or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why delta-sigma kinda sucks, just to get you to think about stuff)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why delta-sigma kinda sucks, just to get you to think about stuff) - Page 21  

post #301 of 6360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by yfei View Post

 

This article did a listening comparison between 44.1k vs 96k  vs  192k   vs DSD

http://www.audiostream.com/content/dsd-v-pcm-file-comparison-16441-2496-24192-64x-dsd-128x-dsd

The conclusion was that: going from 44.1 to 96 to 192, there are gains in sound quality,   and going from 192k to DSD there is a huge jump in sound quality.

 

I have only listened to 44.1k.    I will do a test of 44.1k vs DSD of the same music using Hilo.

 

I don't doubt what he heard. Some DACs like the X-Sabre (and from what I hear about the Hilo and Mytek) tend to handle DSD "better" than PCM. Still doesn't show DSD is a "superior" format. Just that certain DACs handle DSD better than PCM.

 

Here's a good experiment: convert your favorite 44.1kHz recordings to 88, 174, and DSD. Then see if these conversions sound better. Try the use of different conversion tools or plug-ins, .e.g. r8brain, Adobe Audition, JRiver MC, foobar, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if these conversions coming from the same 44.k original source sound "better" or at least different. At least that's been my experience. I suspect this is because the filters in the DACs handle the higher sampling rates.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by yfei View Post

 

Technically:

In many studios, the recorded DSD is first converted to DXD, which is 352.8kHz PCM, for editing.  Then convert back to DSD.    So many of the DSD/SACD we get actually is converted from this 352.8 kHz  PCM. <snip>

 

That's assuming you have one of those "boutique" studios with crazy expensive equipment which does AD conversion directly to DSD. Most of Sony's SACDs are probably taken from either the analog master (less likely since tape degrades or gets lost over time) or from a 24/96 PCM master.

 

Keep in mind that DSD rapidly starts to lose bit-depth after 24kHz because of one-bit quantization noise (in other words "error"). To the point where this noise overtakes any real musical content (sonic content past 20kHz gets progressively softer). In any event, the dirty secret of SACD or DSD players is that they must filter ultrasonic content to eliminate this ultrasonic garbage. So much for DSD as a "hires" format.

 

DSD was never about sound quality to Sony. It was about control and low cost (R2R DAC chips are hard to make. The precision of the resistors is paramount.)

 

 

RED = Raw DSD

BLUE = 24/192 PCM at the outputs of the player

GREEN = DSD at the outputs of the player

 

You can definitely see the DSD ultrasonic filter being applied - the stopband ripple gives it away.


Edited by purrin - 1/15/14 at 1:20pm
post #302 of 6360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greed View Post
 

 

Schiit said fairly soon after the release of the Rag barring any unforeseen problems. They said the Rag might be ready early Feb.

cool i look forward to that

Quote:
Originally Posted by cizx View Post
 

there's, like, a whole thread on it here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/667711/new-schiit-ragnarok-and-yggdrasil

yea i have been to the thread but not for a while, im lazy

post #303 of 6360
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post

 

Considering there is already hi-res PCM, DSD needs to die like Betamax.

 

Those are pretty strong words, but I tend to agree with them. To my mind DSD is bit of a format war anachronism and isn't necessary these days. I was one of the guys who had a Sony SCD-1 way back when it was the counterpoint to DVD-Audio and I did regret it, as I found in general that DSD did not sound as realistic as hi-res PCM and often seemed to be too euphonical. I suppose these will be strong words, but I can't think of any DSD recording I have that I particularly care for. DSD always sounds "sanded off" to me, at least as it is currently implemented.

 

Comparing the DXD to DSD files at http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html can provide some insight into this. 

post #304 of 6360
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post
 

Keep in mind that DSD rapidly starts to lose bit-depth after 24kHz because of one-bit quantization noise (in other words "error"). To the point where this noise overtakes any real musical content (sonic content past 20kHz gets progressively softer). In any event, the dirty secret of SACD or DSD players is that they must filter ultrasonic content to eliminate this ultrasonic garbage. So much for DSD as a "hires" format.

I am not expert, but agree, that's why i said dsd is kind of a lossy compression of dxd:   quantization noise at high freq.   For pcm, all frequencies get 24 or 16 bit depth, for DSD, more bits for low freq, less bits for high freq.

dxd should be the ultimate file we want to get,   but I guess music studios may never release it to us.  Because dxd is ALL they have, once it is release, they lost control.     Just like movie studios won't give us the original film, or original file recorded by 4k camera.  They give us bluray, only 2k, and with lossy compression.


