Thread: Streaming vs dedicated CD player

Originally Posted by Randy Myers

...Also being able to run the signal through HQPlayer and then on to the DAC at DSD512 is a huge improvement...

Just curious how this might differ from what the PSAudio DirectStream does, without the load on your server's CPU

...With SACD's they are playing at DSD64. While DSD64 is very good it also inherently has an issue with high frequency noise that does fall within the audible range.

Actually the noise is in the ultrasonic range, but still in a frequency range reproducible by most current tweeters. Whether or not that is a problem has been debated since at least the introduction of the SACD (and was probably considered by Sony's engineers during its development), without a conclusion AFAIK.

Originally Posted by W9TR

Theoretically a ripped file could sound better than playing physical media since you can error correct over several encoding passes to get a perfect rip. When you spin a disc, you are counting on the disc player’s internal error detection and correction circuitry to do its thing perfectly. I’ve done some listening experiments on my system and have found no difference between the two. Perhaps someone with a more resolving system will have a different outcome.

Your experience may differ, but I find it very unusual for a clean disc to NOT rip perfectly after one high-speed pass.

Just curious - compared to what? I mean - how do you know? I've ripped disks twice and then bit by bit compared files and yes they were 99.9% the same but not the elusive 100%. I never could hear any difference but the files were NOT the same. I gave up that ... wild goose chase of scientific perfection and went with my ears.

I'm truly just trying to learn. All of this makes me want to explore more.

Originally Posted by rbbert

Your experience may differ, but I find it very unusual for a clean disc to NOT rip perfectly after one high-speed pass.

Originally Posted by Alkyogre

What is the point of using all the CPU's? I thought that a light computer with just a USB 2 output is enough to produce 24 bit 192 kHz and will give a very good sound. Even a USB 3 output is overkill. Why do you need all that calculation power?

Enough... maybe, but not enough if you want it done well. Also, DSD is my favorite digital format and what most record companies use for archiving. It all depends on processing... HQPlayer uses all eight cores because it does a ton of processing. USB version has nothing to do with process power. USB 2.0 is one of the popular transport interfaces.

Originally Posted by rbbert

Just curious how this might differ from what the PSAudio DirectStream does, without the load on your server's CPU

Actually the noise is in the ultrasonic range, but still in a frequency range reproducible by most current tweeters. Whether or not that is a problem has been debated since at least the introduction of the SACD (and was probably considered by Sony's engineers during its development), without a conclusion AFAIK.

It is considerably different. I have actually talked to Ted Smith about this. Using HQPlayer processes the files in the server and can send the signal in a higher format to the DAC. I send all music to the DAC in DSD512. PS Audio can only accept files up to DSD128. It converts and processes all files to a much higher DSD resolution internally and then converts the signal back down to DSD128 to be decoded by their DAC chips.

The information I related was straight from T+A as they described why their DACs turn off the WIDE function when detecting a DSD64 signal.

Originally Posted by the professor

Just curious - compared to what? I mean - how do you know? I've ripped disks twice and then bit by bit compared files and yes they were 99.9% the same but not the elusive 100%. I never could hear any difference but the files were NOT the same. I gave up that ... wild goose chase of scientific perfection and went with my ears.

I'm truly just trying to learn. All of this makes me want to explore more.

AccurateRip

Where did you find the (mis)information that most record companies use DSD for archiving? Of course some albums are archived that way, but most are not (Sony does archive DSD copies of all their analog masters)?

Originally Posted by Randy Myers

The information I related was straight from T+A as they described why their DACs turn off the WIDE function when detecting a DSD64 signal.

I haven’t read what T+A says, but I doubt they would make the elementary mistake of saying the extra noise from DSD is in the audible range (the noise shaping was specifically designed to put it in the ultrasonic range, and it is). As I posted, though, most (all?) tweeters do respond well into the ultrasonic range. Whether or how much the DSD noise will affect the sound is very much open to debate, although T+A has clearly stated their opinion. Note that every DSD sampling rate will have noise shaping, the only difference is at which frequencies the extra noise appears.

Originally Posted by rbbert

I haven’t read what T+A says, but I doubt they would make the elementary mistake of saying the extra noise from DSD is in the audible range (the noise shaping was specifically designed to put it in the ultrasonic range, and it is). As I posted, though, most (all?) tweeters do respond well into the ultrasonic range. Whether or how much the DSD noise will affect the sound is very much open to debate, although T+A has clearly stated their opinion. Note that every DSD sampling rate will have noise shaping, the only difference is at which frequencies the extra noise appears.

