Multi-bit DSD versus PCM

[Blizzard]

Have not seen any analysis demonstrating this. The only point is made that the PC version of the same is better. Even that has not been quantified let alone shown to be an audible bottleneck.

The analysis again also ignores inbuilt distortion in DSD conversion at the start of the capture.

Why don't you just try it? It's an argument ender every time. I haven't heard of 1 person who has tried this setup properly who doesn't agree the sound is far superior. Do you really think companies like dCS built a $20000 upsampler to degrade the sound?

 

[esldude]

Not at all. This is a system from A/D to D/A. You cannot just look at half of it. And that is what matters, not a simplistic view of just looking at half the reproduction chain.


I have not seen that analysis either. What matters is what we hear, right? Where is the analysis that shows the audibility of any of this?

Using almost the same words you beat me to it. What matters is the end to end result AD to DA.

 

[Purite Audio]

Why don't you just try it? It's an argument ender every time. I haven't heard of 1 person who has tried this setup properly who doesn't agree the sound is far superior. Do you really think companies like dCS built a $20000 upsampler to degrade the sound?

Some manufacturers build components they think they can sell, is a four box dac really the best technical implementation do you suppose?
Keith.

 

[Blizzard]

Using almost the same words you beat me to it. What matters is the end to end result AD to DA.

And the algorithms involved for the modulators and filters are the biggest factor in determining this, besides the hardware. but the hardware is identical regardless which format is used. Read what Ayre has said. they are not blowing smoke or lying to us.

 

[amirm]

Do you think guys like Ayre who make both SOTA ADC's and DAC's don't understand how things work?

I don't know. What have they written and has it been published in a journal and hence is peer reviewed?

 

[Blizzard]

Some manufacturers build components they think they can sell, is a four box dac really the best technical implementation do you suppose?
Keith.

Well i can imagine if one bought into the Vivaldi system and found that adding the upsampler option into the chain degraded quality, it probably wouldn't be much of a hot seller.

 

[amirm]

Why don't you just try it? It's an argument ender every time. I haven't heard of 1 person who has tried this setup properly who doesn't agree the sound is far superior. Do you really think companies like dCS built a $20000 upsampler to degrade the sound?

So we are not having a technical discussion of the merits anymore?

 

[Blizzard]

I don't know. What have they written and has it been published in a journal and hence is peer reviewed?

So do you think all modulator and oversampling filters are identical? And they have absolutely no impact on sound?

 

[Blizzard]

So we are not having a technical discussion of the merits anymore?

I'm not an expert on the advanced calculations that go into the modulator and up sampling algorithms that cause them to be superior. I know this can easily be measured, and I know the subjective differences they make, but I'm the wrong guy to answer exactly why they make a difference and matter. But there's plenty of information out there on this. Jussi is the best guy to talk to as the software he makes specializes in this department. And he's been refining the algorithms for years. Do you think Roon decided to integrate his software because he's a snake oil salesman? Even Dustin the head engineer at the ESS Sabre chip division told me that it's pretty cool software.

The first time he was over at my place and we had the multibit discussion, I had mentioned HQplayer, and he was skeptical that the algorithms could beat his Sabre 9018 chip. But he said he would download it and play with it. But the last time I seen him, he just said that it's pretty cool software, and great for tweaking sound how you want it.

However he didn't say if it could beat the 9038 pro's algorithms

 

[amirm]

So do you think all modulator and oversampling filters are identical? And they have absolutely no impact on sound?

I am asking if they do as you say, where is some evidence we can discuss? Just saying the PC does it better doesn't translate into anything. Show me the measured performance difference and then we can apply psychoacoustics to it and see if it is likely to make an audible difference or not.

 

[amirm]

I'm not an expert on the advanced calculations that go into the modulator and up sampling algorithms that cause them to be superior. I know this can easily be measured, and I know the subjective differences they make, but I'm the wrong guy to answer exactly why they make a difference and matter. But there's plenty of information out there on this. Jussi is the best guy to talk to as the software he makes specializes in this apartment. And he's been refining the algorithms for years. Do you think Roon decided to integrate his software because he's a snake oil salesman?

If you are not the expert then point us to what has been written by others who are. As for Roon implementing HQ, that is due to user requests not Roon vouching for its value. And even if they vouched for it, unless they show expertise in this matter, their opinion would not matter.

