[TidalWave]

I really apologize if this is a dead horse I'm picking at, but I've read this article recently:
https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/

and have been trying to find more information about the type of DAC that will be suitable for me. I actually did not know much about DSD before reading that page (searching for DSD is how I found it), and it might well be a biased article, since it is after all advertising their own product at the end. But anyway, I did take away a point the article made--I think, unless I misunderstood:

DACs that use native DSD decoding are best with DSD encoded source files. Such DACs process PCM encoded files in some inferior way due to conversions. At least that's what I've gathered--is that right? Now the question is, which DACs have good enough processors that have the more common nowadays native PCM encoding in high quality and are budget-friendly.

I actually have never looked at my music collection to see if PCM or DSD encoding is prevalent, and a lot of my library is mp3s shared by friends over the years, which is sub-optimal quality already. Based on what the article says, I gather that the percent of properly encoded DSD source material I have is about zero. If I do have some CDs that either have reasonable quality DSD encoding or can be converted to DSD, it still will be a small percent of my collection.

Should I then basically stay away from good budget DAC/amps such as Topping NX4 DSD which has native DSD decoding chip (XMOS XU208)?
http://www.tpdz.net/en/products/nx4dsd/index.htm
There's a non-DSD older version of this DAC/amp, but no word on what DAC processor is used, whether it's also a native DSD decoder.

Thanks in advance for any explanations and advice.

 

[bigshot]

If all you have are CDs and MP3s, then you don't have any DSD material. DSD would be SACDs, which are a lot easier to just decode in the player. I have an Oppo blu-ray player that can send out DSD, but I just have it convert to PCM internally. Much simpler and sounds exactly the same. It sounds to me like just about any decent DAC would work for you. I don't see that having an external DAC that does SACD is necessary.

 

[castleofargh]

I really apologize if this is a dead horse I'm picking at, but I've read this article recently:
https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/

and have been trying to find more information about the type of DAC that will be suitable for me. I actually did not know much about DSD before reading that page (searching for DSD is how I found it), and it might well be a biased article, since it is after all advertising their own product at the end. But anyway, I did take away a point the article made--I think, unless I misunderstood:

DACs that use native DSD decoding are best with DSD encoded source files. Such DACs process PCM encoded files in some inferior way due to conversions. At least that's what I've gathered--is that right? Now the question is, which DACs have good enough processors that have the more common nowadays native PCM encoding in high quality and are budget-friendly.

I actually have never looked at my music collection to see if PCM or DSD encoding is prevalent, and a lot of my library is mp3s shared by friends over the years, which is sub-optimal quality already. Based on what the article says, I gather that the percent of properly encoded DSD source material I have is about zero. If I do have some CDs that either have reasonable quality DSD encoding or can be converted to DSD, it still will be a small percent of my collection.

Should I then basically stay away from good budget DAC/amps such as Topping NX4 DSD which has native DSD decoding chip (XMOS XU208)?
http://www.tpdz.net/en/products/nx4dsd/index.htm
There's a non-DSD older version of this DAC/amp, but no word on what DAC processor is used, whether it's also a native DSD decoder.

Thanks in advance for any explanations and advice.

CDs have LPCM on them(what we usually call PCM).
SACDs are where you find the DSD format. it stands for Super Audio CD, despite how the physical frisbee is more of a DVD than it is a CD. a sort of DVD that's extra incompatible, extra hard to rip, overall a damn bother if you plan to do more than stick it in your SACD player(that will have a DAC in it, DAC problem solved ^_^).

from what you wrote, I'm guessing you don't have any DSD audio at all, and your concerns can be put to rest.

 

[TidalWave]

I'm actually more wondering about the point of NX4 DSD DAC/amp, as the previous version was just plain NX4. And a number of other portable DACs convert DSD material. Since the amount of properly encoded, beginning with original recording, DSD material is low, is it just marketing?

But more I'm concerned about the type of chips used in DACs, because based on that article, some DACs do native DSD, which is suboptimal for PCM sources. Again, as far as I understood. So if I don't plan on playing DSD encoded files, should I stay away from portable DACs that have native DSD decoding?

