC with A.P. (the best) as how I created it for the Phasure NOS1 (which is filterless).

Notice that "filtering to" 88.2 (96) isn't enough officially, but since the Audio Note anticipates on no filtering, A.P. should be better in any case.
In addition you should be able to clearly perceive a higher resolution from A.P. close to - or equalling a native 24/96(88.2). This never happens withg other "upsampling" means that I could find. Instead they destroy in the first place (like A.I. does).

I hope I wasn't too confusing !
Peter

[Scroobius]

Hi Peter,

Well you are right (no surprise there of course!!) AI at 88.2 is not even close to AP at 88.2 and I am listening to an old 1962 recording.

I infer from what you say that if filtering to 88.2 (or96) is not enough that really it should be at least to 192 or even 384?. Well I can't wait to hear that.

I would love to know how you do AP without ringing but I know I will have to keep guessing!!!

Keep up the good work

P