Even Dustin the head engineer at the ESS Sabre chip division told me that it's pretty cool software.

Cool is fine. But that doesn't get us anywhere. Do you have en evaluation from Dustin on what performance gains this provides on their DAC and why it would matter?

 

[Blizzard]

If you are not the expert then point us to what has been written by others who are. As for Roon implementing HQ, that is due to user requests not Roon vouching for its value. And even if they vouched for it, unless they show expertise in this matter, their opinion would not matter.


Cool is fine. But that doesn't get us anywhere. Do you have en evaluation from Dustin on what performance gains this provides on their DAC and why it would matter?

Well not much more point of discussing this further because I have clearly explained what matters and why it matters. So anyone who reads this thread can decide to either ignore what has been presented, or do some testing on their own. HQplayer has a 30 day free trial. And if you have a quad DSD compatible DAC, download some quad DSD files from Yarlung records. If they sound horrible, sell your quad DSD capable DAC, buy a Berkley Alpha DAC, and downsample them to 24/192 PCM on the fly with Jriver.

 

[Bruce B]

Do you think guys like Ayre who make both SOTA ADC's and DAC's don't understand how things work?

Charlie's views on DSD are well known, as well as Daniel Weiss.

 

[esldude]

Charlie's views on DSD are well known, as well as Daniel Weiss.

yeah, but what does Daniel Weiss know? He is one of those designers that doesn't listen to fine tune his design. Please note:sarcasm.

http://www.weiss.ch/assets/content/41/white-paper-on-DSD.pdf

 

[Blizzard]

yeah, but what does Daniel Weiss know? He is one of those designers that doesn't listen to fine tune his design. Please note:sarcasm.

http://www.weiss.ch/assets/content/41/white-paper-on-DSD.pdf

Another example of someone who doesn't know how the ESS chip, or any SDM chip works.


Also what's missing from that white paper is how the data is handled once it gets to the DAC. That's more of what matters to me. If you download the 2 files from Ayre, this will be the determineing factor of which format you prefer. Another great resource for this test is here:

http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html?


Even good old redbook can be stunning when this end of the system is handled great. With my system, I am enjoying redbook streaming from Tidal just as much as anything these days. Although the higher res formats (both PCM and DSD) have an definite edge. As far as the studio end of things goes, I think the recording and mastering quality makes the biggest impact. File format and resolution being secondary, although not a moot point.

 

[esldude]

What's missing from that white paper is how the data is handled once it gets to the DAC. That's more of what matters to me. If you download the 2 files from Ayre, this will be the determineing factor of which format you prefer. Another great resource for this test is here:

http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html?

Even good old redbook can be stunning when this end of the system is handled great. With my system, I am enjoying redbook streaming from Tidal just as much as anything these days. Although the higher res formats (both PCM and DSD) have an definite edge. As far as the studio end of things goes, I think the recording and mastering quality makes the biggest impact. File format and resolution being secondary, although not a moot point.

If these are the Ayre recordings from the LP system, one big fly in the ointment was a considerable level difference. Another for me is I have no native DSD DAC to use.

Another gets back to comparing output to input. Quite a few people say converting redbook to DSD for playback is a big improvement. Well we know how well the output can reproduce the input on a redbook ADC/DAC loop. How can DSD sound so different, so much better unless it is adding or subtracting or otherwise coloring the result? Not to mention is it better really? The times I have heard DSD there was no apparent obvious benefit nothing jumping out to say this is good or better than PCM.

 

[Blizzard]

If these are the Ayre recordings from the LP system, one big fly in the ointment was a considerable level difference. Another for me is I have no native DSD DAC to use.

Another gets back to comparing output to input. Quite a few people say converting redbook to DSD for playback is a big improvement. Well we know how well the output can reproduce the input on a redbook ADC/DAC loop. How can DSD sound so different, so much better unless it is adding or subtracting or otherwise coloring the result? Not to mention is it better really? The times I have heard DSD there was no apparent obvious benefit nothing jumping out to say this is good or better than PCM.

You would just have to match the levels properly when making the comparison. It's not hard.

You would be in a better position to judge this claim if you had the equipment at your disposal. So far I've had an 100% success rate with people who I've recommended doing things this way.

