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 5

post #61 of 86

PCM is fine for me. I'd rather spend time looking for good recordings than bother with DSD.

Merchants might be looking forward to selling you again your preferred music for a new (:)) price but it won't fly with me.

DSD is synonym with investing in cables. The main constraint for sound quality reproduction is the speaker (and room) or the headphone.

Of course I can see people that hear the difference between PCM and DSD but IMHO that's bull. They are the

same people who can hear the difference between two cables or two good DACs. Bull.

24 bit /96 khz PCM is plenty for me. I will not pay for this DSD nonsense.

post #62 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHStudios View Post


From "reading" through the manual in Japanese (with images of the setup UI) it does not appear to allow direct streaming playback.

 

There is the Teac UD-501 @$849 which does handle DSD stream conversions thought USB but requires a computer or media server.

http://www.teac.com/product/ud-501/

http://www.audiostream.com/content/teac-ud-501

http://www.head-fi.org/t/632413/teac-reference-line-ud-501-usb-dac-dsd

 

 

My excitement stems from being able to distribute music in DSD directly to consumers on disk! This player opens that door, bypassing the SA-CD mastering bottleneck, creating opportunity for small studios, such as mine, to distribute the highest distribution quality directly to consumers, in contrast to having the highest quality reserved only for mastering engineers.

 

I am cognizant of the attitude of the record companies but their business model simply has to change! Software piracy has not killed the viability of the software industry. The attitude of the mp3 generations is partly from the cold facts that their economic prospects are grimmer than their predecessors, partly due to the artificial high pricing model of CD's, partly the diminished creativity in mass market, music as industrial marketing production, and partly due to the convenience factor.

 

If a new, direct from the artist with no big gatekeeper corporation middleman, distribution model was available at a high enough quality in fidelity and musical value, that would allow for 30-40% piracy ratios and still be feasible.  Why shouldn't the music "industry" have to adapt to the brave new world without using totalitarian statutory "law" to coerce consumers into conformity?

 

Without belaboring the idea, just as movies have more worth and interest in the beginning of their distribution, where theater and DVD/Blu-ray sales peak and then diminish (and the movie industry does not appear to be dying as the "record" industry is), high quality "disc casts"/web casts of new material from artists actually making new music good enough to create ENOUGH DEMAND for quality reproduction, could design the business plan to milk demand up front and allow enough profit, where the majority of honest consumers would pay a reasonable fee to own media and/or for permanent rights to cloud-based, highest quality DSD streams, to cover the "losses" from the projected sales estimated from fantasy land.

 

The latter would allow easy policing of direct, lazy piracy and easy cutoff for those detected doing indirect piracy. If an honest consumer could pay $5-7 for an "album" for DSD quality streaming, versus $1 per itune for lousy quality, there would be a viable market.

 

The software industry business model re-emphasizes the classic free market principle of: he who serves the most people wins the most money, period. The current trend of big record industry corps aligning with or indeed funding the creation of totalitarian statutory traps aimed to coerce an ever shrinking consumer base into conformity, is death in slow motion. Sell to more people, lower the cost and have profits anyway!

 

 

Back on topic:

The Teac is not inexpensive, at initial pricing around $799, but as a high quality disk spinner, worth it for the niche that care about high fidelity.

 

I am reading this as a positive sign, that Teac sees a viable niche market for high fidelity in a world currently dominated by zombie-consumption by the mass-mind of eviscerated, music-as-symbols or cyphers abused primarily to maintain an entranced disconnection from life.

 

High fidelity music represents the exact opposite of course: enabling an esthetic experience that can reconnect us to our spirit and to passions deeper than the mindless pursuit of materialism.

 

Provided of course, that the music and performance itself is aimed into the heart and not merely designed for superficial mental distraction!

 

Not a perfect solution but a positive step in the right direction! regular_smile%20.gif

That was a very constructive post - thanks. 

 

The only reservation I have is the prices mentioned for an "album" in DSD quality. There were MANY attempts in history of initially offering much improved whatever for a price that was too low to sustain it in the market place in the long run - sometimes saved by the enthusiastic user of such a product, but that usually results in ultimate price to be higher than what it could have been if the original designer set an fair price that would still be above red in the long run.

post #63 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boerd View Post

PCM is fine for me. I'd rather spend time looking for good recordings than bother with DSD.

