DSD, The last thing we need....

[iosiP]

Sorry, blame the Esoteric, not the format. Same as mastering is everything for software (music), implementation is key to hardware.

Would you care to elaborate? Why is the Esoteric fine for PCM but not for DSD? Or, well, bad for both...

 

[jphelan]

I am quite surprised at the support, on sound quality, for SACD. But worse, the support for "new" formats.

First, DSD is a multi-bit recording system - 4, 8 or even 16 bits (!). This means that it decimates and oversamples - just like good-old PCM. (We were told DSD would avoid these when it came out, in the late 90s.

Second, SACD is really PCM on playback - as virtually every DSD-capable DAC transcodes to PCM.

Finally, the sampling rate for this format cannot go higher than the sensitivity of microphones - which for acoustic music, is 25kHz.

So - there is no "new" format after all - only a lower-bit system which to my ear, sounds worse than high-bit (Red Book) PCM.

CD may be 16/44 - but it was recorded higher - 20 bits and up. This gave engineers the space they needed for signal processing and keep the (CD) format in its full resolution. A 16/44 recording may incur losses in post-production.

On sound, a cutting-edge DAC (for Red Book) should end the argument. Go hear the Ted Smith-designed PS Audio DAC and you will not yearn for more. Years ago, it was the Reimyo and Zanden - now its the latest Bricasti, Berkeley and EMM gear. And PS Audio, which seems to be at the front.

Many reviews over the years failed to show that "SACD was better" (than CD). When they did prefer SACD, they were almost always big vinyl fans. Now there's no contest, for digital - but reviewers are even preferring CD to great LP !!

 

[Mike]

I had the PS Audio DirectStream in my system and was underwhelmed when A/B next to the Lumin. Frankly, it wasn't close. So, as I understand it, the DirectStream upsamples everything to DSD? So what? So does the Lumin - if you want it to. And there's the rub. Does Redbook sound better when up sampled to DSD on the Lumin? Ahh..maybe...maybe not...depends on the album, but with the Lumin you have the option to A/B vs its native format. You can't do that with the DirectStream from what I understand.

IMO, a network music player will usually sound better than a "DAC & Mac". A traditional DAC & Mac/PC, regardless of the fabulous technology within the DAC itself, will always be limited to and suffer from the peripheral devices around it (USB cable, electrical and mechanical noise from the PC, etc.). The GIGO principal is alive and well.

YMMV

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[mep]

On sound, a cutting-edge DAC (for Red Book) should end the argument. Go hear the Ted Smith-designed PS Audio DAC and you will not yearn for more. Years a go, it was the Reimyo and Zanden - now its Smith-PS Audio and (likely) Lampizator - both of which eschew the DAC for FPGAs.

I haven't heard the new PS Audio DAC that some people are raving about (and notice I said "some"), but who can get excited about converting PCM to DSD and thinking you have made it to the Promised Land? I have had the Lamp Level 4 DAC in my system as I reviewed it for PFO. If you think PCM sounds better or even the same as DSD played over the Lampi, I have to disagree.

Many reviews over the years failed to show that "SACD was better" (than CD). Now there's no contest - a high-bit system vs. a low-bit one - common sense and now, listening will yield a verdict....

I agree that common sense and listening will yield a verdict, the problem is that we can't agree on anything in audio (think tubes vs. SS, SE vs. PP, triodes vs. pentodes, Class A vs. Class A/B, analog vs. digital, sealed boxes vs. ported speakers, box speakers vs. stats and planers, and on and on and on) so we all come to different verdicts. My common sense and listening has told me that DSD sounds much different than PCM and brings us much closer to the sound of analog. And if DSD doesn't sound better than PCM, why did PS Audio come out with a DAC that converts PCM to DSD?

 

[jphelan]

First, PS Audio doesn't "convert" to DSD - it works at a higher sample rate. If your music was recorded as PCM - that's what it is. You cannot "change" a recording on playback.

Ted Smith said (repeatedly) that his DAC's most amazing feat is what it does for Red Book.

