twinkle
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Posts
- 93
- Likes
- 30
I gotta say, all this talk from Jason & Mike about DSD got me curious. I don't know, maybe the lady doth protest too much? (or the lads in this case).
Call me a contrarian, but if you insist I shouldn't go there, chances are I'm gonna want to at least investigate.
Before I'm torn to shreds in this Schiit thread, let me point out that I'm not interested in the format by itself, as a recording and/or music file sale format, only in what it can do to PCM 44.1kHz files after computer upsampling. Can it get me closer to analog formats, as some have suggested?
So I read about it here and there, and from what I gathered, DSD128 would be the minimum entry ticket to seeing the benefits. With DSD64 you can't filter out all the ultrasonic noise without affecting the audio band. So DSD128, so that you can use a 30 kHz low-pass filter and enjoy music without ultrasonic interference (my speakers amp is ruler flat from 5 Hz to 70 kHz, even if my speakers are not).
Value proposition? not sure, as converting PCM to DSD128 or even DSD256 on the fly requires a bit processing power, so part of the cost goes to a good computer otherwise it'll sound like crap.
Now, I already own a beefed up computer (not for audio), so no investment needed for me on that side.
I like to form my own opinion, so I just went ahead and ordered a DSD DAC, one that can do at least DSD128. I didn't break the bank in the process.
PCM 16/44.1 files : Foobar with asio and sacd plugins --> DSD256 on the fly --> DSD DAC --> integrated amp and speakers.
It's only got about 24h of burn-in, but I have to say, there may be something to this DSD malarkey after all. Most striking is the high frequency range, which is a problem area for all the PCM DACs or players I have tried, be they SD, NOS, bitstream legato link etc... Maybe less so for NOS, but at the expense of some HF roll off on standard def files.
Doesn't seem to be much trace of digititis left, which I guess is what triggers the analog tape and/or vinyl comparisons. At this point in the burn-in process, I would not say it sounds like vinyl though. Mostly because of a midrange suckout and a certain lack of deep bass. And maybe there is some unique distortion in vinyl (and tape?) that no digital playback system can yet reproduce and that you can get addicted to. Hand claps and cymbals texture are very right with DSD256, but there's tonal richness missing lower in the frequency range.
I tried DSD128, sounds almost as good as DSD256. However DSD64? doesn't cut the mustard. I bet this is why people get on Jason's and Mike's case about the Loki.
We'll see how this experiment develops, but I now agree that if you're gonna do DSD, then do it right.
That said, I'm still curious about Yggdrasil, I want a DAC that does it right on coax SPDIF and doesn't require my computer. So for my own reasons, I concur with this:
Ok you can shred me now.
Call me a contrarian, but if you insist I shouldn't go there, chances are I'm gonna want to at least investigate.
Before I'm torn to shreds in this Schiit thread, let me point out that I'm not interested in the format by itself, as a recording and/or music file sale format, only in what it can do to PCM 44.1kHz files after computer upsampling. Can it get me closer to analog formats, as some have suggested?
So I read about it here and there, and from what I gathered, DSD128 would be the minimum entry ticket to seeing the benefits. With DSD64 you can't filter out all the ultrasonic noise without affecting the audio band. So DSD128, so that you can use a 30 kHz low-pass filter and enjoy music without ultrasonic interference (my speakers amp is ruler flat from 5 Hz to 70 kHz, even if my speakers are not).
Value proposition? not sure, as converting PCM to DSD128 or even DSD256 on the fly requires a bit processing power, so part of the cost goes to a good computer otherwise it'll sound like crap.
Now, I already own a beefed up computer (not for audio), so no investment needed for me on that side.
I like to form my own opinion, so I just went ahead and ordered a DSD DAC, one that can do at least DSD128. I didn't break the bank in the process.
PCM 16/44.1 files : Foobar with asio and sacd plugins --> DSD256 on the fly --> DSD DAC --> integrated amp and speakers.
It's only got about 24h of burn-in, but I have to say, there may be something to this DSD malarkey after all. Most striking is the high frequency range, which is a problem area for all the PCM DACs or players I have tried, be they SD, NOS, bitstream legato link etc... Maybe less so for NOS, but at the expense of some HF roll off on standard def files.
Doesn't seem to be much trace of digititis left, which I guess is what triggers the analog tape and/or vinyl comparisons. At this point in the burn-in process, I would not say it sounds like vinyl though. Mostly because of a midrange suckout and a certain lack of deep bass. And maybe there is some unique distortion in vinyl (and tape?) that no digital playback system can yet reproduce and that you can get addicted to. Hand claps and cymbals texture are very right with DSD256, but there's tonal richness missing lower in the frequency range.
I tried DSD128, sounds almost as good as DSD256. However DSD64? doesn't cut the mustard. I bet this is why people get on Jason's and Mike's case about the Loki.
We'll see how this experiment develops, but I now agree that if you're gonna do DSD, then do it right.
That said, I'm still curious about Yggdrasil, I want a DAC that does it right on coax SPDIF and doesn't require my computer. So for my own reasons, I concur with this:
.. If I had enough money to get the Ygdrassil and the DSD256 Loki mkII, I would likely get both.
Ok you can shred me now.