Merchants might be looking forward to selling you again your preferred music for a new (:)) price but it won't fly with me.

DSD is synonym with investing in cables. The main constraint for sound quality reproduction is the speaker (and room) or the headphone.

Of course I can see people that hear the difference between PCM and DSD but IMHO that's bull. They are the

same people who can hear the difference between two cables or two good DACs. Bull.

24 bit /96 khz PCM is plenty for me. I will not pay for this DSD nonsense.

I agree selling preferred music again on whatever new medium does not really make sense.

 

No idea how you came to the conclusion DSD is synonym with investing in cables. I do not use any fancy cables at all - because the difference between DSD at 2.8 MHZ and DSD at 5.6 MHz

is greater than any cable change and as finances are limited, I tend to invest in what brings the most for the money spent. Cables are icing on the cake - but cake has to be good in the first place to deserve it.

 

DSD or hi rez PCM ( 192/24) are both capable of forcing one to go another mile in order to make a good recording. Like in analog days - much of the recording skills necessary to make a really good analog recording have been abandoned/forgotten since the introduction of the CD - and it is necessary to at least try to ressurect them in order to give DSD a chance. If only difference in recording chain is DSD vs PCM - it is impossible to record any information if it is not provided by the microphones, no matter how capable and sophisticated recorder is used - and will not yield all what is possible. Taken together, these changes are expensive - and result in better recordings. And such recordings should cost more -  but not only because it says DSD. There are good and bad recordings in any medium, DSD has the possibility to really make a significant overall upgrade in SQ - if given a fair chance.

 

It also requires better reproduction equipment in order for the listener to be truly able to appreciate it. It does not have to be unreasonably expensive, yet  greater bandwidth at comparable quality will always cost more. There are speakers and headphones capable of supporting DSD - for decades, it is the same requirement as for analog. Acoustics and its problems have also not changed - whether one is willing and able too implement the knowledge and solutions to the problem that became available over the years is another matter - but it can be done.

 

I would also not call a decison not to invest in equipment necessary to support DSD to be able to trully appreciate it - bull. No matter how much I find it misplaced - it is the right of anyone to make his or hers own choices and I have to respect that. 

post #64 of 86

Back on whether to support DSD or not in a future Schiit DAC, I'd say do it in the future. And by that I mean construct something modular, so that we - the consumers - can put the DSD card in there when and if you decide to make it. You already said the optimum DSD decoder is not the same thing as the rest of the DAC. Hence I guess it would be convenient even from an engineering standpoint to just leave the possibility open, not to mention that should be leaving possibilities open for yet to be seen future formats as well. A future-proof DAC, that sounds quite outlandish - wouldn't that suit you guys just perfect?

 

Not to mention I want that thing available for purchase by the end of the summer :)

post #65 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post
...to ressurect them in order to give DSD a chance. If only difference in recording chain is DSD vs PCM - it is impossible to record any information if it is not provided by the microphones, no matter how capable and sophisticated recorder is used - and will not yield all what is possible. Taken together, these changes are expensive - and result in better recordings. And such recordings should cost more -  but not only because it says DSD. There are good and bad recordings in any medium, DSD has the possibility to really make a significant overall upgrade in SQ - if given a fair chance...

 

DSD will be recorded by the same engineers. They need to change not the format. Blaming the tool?

To give another chance to the same engineers/companies and hoping for a different result is not wise.

Good recordings in PCM 24 bit expose my speakers and/or headphones. I am more interested in speaker/headphone improvements than digital format.

Does anybody think one can hear the difference between a good PCM 24/96 Khz recording and the same recording on DSD?


Edited by Boerd - 3/18/13 at 4:55pm
post #66 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boerd View Post

 

DSD will be recorded by the same engineers. They need to change not the format. Blaming the tool?

To give another chance to the same engineers/companies and hoping for a different result is not wise.

Good recordings in PCM 24 bit expose my speakers and/or headphones. I am more interested in speaker/headphone improvements than digital format.

Does anybody think one can hear the difference between a good PCM 24/96 Khz recording and the same recording on DSD?