Then, the competing systems in audio. You are over-blowing the idea - it was *no contest* 20-30 years ago concerning LP vs. CD. Every audiophile knew that LP was way-better than CD. But things are quite different now.

I don't think too many of us have "preferences" for type of bass enclosure. But reflex and ports are closer than you think, as they are both resonating systems (neither is a transmission line).

And A vs A/B - no - because many A/Bs are "high-bias". Meaning, they spend most of their time in A.

Audio is not as complicated as we think !!

 

[Kt77]

First, PS Audio doesn't "convert" to DSD - it works at a higher sample rate. If your music was recorded as PCM - that's what it is. You cannot "change" a recording on playback.

Ted Smith said (repeatedly) that his DAC's most amazing feat is what it does for Red Book.

Then, the competing systems in audio. You are over-blowing the idea - it was *no contest* 20-30 years ago concerning LP vs. CD. Every audiophile knew that LP was way-better than CD. But things started changing in the 90s and now, it's a completely different picture.

I don't think too many of us have "preferences" for type of bass enclosure. But reflex and ports are closer than you think, as they are both resonating systems (neither is a transmission line).

And A vs A/B - no - because many top-rated A/Bs are "high-bias". Meaning, they spend most of their time in A.

And so on. Audio is not as complicated as we think !!

I've to agree with your last statement " Audio isn't as complicated as we think ". It's merely a matter of what sounds best to us as individuals!, is it not?, much like Duke Ellington's saying - there are two types of music, good and bad.

Either one can hear the differences that exist between say Analogue and Digital - Tubes vs Solid State - SET vs PP - Sealed vs Ported Speakers, or they can't?. In the end, I tend to listen in two ways, with my ears and heart, now I've had someone try to check me about the latter, yet I'm all to aware we listen with our ears, but it's in my heart where I have a greater sense of how any given component/system moves me emotionally?, that matters!, if it doesn't move me?, then it serves its purpose - not.

Your ears and senses should tell one clearly what sounds " correct ".

 

[mep]

First, PS Audio doesn't "convert" to DSD - it works at a higher sample rate. If your music was recorded as PCM - that's what it is. You cannot "change" a recording on playback.

That's not what their marketing material on their website states. I quote: "DirectStream converts all digital inputs, including PCM, to pure 1-bit DSD, in an elegantly-simple path."

Notice the word "converts" in their explanation of what happens to PCM in their DAC.

Then, the competing systems in audio. You are over-blowing the idea - it was *no contest* 20-30 years ago concerning LP vs. CD. Every audiophile knew that LP was way-better than CD. But things are quite different now.

I don't think I'm over-blowing anything. And you are wrong about "Every audiophile knew that LP was way-better than CD." How many audiophiles sold off their entire LP collections after they bought their first CD player?

I don't think too many of us have "preferences" for type of bass enclosure. But reflex and ports are closer than you think, as they are both resonating systems (neither is a transmission line).

I didn't mention what I think about the differences between "reflex and ports" because that would be nonsensical. A ported deign by nature is a a bass-reflex enclosure. I mentioned peoples preference for sealed speakers vs. ported speakers.

And A vs A/B - no - because many top-rated A/Bs are "high-bias". Meaning, they spend most of their time in A.

That doesn't negate the ongoing debate about people's preferences for one vice the other. People who are in the pure Class A camp wouldn't have their amplification any other way and are willing to argue until your ears fall off that it sounds better than a high-bias Class A/B amp. More importantly, I think you missed the intent of my observations. I was merely trying to demonstrate that audiophiles seldom agree on anything and listed a few examples of things we can't agree on and they are all still very valid regardless of whether you think that all audiophiles have set aside their preferences and have suddenly joined together in a circle and sang kumbaya.

Audio is not as complicated as we think !!

I agree, because it's actually more complicated than people think. Any jackleg can buy some speakers, build a box, build a crossover network, throw it all together and call themselves a speaker designer. Not so for designing SOTA speakers or designing and building amps, preamps, tables, cartridges, DACs, etc. That takes real knowledge and skill and the art continues to evolve as more knowledge is gained.

