[tunes]

OK, I finally got around to trying my DAVE with my DSD files from several of my discs and I really like the results.
I notice the great hallmarks of SACD that I am familiar with: no more glare with any headphone or music, more solid/detailed bass, and images and vocals really stand out more and are better defined, but not aggressively, just naturally.
The DSD mode of DAVE is quite good. There is just more there there and is a step up resolution and and with less digital fatigue than the standard versions in my experiments so far.

I need to do some more testing with more discs to get a better feel for this, but so far, so good.
I have not seen much reporting on DAVE in DSD mode, so I thought I would report my impressions here. (And this Legends/Get It On classic rock collection disc from Audio Fidelity; they have a few of these in a series.They're really nice.)

I've started with things like Carole King, the Doors, the Moody Blues, Grand Funk, and the Guess Who.

As far as I know, you can't do this via streaming (or even downloading). So this is a real treat for me.

The saturation and deep texture is pretty amazing. I'm listening to Tapestry by Carole King as I write here, and the reverb and saturation of the piano and other instruments and the flow of the vocals just stands out as so full of life with real touchable shape, size, and depth of field. And there is sweetness and impact and gobs of little details I do not hear in the regular redbook version. There is ambiance galore.

Bass is especially great, much cleaner, with any muddiness or boom or opaqueness or overhang basically gone.

It's all basically more clarity without fatigue.

I was listening to Manfred Mann's Blinded By The Light, and suddenly a piano starts clanging and I just say, Jeez, what is that? It's startling and real, like I haven't heard a piano note like that in long time, just in an ordinary pop song.

Well, I shouldn't say there is no glare ever, but vs. the glare in the same recording in non-DSD, it's just not nearly as painful or making me want to reach for the JRiver equalizer screen. So far, I've done no EQ at all with my DSD files with DAVE. (I usually use EQ for one thing only, reducing digital glare.)

I know Rob is not a big fan of SACD, but he sure has done a nice job of interpreting and presenting it.
I've been listening with my ZMF Eikon and Auteur.

So if you haven't tried out your DAVE in DSD mode, I think you should give it a try to see what DAVE can do.

 

[tunes]

OK, I finally got around to trying my DAVE with my DSD files from several of my discs and I really like the results.
I notice the great hallmarks of SACD that I am familiar with: no more glare with any headphone or music, more solid/detailed bass, and images and vocals really stand out more and are better defined, but not aggressively, just naturally.
The DSD mode of DAVE is quite good. There is just more there there and is a step up resolution and and with less digital fatigue than the standard versions in my experiments so far.

I need to do some more testing with more discs to get a better feel for this, but so far, so good.
I have not seen much reporting on DAVE in DSD mode, so I thought I would report my impressions here. (And this Legends/Get It On classic rock collection disc from Audio Fidelity; they have a few of these in a series.They're really nice.)

I've started with things like Carole King, the Doors, the Moody Blues, Grand Funk, and the Guess Who.

As far as I know, you can't do this via streaming (or even downloading). So this is a real treat for me.

The saturation and deep texture is pretty amazing. I'm listening to Tapestry by Carole King as I write here, and the reverb and saturation of the piano and other instruments and the flow of the vocals just stands out as so full of life with real touchable shape, size, and depth of field. And there is sweetness and impact and gobs of little details I do not hear in the regular redbook version. There is ambiance galore.

Bass is especially great, much cleaner, with any muddiness or boom or opaqueness or overhang basically gone.

It's all basically more clarity without fatigue.

I was listening to Manfred Mann's Blinded By The Light, and suddenly a piano starts clanging and I just say, Jeez, what is that? It's startling and real, like I haven't heard a piano note like that in long time, just in an ordinary pop song.

Well, I shouldn't say there is no glare ever, but vs. the glare in the same recording in non-DSD, it's just not nearly as painful or making me want to reach for the JRiver equalizer screen. So far, I've done no EQ at all with my DSD files with DAVE. (I usually use EQ for one thing only, reducing digital glare.)

I know Rob is not a big fan of SACD, but he sure has done a nice job of interpreting and presenting it.
I've been listening with my ZMF Eikon and Auteur.

