or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Sponsor Announcements and Deals › DSD, to support or not
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DSD, to support or not - Page 8

post #106 of 117

Yeah that makes no sense considering RR does excellent 24/176.4 recordings...

 

The other factor is that now me and my friends are having terrible luck with "remasters". Probably about the last 10 out of 10 hires downloads we've bought have been worse than out previous CD or DVD-A (24/96) rips. Now the always seem to be compressing the dynamic range and push the treble (I guess to prove there is more detail there)... Either they are just using a single remastering for streaming, radio, and headphones, or they just don't get it... Grr...

post #107 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by junker View Post
 

they just don't get it... Grr...

post #108 of 117

I'm sure someone has said already, but the company Ifi claim they did extensive research into which chip is the best for DSD and chose the Burr Brown 1793 (prior to TI's acquisition of the company and the PCM1793). They say it seems to be the only chip designed to do both DSD and PCM equally well, or words to that effect.

post #109 of 117

I do think there is a future for DSD, but not in the traditional separate DAC/Amp sections that we use today. DSD is a pulse density modulated(PDM) signal that is extremely similar to the pulse width modulation(PWM) that class D amplifiers use. This means you could maintain the purity of the signal by discarding the DAC and feeding it straight to the Class D processor with some minor conversion of the signal but nothing like the D/A conversion required for a typical setup.

 

There are very few truly digital amp, like the NAD M2 amp, but I am sure they tend to take PCM and use some sort of signal processing to make it compatible for the class D stage. Starting with a DSD signal seems to reduce the potential for signal modification in this setup and would reduce some of the hardware requirements that go with it.

 

While this probably won't happen exactly as I described, I do think it is inevitable that we'll have systems that maintain a digital signal until the headphone outputs. For speakers I think it will go even further with an amp at each driver that are fed signals from a DSP instead of using passive crossovers, thereby maintaining a digital signal all the way to the speaker drivers themselves.

post #110 of 117
Here's my two cents. I think DSD material sounds good, but the format itself doesn't matter as long as the recording and mastering (if any) are all done in DSD.

The big flame war is on the playback format itself and I don't think the playback format itself manifests any benefits. What I HAVE found is that native DSD material often sounds better to me exactly because working with DSD is so limited. With native DSD recordings, you get a very raw, unedited kind of sound and I really like that. The producer has to place much more effort into getting the DSD recording just right because he/she knows that you can't really "patch things up" in a DAW like you can with multi-bit Delta-Sigma or PCM recordings.

As for support in a DAC, I think having the ability to playback these recordings is nice. The vast majority of material is PCM on the other hand and very few people actually have native DSD files if they even have DSD material. DSD to PCM, edited, mixed, and mastered in PCM, and converted back to DSD absolutely destroys the the sound quality in my opinion because you've manipulated the audio in a DAW just like any other PCM track out there, and the added effects and stuff change how the track ultimately sounds, which you can't really do in a pure DSD track. That would be like making a binaural recording and completely negating the benefits of the binaural effects by adding-in a whole bunch of other non-binaural stuff to a track; what was the point of even having the binaural recording in the first place if you're just going to "patch it up" with other sounds?
Edited by miceblue - 12/18/14 at 10:19pm
post #111 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by miceblue View Post

Here's my two cents. I think DSD material sounds good, but the format itself doesn't matter as long as the recording and mastering (if any) are all done in DSD.

The big flame war is on the playback format itself and I don't think the playback format itself manifests any benefits. What I HAVE found is that native DSD material often sounds better to me exactly because working with DSD is so limited. With native DSD recordings, you get a very raw, unedited kind of sound and I really like that. The producer has to place much more effort into getting the DSD recording just right because he/she knows that you can't really "patch things up" in a DAW like you can with multi-bit Delta-Sigma or PCM recordings.

As for support in a DAC, I think having the ability to playback these recordings is nice. The vast majority of material is PCM on the other hand and very few people actually have native DSD files if they even have DSD material. DSD to PCM, edited, mixed, and mastered in PCM, and converted back to DSD absolutely destroys the the sound quality in my opinion because you've manipulated the audio in a DAW just like any other PCM track out there, and the added effects and stuff change how the track ultimately sounds, which you can't really do in a pure DSD track. That would be like making a binaural recording and completely negating the benefits of the binaural effects by adding-in a whole bunch of other non-binaural stuff to a track; what was the point of even having the binaural recording in the first place if you're just going to "patch it up" with other sounds?