 

[amirm]

He says this:

That is not correct at all. By far the worst measuring DAC in all the ones I have tested is a multi-bit ladder one. And the best is sigma-delta (which he incorrectly calls "DSD").

So buy your favorite DAC and don't listen to folks who write a lot but don't provide an ounce of objective data.

 

[TidalWave]

He says this:



That is not correct at all. By far the worst measuring DAC in all the ones I have tested is a multi-bit ladder one. And the best is sigma-delta (which he incorrectly calls "DSD").

So buy your favorite DAC and don't listen to folks who write a lot but don't provide an ounce of objective data.

That’s precisely the part that puzzled me and made me wonder if I should be really picky in my DAC selection. Thank you for your comments.

 

[PurpleAngel]

I really apologize if this is a dead horse I'm picking at, but I've read this article recently:
https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/
and have been trying to find more information about the type of DAC that will be suitable for me. I actually did not know much about DSD before reading that page (searching for DSD is how I found it), and it might well be a biased article, since it is after all advertising their own product at the end. But anyway, I did take away a point the article made--I think, unless I misunderstood:
DACs that use native DSD decoding are best with DSD encoded source files. Such DACs process PCM encoded files in some inferior way due to conversions. At least that's what I've gathered--is that right? Now the question is, which DACs have good enough processors that have the more common nowadays native PCM encoding in high quality and are budget-friendly.
I actually have never looked at my music collection to see if PCM or DSD encoding is prevalent, and a lot of my library is mp3s shared by friends over the years, which is sub-optimal quality already. Based on what the article says, I gather that the percent of properly encoded DSD source material I have is about zero. If I do have some CDs that either have reasonable quality DSD encoding or can be converted to DSD, it still will be a small percent of my collection.
Should I then basically stay away from good budget DAC/amps such as Topping NX4 DSD which has native DSD decoding chip (XMOS XU208)?
http://www.tpdz.net/en/products/nx4dsd/index.htm
There's a non-DSD older version of this DAC/amp, but no word on what DAC processor is used, whether it's also a native DSD decoder.
Thanks in advance for any explanations and advice.

I'm fairly sure you have no DSD audio files and all your music is the much more common PCM.
Typical CD-Audio is 16-bit/44.1kps, so making 16-bit/44.1kps FLAC audio files, is the best sounding copy of CD-audio source you could make, so making digital audio files and recording above 16-bit/44.1kps (like 24-bit/48kps or higher) or making DSD audio files from a CD-Audio source, will not improve the audio quality.
Taking audio CDs and making 16-bit/44.1 320kbps audio files will sound to most people about as good as the audio-CD source or a 16-bit/44.1 FLAC audio file.

 

[PurpleAngel]

I'm actually more wondering about the point of NX4 DSD DAC/amp, as the previous version was just plain NX4. And a number of other portable DACs convert DSD material. Since the amount of properly encoded, beginning with original recording, DSD material is low, is it just marketing?

But more I'm concerned about the type of chips used in DACs, because based on that article, some DACs do native DSD, which is suboptimal for PCM sources. Again, as far as I understood. So if I don't plan on playing DSD encoded files, should I stay away from portable DACs that have native DSD decoding?

I'm guessing your music audio will sound the same, with having the DSD decoding or not having the DSD decoding feature in a DAC you might buy.

 

[TidalWave]

I'm fairly sure you have no DSD audio files and all your music is the much more common PCM.
Typical CD-Audio is 16-bit/44.1kps, so making 16-bit/44.1kps FLAC audio files, is the best sounding copy of CD-audio source you could make, so making digital audio files and recording above 16-bit/44.1kps (like 24-bit/48kps or higher) or making DSD audio files from a CD-Audio source, will not improve the audio quality.
Taking audio CDs and making 16-bit/44.1 320kbps audio files will sound to most people about as good as the audio-CD source or a 16-bit/44.1 FLAC audio file.

That’s the path I’ve been taking: FLAC + 320kbps highest quality mp3 rips for each CD. That’s only for CDs: everything else I’ve accumulated over the years is variable quality mp3, which is what I’m stuck with to some extent. So I don’t expect miracles out of a DAC, but I’d like to understand if there are better DACs to look into. Some that are marketed for DSD playback have set me on a research path about DSD.