So if you haven't tried out your DAVE in DSD mode, I think you should give it a try to see what DAVE can do.

What files are DSD? Aren’t FLAC files from ripped CDs considered digital files? Where do you get DSD files and are they more or less expensive than CDs?

 

[xiaobao0707]

I have been using Qobuz (with a DAVE) for quite a long time. I started off with a monthly cd quality subscription to see how well i got on with it, and then upgraded to Sublime+ a while back so I can now stream in hi res. The choice is fantastic, especially if you are into classical and jazz, you aren’t even dependent on your internet speed because you can download and listen offline (without buying) if you want, access to sleeve notes is excellent. Browsing and searching and discovery is quite good too. I wish there was more flexibility in organising favourites and playlists, but I am sure it will come. The hires you get with Qobuz is genuine hires, unlike MQA which I think is mumbojumbo. If you can stream a 24/96 master directly what possible advantage can MQA give you, since it is lossy? I have also tried Tidal but couldn’t get on with the interface at all. The lack of clarity, or should I say honesty, over MQA really puts me off. ymmv.

Thanks AndrewOld for this encouraging information. I think I should definitely try sublime+. I’m on Tidal Hifi now.

 

[xiaobao0707]

After only three days with Dave, I encountered a huge problem today. Like most of you might have done when you get Dave, I’m rediscovering old collections which I stop listen to for years, in this case Michael Jackson’s History. Today in the office while listening Billie Jean thru Hugo 2, I suddenly dislikes the sound out of Hugo2. It’s supposed to be of similar signature as Dave but I suddenly found it flat, plastic, liveless. On my way back home the impression only got deeper. Just as I’m typing this, Black or White from the same album start to play and the sound of the kid taking out his guitar from the luggage sounds so real that I thought it is from my bedroom... am I smoking dope? It’s unbelievable thinking about how I loved my Hugo2 and proud to be among the first to get them in HK only months ago.

 

[statfi]

With Blu2/DAVE is it worth paying ANY premium for higher res, PCM versions than redbook of the same recording (i.e.. same recording, mix and production: only final res is different)?

 

[Mython]

What files are DSD?

DSD is an acronym for 'Direct Stream Digital', which is Sony's proprietary method for digitally encoding music. It is a source of endless debate and controversy as to whether or not Sony's method is superior or inferior to open-standard PCM (Rob Watts, the designer of DAVE, puts forward quite a convincing technical case for DSD being inferior).

Spoiler: some DSD shortcomings

DSD is a special class of delta sigma; it is of course delta sigma but set to 1 bit output. There are particular problems with 1 bit:

1. They are obviously lower resolution than say a typical 5 bit delta sigma (sixteen times less open loop resolution)

2. They have a particular problem unique to 1 bit - stability. A delta sigma modulator works by having integrators amplifying the error, then quantizing the amplified error and the wanted signal. Consider a 5 level delta sigma with OP's of +2, +1, 0, -1, -2 say. If the input is +1 say, then the noise shaper will output a range of values - +2,+1 and 0. Everything is happy, all the integrators work normally. But with DSD, the outputs are constrained to +1 or -1. In this case, if the input is +1, then a delta sigma modulator would request values of +2, +1, 0 as before; but +2 is not allowed. So when the modulator asks for +2 and does not get it, then the internal error builds up within the modulator, and the OP goes unstable, or integrators saturate. In short, the behaviour of the modulator is upset. This creates massive and unique problems you only get with DSD, and not other delta sigma systems; in short the OP behaviour is signal dependent, and this causes noise floor modulation. There are AES papers showing the DSD noise floor modulation issue, and it is a problem that can't be eliminated. This is the reason why -6dB is the max for DSD; but the innate noise floor modulation problem occurs well below -6dB.

The lack of innate resolution can be fixed if you run the modulator at high enough rates (2048FS) and if you use high resolution outputs, such as 5 bits. With this approach, you can get extremely high in band small signal resolution - Dave's noise shaper will perfectly resolve a -301 dB signal - and this is essential for the perception of sound stage depth.