To cut the long story short - yes, there is an audible difference even between a good PCM 192/24 recording and DSD - especially if it is DSD128 at 5.6 MHz.

 

But it absolutely is a must to keep the signal from the mike to the recorder as direct and pure as possible - which is usually NOT the case. Mixing desk is not transparent, and if using multimiking, what good can be gained by improved transient capabilities of DSD vs anything else - a couple of microseconds vs milisecond range(s) of error(s) ? 

 

When introducing SACD, one of the first releases was Miles Davis Kind of Blue. GREAT album - musically. But next to nothing on it from recording point of view that really could present advantages of DSD at 2.8 MHz ( SACD ) over CD - at least not to an extent of which it is ultimately capable of.

Similar could be said of most re-re-releases - probably better than ( by now used and worn original ) vinyl, certainly better than CD, but short of its ultimate capabilities when properly recorded. It certainly can not miracously make recording errors to go away - and exposing them more might even work against the experience as a whole. 

 

If you clean up everything that precedes recorder and record it to MP3 - that MP3 stands lots of chance of sounding superiour to normal studio practice feeding DSD recorder - and I REALLY mean it. Now imagine the same clean signal into DSD - but DSD fed with usual signal will accomplish little if anything of an overall audible improvement.

 

It is also needed to have the capability to play the frequency and dynamic range on playback - not easy, not inexpensive, but can be done. I agree speakers/headphones will usually be the first limiting factor - but there are a few that are good enough at the present moment to demonstrate the advantages of DSD. DSD can be used to force both recording enginners and playback equipment manufacturers to polish their act - and although music reproduction will most probably never attain the level of music heard live, this could bring its closest approach yet.

post #67 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baldr View Post

"If you have a DSD decoder, it's great.  But to take advantage of it all, you must have a DSD encoded recording, of which there may be a few, few dozen or few hundred available."

 

SA-CD.net lists over 8,000 SACD's.

 

Update:  ...and I realize that you're talking about something entirely different.  Member Maxvla just educated me on a separate thread that SACD players don't output digital hence the DSD format is only available from a computer; which is what you are referencing when talking about "a few, few dozen or few hundred available".

 

My bad!  I'm new to all this.


Edited by CaffeinatedX42 - 3/25/13 at 4:22pm
post #68 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaffeinatedX42 View Post

 

SA-CD.net lists over 8,000 SACD's.

 

Update:  ...and I realize that you're talking about something entirely different.  Member Maxvla just educated me on a separate thread that SACD players don't output digital hence the DSD format is only available from a computer; which is what you are referencing when talking about "a few, few dozen or few hundred available".

 

My bad!  I'm new to all this.

 

Yeah, and what appears to be happening is that as soon as the SACD is available you see the same recording pop up on HDTRACKS at either 96khz or the 192khz "audiophile edition" - for far less $.  $35 for the SACD (+ S&H and wait 2-7 days) or $25 for 25/192 FLAC (no DRM) and I can have it in an hour.   Hmmmm, lemme think about this ...

 

I think I heard that there are only 2 factories in the WORLD that actually make SACD.  One in Japan, another in Austria.  What a bottleneck!  And the studios/recording companies obviously don't give a damn.  

Also, I wish we could just completely kill off the Vinyl market.  There is another no-brainer decision:  24/192 digital or 180gm vinyl.  Seriously!  The amount of prep time to play one side of a disk (that decays as soon as it's exposed to the environment, not to mention playing it) vs tapping a few keys?  Yeah, Yeah, I know it's "better" - but for how long?  Vinyl - just kill it and force the companies to supply us with decent digital music or don't do it at all.

 

My $0.02

 

Cheers,

Frank

post #69 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post

To cut the long story short - yes, there is an audible difference even between a good PCM 192/24 recording and DSD - especially if it is DSD128 at 5.6 MHz.

...

 

Really? The differences between the same master in DSD and PCM 196/24 must be at the limit of  best measurement equipment today.

post #70 of 86

No need to kill vinyl )) vinyl is FUN! Sometimes I’m really amazed hearing the level of information my Ortofon Windfeld + Whest SE combo can extract from the grooves, especially playing well recorded vinyl. Though if I want to back up my record collection at some stage with maximum quality, DSD seems to be the only proper option. The new Tascam DA-3000 DSD Recorder looks very promising and has inputs/outputs to hook up an outboard converter with DSD support.