 

And the good news is that there is a New Year's sale on now at NativeDSD.Com - 15% off all 400+ albums there in Stereo and Multichannel DSD.  A great opportunity to nab some Native DSD recordings - along with some excellent Analog Master Tape to DSD transfers - on sale. The Discount Code to get the savings is 2015-15OFF. An excellent way to ring in the new year musically.

post #112 of 117

I may may have missed this in this, or another, thread- apologies if it has already been posted and discussed- but check this out: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue77/dsd_master.htm
(pasted below)

 

Musings on DSD: Using Offline Conversion from DSD to High-Resolution PCM Files Rather Than Using a DSD-capable DAC
by Andy Schaub

"I don't know where I'm gonna live
I don't know if I'll find a place
I'd have to think about it some
And that I do not wish to face
I guess I'm counting on His
Divine intervention"

—"Divine Intervention" by Matthew Sweet

I was looking at the Berkeley Audio Design's new reference DAC via the Web, and came across this interesting quote:

"Fortunately, virtually all reproduction of DSD files using external DAC's is with a computer based music server as the source. If 1-bit DSD to multi-bit conversion is done first in the computer it can be performed with extremely high precision and superior filtering that preserves all of the content of the DSD file. Computer DSD to multi-bit conversion can be at least as good as that performed in a DAC and without adding processing noise near or in the D/A converter chip." HERE

I asked around and found one friend who has done this even though he has a DSD-compatible DAC, claiming that the resultant 24/176.4 PCM file sounded richer and musically more involving than letting the DAC do the DSD conversion. It's just a pain if you have a lot of DSD files (which he does). He used JRiver MediaCenter on a PC. Although they now make a Mac version of the JRiver software, there's a Macintosh-only program that's been around for a while called DSD Master, which is available through the Apple App Store for about $30, and claims to do professional-quality conversions. Given that I have to buy one application or another, I decided to go with DSD Master because I've had bad experiences with programs written for the PC that have been adapted for the Mac. I also have a bunch of DSD files that Cookie Marenco of Blue Coast Records gave to me back when I was reviewing the Ayre QB-9 DSD.

I've only tried two DSD-compatible DACs, the Mytek and the Ayre, and in both cases found the DSD files to sound a little "glossy" or too smoothed-over in comparison to the high-resolution PCM files that I have. I wondered if what I was hearing was actually something like processing noise as implied by the Berkeley Audio Design quote. In any case, I had everything I needed to convert at least a couple of files, so I decided to try it. I just had to find the time to sit down at my iMac and do the conversion in DSD Master offline. Of course, I would be doing the comparison from memory since my Rega DAC only handles PCM files; but the memory of that "glossy" sound is very clear to me. The music that Cookie Marenco gave me came as individual songs in .zip files with very long names, such as, "Alex-de-Grassi_Special-Event-19_01_Shortening-Bread_2.8MHz-DSF.zip", which starts with the artist followed by the album title then the song name, the DSD file resolution, and finally the actual file format (i.e, DSF). As I understand it, the 2.8MHz / DSF format is regular DSD, not double DSD or higher. So I set DSD Master to convert everything to 24/176.4 (the PCM equivalent of 2.8MHz DSD) ALAC files and to automatically insert the converted files into iTunes with all available metadata. Then I took one file that I had already unzipped and ran the conversion by launching DSD Master, selecting the file in the Apple Finder, and doing an Open With->DSD Master. The conversion ran very quickly and, when I opened iTunes, I found a 24/176.4 file in my iTunes library with the album title Blue Coast Special Event 19, a single song named, "Shortening Bread", and a photograph of Alex de Grassi in the studio as cover art. I launched Audirvana Plus 2.0.8 (which is much better sounding than the 1.X versions were), and started to play the song through my über Rega DAC. It sounded astonishing with all the detail, depth, and dynamic range that DSD is famous for without any of the glossiness than I am used to hearing with a DSD DAC (although I've never heard, say, a Playback Designs DSD DAC). It truly sounded closer to analog that about anything else that I've played from my computer.

I got so excited that I batch unzipped the rest of the songs on that album (based on the file names), then converted them to PCM files and inserted them into iTunes in batch using DSD Master. This time it took a while to process all the songs, maybe five minutes on a fully-loaded late 2013 iMac, which is still well within reason for offline conversions; and when I looked at iTunes, I saw that it had automatically organized all the songs into the same album with the same cover art and correct song titles. The only limitation was that, because there was no sequencing information in the individual DSD files, iTunes had them listed alphabetically under the album title Blue Coast Special Event 19; but I figured that was OK. I played the whole album and really enjoyed it, feeling very much like I was listening to a 15 ips, ½ inch master tape. I remembered that Channel Classics had given me some music back when I reviewed the Mytek DAC. I thought that would be an interesting alternative to the Alex de Grassi album I had converted, so—after a while of rummaging around my 3TB Fusion drive—I came across a subdirectory named, "www.channelclassics.com". Inside of it were a number of directories containing FLAC files and several .zip files, one that, once unzipped, had a series of DFF files from an album by Rachel Podger. I had to look it up, but apparently a DFF file is the same thing as a DSF file although it does not contain any metadata in it. Fortunately, since this was classical music where order is really important, the individual files were named, for example, "01_Haydn Violin Concerto in G -Allegro moderato.dff", meaning that, when iTunes alphabetized them, they would fall into the correct order as indicated by the prepended numerals (e.g., "01_"). I was able to get the rest of the information I needed from the PDF file that was included in the unzipped directory as well as the cover art through an included JPG file.

