[sajunky]

5. What do you think about DXD vs DSD? When buying classical music sometime there is a choice between same album in DXD and DSD. 2L even offers it's Test Benh for DSD vs. DXD comparison.

DXD has nothing to do with DSD. It is PCM 32-bit floating point format sampled at 352.8kHz. Currently accepted as a format for storage, mixing/mastering in studios. There is no benefit for the end user from DXD. A link serve as an example, not really a commercial download.

Correction. I don't know where floating point came from. Now read, it is 24/352.8 PCM (integer).

 

[Ragnar-BY]

There is no benefit for the end user from DXD.

Really?

I have few albums in DXD, purchased from nativedsd.com:
Paper Motion
Mozart: Divertimento KV 563
Berlioz – Symphonie fantastique, Op. 18
Bach: Toccatas, Preludes and Fugues

I was curious and listened to these albums in different bitrates via three different DACs: Chord Qutest, TT2, DAVE and each time DXD sounded clearly better than 24/96 or 24/192 records. Better sense of space, better transients, better perception of small details.

What DXD-recorded albums on what equipment have you listened to in order to come to the conclusion that there is no benefit to end user?

 

[sajunky]

What DXD-recorded albums on what equipment have you listened to in order to come to the conclusion that there is no benefit to end user?

Samples from the same website, a link you gave. Get a good R2R DAC (NOS, the best), you will stop looking for anything above 96kHz, I promise. A truth is that you need high sample rates, as it is a known way to bypass a DAC on-board processing. Many users use a trick to upsample on the PC to the highest supported sample rate supported by a device and get good results... perhaps Chord is one of those. Lets assume dCS (while still DS type) is better.

TL;DR, Please don't be aggresive. A reason for your chase for high sampling rates is in your DAC.

 

[Pondoro]

Really?

I have few albums in DXD, purchased from nativedsd.com:
Paper Motion
Mozart: Divertimento KV 563
Berlioz – Symphonie fantastique, Op. 18
Bach: Toccatas, Preludes and Fugues

I was curious and listened to these albums in different bitrates via three different DACs: Chord Qutest, TT2, DAVE and each time DXD sounded clearly better than 24/96 or 24/192 records. Better sense of space, better transients, better perception of small details.

What DXD-recorded albums on what equipment have you listened to in order to come to the conclusion that there is no benefit to end user?

Many people here can tell you based on simple theory that a specific technology does not sound better. There is no need to listen.

 

[Ragnar-BY]

Many people here can tell you based on simple theory that a specific technology does not sound better. There is no need to listen.

I think that you should always listen yourself if you can. Otherwise, all this hobby is meaningless.

 

[sajunky]

I think that you should always listen yourself if you can. Otherwise, all this hobby is meaningless.

This is correct and fully supported. On the start you can do tests upsampling on the PC. It is a known fact that upsampling cannot improve original masters, so if it looks better in your tests, then something is wrong with your Chord.

 

[Pondoro]

I think that you should always listen yourself if you can. Otherwise, all this hobby is meaningless.

I was speaking ironically Ragnar, so I actually agree with you. I am sorry that I did not notice your location. Ironic comment can be very poor communication to people from other countries. I actually do not agree with people who criticize a specific technology without listening. I think a design may be very good even if it uses a technology that has some theoretical disadvantage. Listening is the only final test.

 

[sajunky]

I actually do not agree with people who criticize a specific technology without listening. I think a design may be very good even if it uses a technology that has some theoretical disadvantage. Listening is the only final test.

The other situation is when someone do make tests, but conclusion is wrong, as a person is not being aware about pitfalls in a technology. In this case conclusion was that high sampling rate above a standard rate improve sound quality, it is wrong. A truth is that not understanding technology limitations leads to the performing wrong tests and therefore wrong conclusion. To get a right clue you need to understand technology behind, or at least listen to what is advised.

As usual a balance is required for chosing sample rates. Increasing sample rate increase jitter proportionally to the speed - there is a negative aspect. Is it worth to build extremely high sample rate library knowing that it only helps breaks DAC limitation and double/quadruple storage requirements? Wrong. It is better to upsample on the fly as a workaround.