Once again the impressions of Madfloyd's system with native PCM vs resampling to quad DSD with HQplayer. This is with the ESS 9008 chip:


Native PCM being fed to the DAC:

"After three ibuprofen tossed back with three cups of coffee for good measure, I wanted to run some experiments to see how the DAC was performing. First, I wanted to hear how the DAC sounded at native PCM rates without upsampling to DSD. Here we learned that the DAC is clearly designed for DSD. The native PCM rates resulted in a collapsed sound stage with a loss of dynamics. In fact, if I had only heard this DAC played at native PCM rates, I would think it is a rather poor DAC."

(Native PCM meaning no HQplayer filters, no resampling PCM to DSD with HQplayer)

With HQplayer filters resampling to quad DSD:

"Ian had mentioned that when we were upsampling to DSD, we were listening to a filter that was designed to highlight transients and cleanliness. He said there was another filter that supposedly offered a more immersive sound stage, with possibly somewhat reduced transients. I wanted to hear it, so he changed the setting in HQ Player.

"This, for me, was musical bliss. Beautiful, smooth, enveloping sound with warmth and yet plenty of detail to keep me happy. I no longer felt any compunction to have the subs put back in the system. I was flabbergasted at how good the system sounded. The analog setup sounded smaller and rather dry in comparison. The digital actually had more liquidity and smoothness than the analog, and the bass of the digital rig was far superior"

Another poor result by the sounds of things

Next we will have a major publication doing a review on the new Lamipzator Euphoria DSD DAC using the NUC based streamer from my streamer thread, and HQplayer.

 

[c1ferrari]

Ha ha, no I was talking about R2R DAC's. Not R2R analog tape

Rats!
Hehe

 

[Al M.]

You would just have to match the levels properly when making the comparison. It's not hard.

You would be in a better position to judge this claim if you had the equipment at your disposal. So far I've had an 100% success rate with people who I've recommended doing things this way.

Once again the impressions of Madfloyd's system with native PCM vs resampling to quad DSD with HQplayer. This is with the ESS 9008 chip:


Native PCM being fed to the DAC:

"After three ibuprofen tossed back with three cups of coffee for good measure, I wanted to run some experiments to see how the DAC was performing. First, I wanted to hear how the DAC sounded at native PCM rates without upsampling to DSD. Here we learned that the DAC is clearly designed for DSD. The native PCM rates resulted in a collapsed sound stage with a loss of dynamics. In fact, if I had only heard this DAC played at native PCM rates, I would think it is a rather poor DAC."

(Native PCM meaning no HQplayer filters, no resampling PCM to DSD with HQplayer)

With HQplayer filters resampling to quad DSD:

[snip]

Another poor result by the sounds of things

Next we will have a major publication doing a review on the new Lamipzator Euphoria DSD DAC using the NUC based streamer from my streamer thread, and HQplayer.

The impression above:

"In fact, if I had only heard this DAC played at native PCM rates, I would think it is a rather poor DAC",

seems to confirm other reports that Sabre DACs sound inferior on straight PCM, and only shine on DSD (native or PCM upsampled).

If that is the case, no wonder the NADAC sounds better on DSD. It would be interesting to compare a heavy-hitter PCM DAC to the NADAC with PCM --> DSD upsampling. Then let's see if the NADAC wins. Possible, but I would have to hear it first.

 

[Blizzard]

The impression above:

"In fact, if I had only heard this DAC played at native PCM rates, I would think it is a rather poor DAC",

seems to confirm other reports that Sabre DACs sound inferior on straight PCM, and only shine on DSD (native or PCM upsampled).

If that is the case, no wonder the NADAC sounds better on DSD. It would be interesting to compare a heavy-hitter PCM DAC to the NADAC with PCM --> DSD upsampling. Then let's see if the NADAC wins. Possible, but I would have to hear it first.

It's not just with Sabre chips, it's with all DSD capable SDM chips. And if it has a directDSD mode that can be enabled properly, your jaw would drop hearing it combined with Hqplayer.

The Sabre 9008 in the NADAC is a 10 year old chip. It has very weak SDM/SRC algorithms in it to todays standards. The whole "harsh digital Sabre sound" people stereotype these chips with, is mostly due to these modulator/filter algorithms. Well that and poor implementation. Newer chips like the AKM AK4490 have much better SDM/SRC algorithms built in, but still nowhere close to HQplayer.

We will see how they did on the Sabre 9038pro and the AKM AK4497eq. The new Sabre has 8 filter options that are user customizable now. In addition customizable IIR filters. So this will be a whole new ballgame.