Edited by yfei - 1/15/14 at 3:34pm
post #305 of 6360
We should really create a DSD yea or nay thread, since this has legs into the future......
post #306 of 6360
Quote:
Originally Posted by boatheelmusic View Post

We should really create a DSD yea or nay thread, since this has legs into the future......

does it really, though?  does anyone aside from the Don Drapers trying to make it happen think that DSD is going to be a consideration in 5 years?

post #307 of 6360
Agree, but go to audiostream and look at the CES focus.......
post #308 of 6360

The great thread was ruined by another silly formats war. :(

post #309 of 6360
So when do we talk about artistic and recording quality of our favorite music?

Ultimately this is in fact a dead end.
post #310 of 6360

On Audiostream and show focus...

 

Audio press needs a "thing" to fixate on to imply progress.  Something that sounds "better" without having a "thing" to grasp onto (buzzwords) doesn't help pageviews or subscriptions (or niche digital downloads.)  Or make new "progress" at shows exciting. It has been HDCD, SACD, 24/96, 24/192, Asynch USB, now DSD over USB.  It makes actual listening irrelevant as fully half of every review ends up being about cutting-edge feature set and how a given product looks like in some hippie's Japanese rock garden.

post #311 of 6360
Excellent, love it!
post #312 of 6360
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post

It's nice seeing companies like TeraDAK, AGD, Metrum, and soon Schiit, to be able to offer R2R DACs at semi-reasonable prices. I hope more will follow so we don't need to rely on a diminishing supply / increasing expensive "legacy" or "industrial" R2R DAC chips.

Is that for real? I was curious about the Iggdrasyl (sorry for the sp., sounds like medication name to me wink.gif ), but that makes me open my eyes wide!
post #313 of 6360
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post
 

 

I don't doubt what he heard. Some DACs like the X-Sabre (and from what I hear about the Hilo and Mytek) tend to handle DSD "better" than PCM. Still doesn't show DSD is a "superior" format. Just that certain DACs handle DSD better than PCM.

 

 

Even though I am not a big fan of DSD I use the X-Sabre as my general DAC as it does everything so well, or well enough. On the X-Sabre I would say hi-res PCM is -much- better sounding than DSD, and pretty much the only time I listen to DSD is if there is no PCM hi-res of the recording. And maybe not even then. The DSD sound I hear through the X-Sabre is characteristic of the DSD sound I have heard through other sources, slightly rounded and rolled off. Converting PCM to DSD in JRiver does not sound better for me, it just sounds a bit smoother and less resolved like it's going through a "two martini" filter.  

 

I personally don't really have an issue with the Sabre sound, and I arrived at using the X-Sabre after trying DACs like the Gungnir that were just way too punchy for me. There seems to be an effort with some recent DACs to bump up dynamics to achieve a more realistic performance, but it can be unpleasant, and make some vocals too shouty.


Edited by Sanlitun - 1/15/14 at 7:27pm
post #314 of 6360
Sanlitun, I don't mean to direct this at you, but your post brought it to mind...

There has been a lot of talk recently with phrases like "higher dynamics" and "more dynamic" and so on, when the poster actually means it's just louder. This is the opposite of "more dynamic". More dynamic means quieter and louder. Increasing dynamics means making quiets quieter and louds louder, not increasing the overall loudness.

Please choose your words more carefully, people.
post #315 of 6360
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post
 

Yes, I actually see the "popularity" of SABRE / DSD as a threat to good sound, or at least available sound signatures. DSD is being heavily pimped right now by industry movers such a Michael Lavorgna, etc. Sony may die soon, so as a desperate act, they could decide to release their entire catalog on DSD (it's not going to sound any better; but as we all know, anything "new" must be better.)

 

I think of SABRE / DSD as the Monsanto / GMO of the audio world. It's my sincere wish that audiophiles (new and old) will get a chance to be able to hear (or to be reminded of) the old-school R2R DACs or even some of the better S-D implementations. It's nice seeing companies like TeraDAK, AGD, Metrum, and soon Schiit, to be able to offer R2R DACs at semi-reasonable prices. I hope more will follow so we don't need to rely on a diminishing supply / increasing expensive "legacy" or "industrial" R2R DAC chips.

 

Considering there is already hi-res PCM, DSD needs to die like Betamax.

 

I think the move to high-res and resulting death of the old, R2R DACs was a tragedy. Bar the M7, which comes close, I've still not heard as good a DAC as the old Parasound DAC1600HD. I am thinking of getting an Audio Note kit DAC now since I don't have to use a balanced DAC. The only downside will be having to down-sample all my 192k files but I think my first decision to stay with nothing higher than 96k in audio files was a better one.

 

The comparisons of high-res files and DSD being better as you go higher I'm putting down to the DAC used in the comparison.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why delta-sigma kinda sucks, just to get you to think about stuff)