 

[manueljenkin]

Really?

I have few albums in DXD, purchased from nativedsd.com:
Paper Motion
Mozart: Divertimento KV 563
Berlioz – Symphonie fantastique, Op. 18
Bach: Toccatas, Preludes and Fugues

I was curious and listened to these albums in different bitrates via three different DACs: Chord Qutest, TT2, DAVE and each time DXD sounded clearly better than 24/96 or 24/192 records. Better sense of space, better transients, better perception of small details.

What DXD-recorded albums on what equipment have you listened to in order to come to the conclusion that there is no benefit to end user?

Have you tried 24/96 files using any pre ring free apodizing filters, or even better, spline based interpolators?

 

[Ragnar-BY]

I was speaking ironically Ragnar

Glad to hear that. Actually I hoped that it was irony, but was not completely sure and picked a neutral answer

 

[Ragnar-BY]

Have you tried 24/96 files using any pre ring free apodizing filters, or even better, spline based interpolators?

I’m not sure what to say. Chords have only WTA filter. This filter is not perfect (because it needs to be endless for that), but in my opinion it is “long” enough to be considered “ring-free” for practical purposes. I don’t know how other filters will work for me.

Anyway, I have not yet seen a DAC which would play downsampled file better or completely equal to original DXD recording. Even with M Scaler (which upsamples everything to 705,6 or 768) the difference between native DXD and downsampled to 24/96 is still there.

I believe the majority of hi-res denial is from incorrect understanding of Nyquist theorem. This theorem tells us that double sampling frequency is enough to fully recreate original signal, but it never promised that real world DAC in your rack would be able to do it.

 

[sajunky]

Anyway, I have not yet seen a DAC which would play downsampled file better or completely equal to original DXD recording. Even with M Scaler (which upsamples everything to 705,6 or 768) the difference between native DXD and downsampled to 24/96 is still there.

What makes you think that DXD sounds better? This is a question you have to find answer.

 

[Ragnar-BY]

@sajunky I already regret that I answered you the first time and found myself drawn into this conversation. Be so kind and don't bother me with your opinion anymore. I, like the others, came to this thread to listen to James and ask him questions about dCS products and technologies. If the spirit of the keyboard warrior is so strong in you, create your own thread instead of polluting this one.

 

[IgeNeLL]

@dCS James Thank you for posting all that. It is very interesting to know how dCS see things.

Would like to know few more things:

1. What do you think about different filters from subjective side? Do they have a specific signature that most listeners perceive? For example, one filter sounds slower, but it has better scene depth. With the other, the sound attack is reproduced well, but decay is perceived worse, etc.

2. What is the difference between the DAC device in different dCS models (Bartok - Rossini - Vivaldi)? It is clear that there will be different power supplies, output stages and so on. What about the DAC itself and its filters?

4. I see that current dCS DACs do not support DSD256. Is there any specific reason for that? I understand it's not the most popular format, but some really nice classical albums recorded in native Quad-rate DSD are already available to public. Is there any chance that current generation Bartok or Rossini will support DSD256 after some software update, or it's not possible?

5. What do you think about DXD vs DSD? When buying classical music sometime there is a choice between same album in DXD and DSD. 2L even offers it's Test Benh for DSD vs. DXD comparison. What format will sound better on dCS DAC?

I prefer DXD.

 

[sajunky]

@sajunky I already regret that I answered you the first time and found myself drawn into this conversation. Be so kind and don't bother me with your opinion anymore. I, like the others, came to this thread to listen to James and ask him questions about dCS products and technologies. If the spirit of the keyboard warrior is so strong in you, create your own thread instead of polluting this one.

You are presenting an opinion which is only appropriate to the supermarket type of products like Topping or Chord. I understand that you are a Chord user, but continuing forcing your views in the wrong thread is inappropriate. Please do not trash this thread with claims about DXD absolute superiority for end users, take this dispute to the one of the Chord thread, I am sure you will get full support there from the Chord users.