Another issue is timing of transients. Small signal transients have a delay that is due to the OP not being initially quantised, and relies on the error being integrated, which of course takes time. This means that small transients have a delay, and large transients do not - and this effect is easy to see on simulation with DSD. This is why DSD sounds unnaturally soft, as transients timing are not accurate enough. My pulse array (5 bits, 2048FS) does not show this behavior on simulation - a -60dB step change has no consistent delay compared to 0dB step change. This is due to the very high speed of operation, the 5 bit resolution, and the fact that one can properly dither a 5 bit delta sigma, but you can't dither a DSD system.

Spoiler: ...but also see

So do I take from this that you are hearing that PCM is more transparent than DSD on quality recordings?

Part of the danger, IMO, of purchasing DSD is that a number of them have been created from PCM recordings, and this is true of a well respected firm that released a number of DSD recordings, so to know the true source is often the question. I have some true DSD recordings arriving in a few days. Here in the bush I can't download as I don't have the bandwidth to do this but can purchase them and get them sent to me.

Yes. But.. I have heard awful DSD's compared to regular PCM, and awful PCM compared to DSD. So if the recording started as DSD, stick to DSD and vice versa.

The 2L website does allow us to hear DXD (352.8 kHz PCM the DSD master tape if you like) against DSD, and you can hear the losses that DSD gives. And if I were not using a DAC with a WTA filter, I guess I would prefer DSD every time. So like most things in life, it all depends!

In any case, each person can easily try it and draw their own conclusions.

Aren’t FLAC files from ripped CDs considered digital files?

Correct.

.Flac is a lossless compression format aimed at making digital PCM files smaller. Note that a DAC doesn't know that a file is in .Flac format, because the file is decompressed to PCM before being fed to the DAC.

Where do you get DSD files and are they more or less expensive than CDs?

DSD files have become increasingly widely available for purchase, as digital downloads, from online retailers of Hi-Res music, such as Acoustic Sounds and Blue Coast Records

Frankly, it annoys me how much of a premium customers are charged for Hi-Res music, but, again, each person can draw their own conclusions.

Personally, since hearing Chord's Hugo 1, three years ago, I have arrived at the conclusion that standard CD-resolution (either played from the disc, or from equivalent resolution .flac files) is hard to beat by a substantial margin, unless (perhaps) one has an exceptionally revealing system (DAVE being but one link in such a system). Rob's DAC methodology reconstructs the analogue signal so accurately from humble vanilla CD-res material that it sounds bloody marvellous.

As I, and quite a few other Head-Fiers, have said many times, it's arguably more important how competently the original performance was recorded, how competently it may have been mixed, and how competently it was mastered (including the critical factor of the accuracy of the chosen ADC, at whatever point it is used during the studio process), than it is what resolution the end product is purchased in (within reason!).

 

[rgs9200m]

On the CA site (computer audiophile), there is a very active and popular thread about how to now (much more easily) rip your SACDs. No need for an ancient PS3 any longer.

Many people seem to have found SACD/DSD religion and refuse to let the format retire.

DAVE has a fine native DSD processor; it's a shame not to use it if some of your favorite music is available on SACD I believe. SACDs are still widely available on sites like MusicDirect and ElusiveDisc.
There is a slow but steady trickle of releases of older/newer/and classical albums(like Linda Ronstadt's Heart Like a Wheel that just came out, along with Buddy Holly and Grand Funk). Audio Fidelity periodically issues things.
I think the Rolling Stones, Doors, the Who, and Bob Dylan SACD recordings are spectacular. (Along with Fleetwood Mac/Carole King/Carly Simon.) Certainly enough to keep you busy.

It does sound quite different from any other digital recording system, high-res or otherwise. Whether you like it or not may be a matter of preference. And some SACDs sound better than others to different degrees.
I personally like it a lot. But that's just my ears.

Now that ripping is easier, you don't have to spin discs, which really hurt DSD.

For some reason, SACD/DSD is much more popular and appreciated on Audiogon and CA and Audio Asylum. And Rob did include the native DSD processing in DAVE (and a fine implementation of it), so there must be a reason for that.

When I mainly listened to my EMM cdp, SACD was always a revelation in sound, so that's how I got hooked on it.

