Dsd - how far does one go?

[YashN]

I haven't heard it yet, but makes sense to me. I always read reports that DSD sounds more 'soft' and 'rounded' than PCM, something that many found pleasant, apparently, but an idea that I intensely disliked, because it goes against my preferences and my experience of what live unamplified music often sounds to me. Then I read reports that the DSD 256 NADAC sounds energetic and punchy, something very much to my liking. I'll hear it soon myself.

Yes, I can understand where the 'soft'/'rounded' would come from: with PCM it's almost as if you can perceive the start of a block of info, or it could just be a spike of digititis. This can also be perceived at the end of sounds, especially reverbs which can get cut off short with PCM but not in DSD, which is fluid an gives a greater sense of space.

Now, this 'softness' should not be taken to mean that the attack transients with DSD is slower than with PCM, because I (And many others) certainly perceive the opposite. They're really, really fast.

In my system, the rapidity and accuracy of the attack transients with DSD means hearing 'the wood' of a guitar as compared to just hearing 'a guitar' with PCM.

Try to get a few listening sessions with Quad DSD tracks, especially with percussions and on the DAC side, try to audition either a Native DSD DAC or a chipless DSD DAC like Lampis.

 

[YashN]

However, in my experience, the simpler you can make a DAC, the better. I'm more of a fan of the software based SRC/SDM approach.

Weren't you the one advocating the use of DSP at the DAC?

 

[Al M.]

Yes, I can understand where the 'soft'/'rounded' would come from: with PCM it's almost as if you can perceive the start of a block of info, or it could just be a spike of digititis. This can also be perceived at the end of sounds, especially reverbs which can get cut off short with PCM but not in DSD, which is fluid an gives a greater sense of space.

Now, this 'softness' should not be taken to mean that the attack transients with DSD is slower than with PCM, because I (And many others) certainly perceive the opposite. They're really, really fast.

In my system, the rapidity and accuracy of the attack transients with DSD means hearing 'the wood' of a guitar as compared to just hearing 'a guitar' with PCM.

Try to get a few listening sessions with Quad DSD tracks, especially with percussions and on the DAC side, try to audition either a Native DSD DAC or a chipless DSD DAC like Lampis.

While I am not in the position to comment on what you hear with DSD, I am under the impression that in this post you probably equate DSD with 256 DSD, while I suspect that the 'softness/roundness' issue is one of more common 128 and 64 DSD, a suspicion fed by your earlier post:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ar-does-one-go&p=378555&viewfull=1#post378555

with PCM it's almost as if you can perceive the start of a block of info, or it could just be a spike of digititis.

I don't perceive it that way, compared to live music. But again, individual perceptions will differ.

 

[Joe Whip]

I have not yet heard any quad DSD but did get the chance to listen to DSD through the Gustard X20. It certainly sounds pleasant and I can see why some with brighter sounding systems may prefer it to PCM. However, listening to a SOTA system in a specially built sound room, I found it to be too soft. I am considering adding the Gustard to my system later in the year once my new room is completed to natively play back DSD files. I have now compared the Gustard doing PCM to the Schiit Yggy and Gumby, both of which have been dampened. I couldn't disagree more with those that think it outperforms the Schiit stuff. Great DAC no doubt for the money. I can live with the price to add the ability to play back native DSD up to quad to my system.

 

[Blizzard]

Weren't you the one advocating the use of DSP at the DAC?

At the time I was sharing the viewpoint one person told me, and if you don't recall, I ran Jussi's algorithms through the test and was impressed. That was 8 months or so ago, and since I have taken USB interface technology to the highest level possible, and combined with Jussi's NAA system, I'm getting very good results. However it's still not as good as Ravenna. I still am under the firm belief that it's the best interface format out there.

 

[Blizzard]

I have not yet heard any quad DSD but did get the chance to listen to DSD through the Gustard X20. It certainly sounds pleasant and I can see why some with brighter sounding systems may prefer it to PCM. However, listening to a SOTA system in a specially built sound room, I found it to be too soft. I am considering adding the Gustard to my system later in the year once my new room is completed to natively play back DSD files. I have now compared the Gustard doing PCM to the Schiit Yggy and Gumby, both of which have been dampened. I couldn't disagree more with those that think it outperforms the Schiit stuff. Great DAC no doubt for the money. I can live with the price to add the ability to play back native DSD up to quad to my system.

Keep in mind that the Gustard X20 is designed to be a warm sounding DAC. It not the format causing all the softness. Which input and media player were you using with the Gustard?

 

[amirm]

Does loading the FPGA device with more "work" means chances that it places more demands on the power supply of the dac/player, thereby could potentially affect sonic performance?

FPGA by itself is a blank sheet of paper. It does nothing. FPGA stands for Field Programmable Gate Array. That is, it needs to be programmed and it is that programming that determines how well it implements something and how noisy or performant it is. So nothing can be said about what it does unless one has insight into its operation which we do not.

That said, as a general rule, the faster something runs, the more noisy it is, all else being equal. As Mike said, good design practices in power distribution, FPGA programming, power supply, etc. can deal with that.

 

[Joe Whip]

An Aurender I believe. We listened through a few things included a modded Oppo 105D. All of the PCM through the Gustard had the same sonic flavor when it shouldn't have. For PCM, I'll keep the Gumby.

 

[Blizzard]

An Aurender I believe. We listened through a few things included a modded Oppo 105D. All of the PCM through the Gustard had the same sonic flavor when it shouldn't have. For PCM, I'll keep the Gumby.

What they did with the Gustard was make a very warm and rich sounding output stage. At that price point you will never get the holy grail. So what manufacturers need to decide is do they want to make it as raw and transparent as possible, or warm things up with coloration's. They chose to warm things up as it smooths over the shortcomings of the rest of the system. But still for the price, it looks like an incredible DAC. People need to keep in mind the price when evaluating it, and the value it represents at the price point. The same company makes the L.K.S MH-DA003 DAC. It's a bit more expensive, but has socketed opamps for the output stage, which allow you to swap opamps until you get the sound you're looking for. It also uses better clocks. So it would be cool if someone compared that to the Gustard.

http://www.shenzhenaudio.com/l-k-s-...-amanero-usb-dsd-dac-crystek-femto-clock.html

 

[Joe Whip]

Like I said, I will likely grab one for DSD payback later in the year. My system will be mothballed for 4 or 5 months starting around April, as the part of the house housing my 2 channel room will be demolished and turned into a master bedroom suite. The stereo will be relocated to another room which will be enlarged at the same time to mimic the current room. Hopefully, that room will be finished in only a couple of months so I can get back to listening, but we all know how reliable contractors are with time estimates.

 

[bonzo75]

1. Soft is not the same as fluid.
2. On my system, PCM does not lack fluidity compared to live music. But of course, different people's perceptions differ.

Everything lacks fluidity compared to live music. PCM is less fluid then dsd in many cases, in the same system. If you want to make a proper judgement you will have to buy both and experiment

 

[Joe Whip]

Hopefully this thread won't go down the same rabbit hole as vinyl v. Digital, tubes vs. SS, et al!

 

[Al M.]

Everything lacks fluidity compared to live music.

Depends on your perspective of course. One could also argue that reproduced music is too fluid compared to live music because too uniform; after all, it glosses over a lot of timbral detail present in live music.