I selected all of the individual files that were laid out side by side in Tunes using the "command" key when I clicked each one, then edited them in bulk, adding the artist name (Rachel Podger), the album title (I just called it, "Mozart and Haydn", even though the real title was longer than that) and browsed for the JPG file to add the cover art. After I was done, I had one complete album with reasonably proper metadata, excellent cover art, and all tracks in complete and logical order. So I fired up Audirvana Plus again and started playing the album. Well, I had remembered this as sounding slightly astringent and at the same time overly smooth or glossy; but after conversion from DSD to PCM, running through my über Rega DAC, once again it had many of the qualities of an analog master tape and just seemed very spacious and involving. Just as a reminder, my über Rega DAC consists of the following:

  • A Stealth Swift power cable with an IEC adapter

  • A 3.0-meter AudioQuest Diamond USB cable

  • An original Sonicweld Diverter HR bridge device (USB to S/PDIF converter)

  • A Stealth Varidig Sextet digital cable

  • The Rega DAC itself

  • An Audio Note AN-Vx analog interconnect with Eichmann Silver Bullet plugs

So you can see why I call it über. I did want to complete one last experiment, which was to take an album I have in many forms and buy the DSD version of it (this time from the Acoustic Sounds Super HiRez collection), convert the .DSF files to 24/176.4 PCM files, and play them through my über Rega DAC along with a 24/96 AIFF version I had bought from HDtracks many years ago, my near-original Decca vinyl pressing played on my Rega P3-24, and my SHM-SACD played via my Theta Compli Blu universal player through, in this last case, headphones and a portable headphone amplifier fed from the analog out of the Theta, out of practical necessity. The album was The Rolling Stones' Let It Bleed, which I'd had in one form or another since college, and the experiment only cost me an additional $30 to get the Super HiRez DSD version of it (single DSD, not double DSD or greater). I have to say that the Decca LP and the Japanese SHM-SACD pretty much tied for first place, each having its strengths and weaknesses but in both cases drawing you into the album the most, followed by the converted Super HiRez version, which did have depth, three-dimensionality, and detail including a particularly nice rendition of Mick's voice, then the 24/96 AIFF version, which in many ways sounded worse than an early 1980's CD (metaphorically speaking), all harsh and flat.

So I'm really not sure what to say. Maybe Berkeley Audio Design has hit the head on the nail. The conversion and entry of metadata, when necessary, is only a one-time thing. Then you have beautiful music sitting in your iTunes library (or wherever you would like) that can be played anytime in near-master-tape-like sound quality without the need to spend $13,000 on a Playback Designs MPD-5 (or something like that, assuming it would actually sound better, or even the same as, computer-based file format conversion to high-resolution PCM running into any really decent PCM-based DAC). I'm not trying to put down anybody or any company. I just think it's amazing that with a $30 program and a little patience, I can get such lovely music through an admittedly turbocharged but ultimately basic PCM DAC.

Kindest regards,

Andy

P. S. I decided to listen to the converted Let It Bleed files from Super HiRez one more time, this time through a pair of Audez'e headphones connected directly to my Tri headphone amplifier. There's no doubt that it sounded much smoother and cleaner than the 24/96 download from HDtracks, and I could listen to it many times. It's just that it sounded like it had been remixed in a way that kept the whole album a little constrained. Compared to the LP or to the SHM-SACD, I had a little trouble getting my ya-ya's out; but that's not to say it wasn't lovely sounding. It's just that the overall sound might have been better suited to a live acoustic recording or to a string quartet. I'm not trying to damn it with faint praise, just explaining what I heard.

http://dsdmaster.blogspot.com/

post #113 of 117

Here a download link with my "good reason" for DSD, a DSD64 recording from LP I did myself. See whether you like it...

post #114 of 117
Hi, I plant in my room I iFi nano iDSD connected to an analog amplifier. The PC. Upstream is an Asus EeePC netbook with Windows XP and only 2 GB of RAM. Often in listening to the songs in dsd feel sometimes small decelerations music (not nice)! The cause could be the memory of the PC or do I adjust the buffer options foobar 2000?
post #115 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by aemme View Post

Hi, I plant in my room I iFi nano iDSD connected to an analog amplifier. The PC. Upstream is an Asus EeePC netbook with Windows XP and only 2 GB of RAM. Often in listening to the songs in dsd feel sometimes small decelerations music (not nice)! The cause could be the memory of the PC or do I adjust the buffer options foobar 2000?

Try a larger buffer first.
post #116 of 117
I'll add this to the mix:
http://www.grimmaudio.com/site/assets/files/1088/dsd_myth.pdf
Quote:
A final remark. If in our opinion 192/24 files are a better choice than DSD fi les, then why do we include the ‘DoP’ DSD format in the USB interface for our LS1? The reason is simple. Until recently there were just two important formats for musical content, CD’s with 44.1/16 and SACD’s with 64 fs DSD. A lot of wonderful music has been released in these formats and recently the SACD masters are becoming available as online downloads. We want to enable our customers to enjoy that music and therefore we will support every quality format. In our view it is music over format, not the other way around.
post #117 of 117

...here my humble opinion...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sponsor Announcements and Deals
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Sponsor Announcements and Deals › DSD, to support or not