 

[bigshot]

You probably don't need a DAC at all. Just use the one built into your computer or player.

 

[amirm]

That’s the path I’ve been taking: FLAC + 320kbps highest quality mp3 rips for each CD. That’s only for CDs: everything else I’ve accumulated over the years is variable quality mp3, which is what I’m stuck with to some extent. So I don’t expect miracles out of a DAC, but I’d like to understand if there are better DACs to look into. Some that are marketed for DSD playback have set me on a research path about DSD.

DSD feature is useful if you are purchasing high-resolution music in DSD format. Otherwise it is not something that you will be using given your current content. That said, with downloads being the future of audio, if you can, opt for a DAC that also supports DSD. Software can convert PCM on the fly to DSD but it is better to play them natively if you can.

Fortunately most new DACs are supporting DSD at various rates and they are not pricey either. Get a good DAC and it will stay with you for years to come.

 

[TidalWave]

DSD feature is useful if you are purchasing high-resolution music in DSD format. Otherwise it is not something that you will be using given your current content. That said, with downloads being the future of audio, if you can, opt for a DAC that also supports DSD. Software can convert PCM on the fly to DSD but it is better to play them natively if you can.

Fortunately most new DACs are supporting DSD at various rates and they are not pricey either. Get a good DAC and it will stay with you for years to come.

What is the advantage of converting non-DSD file to DSD during playback? Wouldn't the conversion introduce noise/artifacts?

 

[bigshot]

There's no advantage to upscaling. Don't worry about it. DSD offers no audible difference over PCM.

 

[amirm]

What is the advantage of converting non-DSD file to DSD during playback? Wouldn't the conversion introduce noise/artifacts?

If the core of the DAC chip is DSD then PC software performing the PCM to DSD conversion can use the much higher horsepower in the computer to do a better job of that conversion. And at any rate, provide different algorithms for doing so. The HQPlayer is the most famous example of such software people use.

I plan to perform objective measurements of HQPlayer on ASR Forum one of these days. For now, I would say that while objective differences can be made here, I am extremely doubtful that they are audible differences. Audiophiles are men so they immediately think "more is better." In audio more can mean the same many times. But again, we need to measure it and apply psychoacoustics to the results to see if they are or are not audible differences.

 

[TidalWave]

If the core of the DAC chip is DSD then PC software performing the PCM to DSD conversion can use the much higher horsepower in the computer to do a better job of that conversion. And at any rate, provide different algorithms for doing so. The HQPlayer is the most famous example of such software people use.

I plan to perform objective measurements of HQPlayer on ASR Forum one of these days. For now, I would say that while objective differences can be made here, I am extremely doubtful that they are audible differences. Audiophiles are men so they immediately think "more is better." In audio more can mean the same many times. But again, we need to measure it and apply psychoacoustics to the results to see if they are or are not audible differences.

This is precisely what's confusing me. If the original source files are usually NOT DSD or else are converted DSD just for the purpose of being played through a DSD DAC, what's the point of getting DACs with native DSD processing chips? Is the converted material still "better" in quality than high resolution PCM source played through a native PCM decoding DAC? Since we're talking about niche audiophile equipment here (not many average consumers are getting mobile or desktop amps and DACs), why are quite a few more recent DACs advertised to play "native" DSD256 and DSD512? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Are those niche DACs better suited for DSD playback and since I don't have any DSD material, should I be actively avoiding "native" DSD DACs?

It seems like perhaps improved formats of PCM are more the future rather than DSD, so it's not like I'll be "future-proofing" by getting a native DSD DAC. From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital
"DSD met with relatively little success in the consumer market, even though the SACD was actually more successful than its direct competitor, the PCM-based DVD-Audio. Direct manipulation of recorded DSD data is difficult due to limited availability of appropriate software. The advent of new high-resolution PCM standards, such as DXD, further restricted its market niche. DSD, however, is still used as an archival format for studio applications, and it's seen as a possible replacement for analog tapes." Though I'm not sure if accessing this studio archival material is easy for any given album I want to get.