 

post #71 of 86

A very informative and technical discussion of DSD vs. PCM over on ComputerAudiophile starting with post #84.  Charles Hansen of Ayre debunks fairly clearly many of the pro DSD arguments.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/ayre-wants-%241-5k-dsded-qb-9-a-15650/

post #72 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hi Rez View Post

A very informative and technical discussion of DSD vs. PCM over on ComputerAudiophile starting with post #84.  Charles Hansen of Ayre debunks fairly clearly many of the pro DSD arguments.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/ayre-wants-%241-5k-dsded-qb-9-a-15650/

Thanks!!
post #73 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boerd View Post

 

Really? The differences between the same master in DSD and PCM 196/24 must be at the limit of  best measurement equipment today.

I do not think of a 20 MHz analog oscilloscope is in any way best measurement equipment today. It has absolutely no trouble at all in displaying the results from recording a square wave from a signal generator as recorded by various PCM and DSD resolutions. 

 

If you think of "measurement equipment" as something to hook up to your PC or MAC, I agree there is little if anything that can display significant difference with the precision required. And it will be latest/top dollar. It has to have bandwidth much above 100 kHz in order to be able to do that without introducing more error by itself than there is difference between current top PCM and DSD.

 

I was searching far and wide BEFORE deciding for a DSD  recorder. There were LOTS of "reviews" - yet to my knowledge, there was only one review with the actual measurements and oscilloscope display photo of 1 kHz square wave as recorded and played back by the Korg MR 1000 DSD recorder. That clinched it - at the time MR 1000 was currently available and sold by Thomann in Germany, this review was available as download from Thomann, but only  accesible from German portion of the site after registering with them. I can go and check the exact magazine/issue it was published in, but I can better post photos of the actual performance of the Korg at various PCM and DSD resolutions. If interested, I will post those photos.

 

To put it simply - no PCM up to 192/24 is capable of playing back with such waveform fidelity as DSD - even the normal 2.8 MHz ( SACD DSD ). Double DSD at 5.6 MHz is appreciably better still. I have never seen how a DXD PCM 384 kHz recording of a square wave looks like, but if it works as it should, there would be typical pre and post ringing on square wave. With DSD, there is very little ringing before settling down to a near perfect flat top - 

and NO post ringing - very much similar to analog in either frequency or time domain.

 

All of the above regards the recording/playback capability only. Recording engineer has to understand that merely changing the recorder from PCM to DSD ( assuming that analog input and output sections of both recorders are of similar/comparable/adequate quality ) will bring little, if anything, when using conventional microphone techniques. For example, if multimiking timing errors of XY miliseconds are introduced before reaching input of the recorder - what really audible benefits are to be expected from few microseconds improvement DSD has over PCM ( exact difference depending on resolution of either ) ?

 

To best demonstrate DSD superiority, binaural or any other pure 2 mic recording setup is required. Binaural recording(s) played on good headphone setup  will be most revealing of the difference between PCM and DSD.

 

One could in theory stretch that up to 7.1 - with as near as "single point" surround microphone as possible. No current 7.1 setup capable of playing in native DSD that I am aware of. And here lies the greatest allure of DSD - it is future proof digital - whatever the need might arise in the future, we can record it today.

post #74 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hi Rez View Post

A very informative and technical discussion of DSD vs. PCM over on ComputerAudiophile starting with post #84.  Charles Hansen of Ayre debunks fairly clearly many of the pro DSD arguments.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/ayre-wants-%241-5k-dsded-qb-9-a-15650/

Thank you for posting this. I always like constructive critical view.

post #75 of 86

So is the new Schiit statement going to have DSD or not?

 

Virtually all of my music is in FLAC 16/44.1. I have a few 24/96 and 24/192, but at best they make up 1% of my collection. There simply isn't any DSD out there for most of the electronic music out there. Even pop, rock, hip hop, rap at best will be limited to PCM. Besides few acoustic and jazz stuff, there really isn't much DSD. It's all PCM. 

 

All I would care about is a DAC that sounds good with the material given. No weird sampling or filters. Just straight through and through. Would hate for DSD to drive the price up.

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