 

[Hifi Boy]

You think Blu2 + Dave is nothing special while Dave is a reference DAC then you need to get your ear check

Let's either continue this discussion here or on whatsbestforum, no point in discussing it in both places.

 

[GryphonGuy]

With Blu2/DAVE is it worth paying ANY premium for higher res, PCM versions than redbook of the same recording (i.e.. same recording, mix and production: only final res is different)?

Well Rob is hoping that the processing that BluDave does and the sound achieved is pretty close to what was acoustically recorded. His Davina project (ADC) will attempt to show the differences between hi-rez acoustic recordings with identical but low-rez recordings processed by BluDave.

So your question is in the process of being answered and if the BluDave combination is as good as we all think it is (including Rob) then the differences should be so small as to make low-rez music purchases sustainable and pleasurable with a BluDave combination in your system.

Regards
GG

 

[statfi]

pretty close to what was acoustically recorded

Thanks for the cogent answer! However, it seems to me that it would be possible and interesting to answer the question for the current status, pre Davina. So, from a practical, empirical point of view, is there any deterministic advantage from higher sampling rates when using essentially perfect reconstruction (BluDave). *I'd* like to see what various people are finding. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the introduction of Davina will not *instantly* fix anything about available digital music. I *think* that Davina's benefits will only be available on new digital recordings, either from microphones or analog masters.

Let's take an example:

• Title: Beethoven: Piano Concertos
• Artist: Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Georg Solti, Vladimir Ashkenazy

http://www.hdtracks.com/beethoven-piano-concertos-ashkenazy $34.98 96/24
https://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Piano-Concertos-Ludwig-von/dp/B0000041K9 Audio CD, Box set, $19.26
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/beethoven-piano-concertos/1090331201 $16.99

Should I expect a worthwhile improvement in sound quality from the hdtracks' file at ~2x the price?

 

[Triode User]

Thanks for the cogent answer! However, it seems to me that it would be possible and interesting to answer the question for the current status, pre Davina. So, from a practical, empirical point of view, is there any deterministic advantage from higher sampling rates when using essentially perfect reconstruction (BluDave). *I'd* like to see what various people are finding. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the introduction of Davina will not *instantly* fix anything about available digital music. I *think* that Davina's benefits will only be available on new digital recordings, either from microphones or analog masters.

Let's take an example:

• Title: Beethoven: Piano Concertos
• Artist: Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Georg Solti, Vladimir Ashkenazy

http://www.hdtracks.com/beethoven-piano-concertos-ashkenazy $34.98 96/24
https://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Piano-Concertos-Ludwig-von/dp/B0000041K9 Audio CD, Box set, $19.26
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/beethoven-piano-concertos/1090331201 $16.99

Should I expect a worthwhile improvement in sound quality from the hdtracks' file at ~2x the price?

The first thing to establish is that each of those is taken off the same master tape.

I have a DVD A with each track at three different resolutions (24bit192kHz, 24bit96kHz, 16bit44.1kHz). I know that they were taken off the same master tape and that is a more worthwhile exercise in comparing them so I will do it through Bul2Dave and report back.

 

[jscmd2000]

This is also available on Tidal, master version... not sure about sample size. If it counts, might be the most affordable option depending on how much you get out of your subscription.

 

[Triode User]

This is also available on Tidal, master version... not sure about sample size. If it counts, might be the most affordable option depending on how much you get out of your subscription.

Yes, but still my point is that you have no idea whether these various versions are from the same master tape.

 

[Triode User]

The first thing to establish is that each of those is taken off the same master tape.

I have a DVD A with each track at three different resolutions (24bit192kHz, 24bit96kHz, 16bit44.1kHz). I know that they were taken off the same master tape and that is a more worthwhile exercise in comparing them so I will do it through Bul2Dave and report back.

Ok, I have been listening to the 44.1kHz files compared to the 192kHz files of the same tracks on the below DVDA played through Blu2Dave. I am struggling to find any difference. However through Dave alone I do prefer the 192kHz files.

 

[jscmd2000]

Sorry to butt in... got your point!

+1 don't remember appreciating high res files as much before I got the Dave. Fantastic.