I certain might be mis-remembering them saying audible range instead of range that can affect the audible music and/or damage speakers. But the fact remains that they turn off the WIDE function when they detect DSD64, and consider DSD128 or more so DSD256 the minimal level for proper DSD playback. To take advantage of what DSD is all about. And why the heck are you splitting hairs here; it seems like you are trying to make an issue where one does not exist. The bottom line is their view, and mine is that DSD128 is the minimal, and DSD256 or DSD512 is where the amazing benefits of DSD are shown, and why HQPlayer with incredible DACs such as the T+A (among other top flight DACs) are very popular.

From T+A Manual:
"By its nature the DSD format involves a noise floor which rises above
the range of human hearing as frequency rises. Although this noise
floor is not directly audible, it does subject the treble units in the
loudspeakers to a significant load. It is also possible for the high
frequency noise to cause distortion in many low-bandwidth amplifiers.
The lower the DSD sampling rate, the more severe the inherent noise,
and it cannot be disregarded, especially with the 2,8 MHz (DSD64)
format - as used on the SACD. As the DSD sampling rate rises, the
high-frequency noise becomes increasingly insignificant, and with 11,2
MHz (DSD256) it is virtually irrelevant. In the past it has been standard
practice to apply digital and analogue filtering processes in an attempt
to reduce DSD noise, but such solutions are never entirely without side
effects on sound quality. For the DAC 8 DSD we have developed two
special techniques designed to eliminate the sonic disadvantages:
1. The  True-DSD technique, consisting of a direct digital signal
path without filtering and noise-shaping, plus our True 1-bit DSD
D/A converter
2. Analogue reconstruction filter with adjustable bandwidth.


The bandwidth cannot be switched to the 'WIDE' mode when
playing DSD files with 2,8 MHz (DSD64). (see section entitled
‘D/A converter settings’)


With thebutton, the bandwidth of the analogue output filter can
be switched between 60 kHz (‘CLEAN’ mode) or 120 kHz ('WIDE'
mode).
The ‘WIDE’ setting allows a more spacious music reproduction.

DSD signals are characterised by a high-frequency noise floor in the
ultra-sound region. This noise is inherent in the DSD principle, and is
present in the recording itself. In basic terms the higher the sampling
rate, the lower the high-frequency noise. At 2,8 MHz (DSD64) this
noise is by no means negligible, and may constitute a problem for
amplifiers and loudspeakers connected to the system. For this reason,
the bandwidth cannot be switched to the 'WIDE' mode when playing
2,8 MHz DSD files (DSD64)."

Originally Posted by rbbert

Where did you find the (mis)information that most record companies use DSD for archiving? Of course some albums are archived that way, but most are not (Sony does archive DSD copies of all their analog masters)?

Not sure why you are attempting to cause issues where they don't exist, therefore this is my last reply to you on this subject. I did in fact read that a very large portion of recorded libraries are actually archived in the DSD format, and it has become much more prevalent after the large portion of some companies tape achieves were lost in fires not that long ago.

Originally Posted by Randy Myers

Not sure why you are attempting to cause issues where they don't exist, therefore this is my last reply to you on this subject. I did in fact read that a very large portion of recorded libraries are actually archived in the DSD format, and it has become much more prevalent after the large portion of some companies tape achieves were lost in fires not that long ago.

You are very vocal (or in written posting) in support of your hardware and software choices, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, they are not the only good choices; it appears to me that you are trying to justify your subjective preferences with objective arguments. I'm merely trying to point that out. IMHO, you are cherry-picking random bits of data and presenting it as evidence, which it is not; I would suggest staying with what you like and why you like it, but not suggesting that it is the objective best choice.

You probably noticed that T+A described DSD noise shaping in essentially the same way I did

Never ever have said my choice is the only good choice, and in fact I have stated, many times, including this thread, that there are many fine choices. I have even recommended other products that are not right for me when the poster asked questions that made it seem the other product is better for them. Again please stop trying to create issues where none exist. Thank you, and bye.

Originally Posted by rbbert

You are very vocal (or in written posting) in support of your hardware and software choices, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, they are not the only good choices; it appears to me that you are trying to justify your subjective preferences with objective arguments. I'm merely trying to point that out. IMHO, you are cherry-picking random bits of data and presenting it as evidence, which it is not; I would suggest staying with what you like and why you like it, but not suggesting that it is the objective best choice.

You probably noticed that T+A described DSD noise shaping in essentially the same way I did

Hi Rob,

Have you compared a DAC that upsamples with your Oppo? I asked this honestly as I purchased the Modwright 205 as I heard many great things about it.
When I compared it to other DACs one that could upsample, for me, there was a great improvement.
I guess the point is Upsampling filters can use a lot of power.

Brad