 

[jphelan]

It just wasn't clear what you meant by "we can't agree an anything" and we have "different verdicts". Maybe on speakers (because of their tonal and dispersion characteristics) but that's about it. CD is so good today that even the most hard-pressed vinyl lover is now a regular listener. Fremer, Jules Coleman, longtime analog guys.

People want good sound - could care less how it's done.

As for history, maybe audiophiles *had* to dump their record players - as LP pressings dried up. Not because they wanted to, because they "couldn't decide".

I have old issues of the Absolute Sound - no-one praised CD when it came out.

Finally, if you want to go by marketing claims, then yes, PS Audio does "convert" to DSD. The problem is it doesn't - esp. if it wasn't recorded that way.

 

[mep]

It just wasn't clear what you meant by "we can't agree an anything" and we have "different verdicts".

I thought what I stated was quite clear and I listed some examples so people would understand what I was saying.

Maybe on speakers (because of their tonal and dispersion characteristics) but that's about it. CD is so good today that even the most hard-pressed vinyl lover is now a regular listener. Fremer, Jules Coleman, longtime analog guys.

See? We don't agree. I don't know what part of the audiophile world you live in, but if you think everyone is in agreement that everything outside of speakers sounds equally good, then you live in a different universe. And trust me, your statement that "CD is so good today that even the most hard-pressed vinyl lover is now a regular listener" is pure fantasy. I for one am emphatically not a regular listener to CDs and I know lots of other people who don't listen to CDs with any degree of regularity. Some are on this forum, and I don't mean just me.

People want good sound - could care less how it's done.

I agree people want good sound, but I don't agree that people could care less how it's done. The essence of our hobby is to care "how it's done." I know people who wouldn't knowingly buy an LP if it was mastered from digital instead of the original master tape. I know people who wouldn't own SS. I know people who wouldn't own tubes. I know people who wouldn't own any analog source. The list goes on...

And I don't think too many audiophiles dumped their LP collections for a poor-sounding system. Why would they do this ? I have old issues of the Absolute Sound - no-one praised CD when it came out.

Again, we live in different universes. Lots of people dumped their LP collections as soon as CD came out. Some came to regret that decision and some still couldn't be happier they dumped their LP collections. And you are clearly wrong when you say that no one praised CD when it first came out. Of course TAS didn't, but that was hardly a mainstream publication. The people at TAS were used to great sounding analog and they knew something was wrong as did many of us. How about Stereophile? Even though you would think Gordon Holt should have known better, he was singing the praises of the first generation of CD players and so were lots of other people.

Finally, if you want to go by marketing claims, then yes, PS Audio does "convert" to DSD. The problem is it doesn't - esp. if it wasn't recorded that way.

Of course it converts PCM to DSD. It's not native DSD obviously, but it has been converted nonetheless. How you can say it isn't is beyond me.

 

[jphelan]

You live in your own world -

"Don't listen to CD". Can't find (any) reviewer who says this - maybe Teresa at PFO.

Buyers care "how it's done". Nope - they want good sound and good value. Tubes or transistors - whatever works. The SET crowd - tiny part of our sector - may want low-power, but at this point, we're picking nat-shit out of pepper.

For LP - you didn't say "mainstream" publication - you said "lots of audiophiles dumped their LPs". They didn't - they hated CD. Holt was quite unique, on this point.

And PS Audio converts to the DSD sampling rate - not "DSD". A big difference. Quoting a marketing claim is one of the worst things we can do...

 

[mep]

I'm trying to decide if I think you truly believe the things you are saying that are so far removed from reality or if you are only saying them in order to get a reaction out of people. You are so wrong with regards to your statement about how the PS Audio DAC works. You are coming across to me as someone who is portraying themselves as having a deep understanding of how digital works, but I know enough to understand that isn't true. The PS Audio DAC converts PCM files to DSD pure and simple. It's a DSD conversion, not simply a sampling rate change as you are trying to portray it. You need to go back to the PS Audio website and reread and understand how the process works. It's not just "marketing" like you are trying to portray it.

I give up on trying to make you understand your other assumptions you are trying to pass off as facts aren't correct. They might apply in a small circle of audio friends you grew up with, but they don't apply outside of a small circle. There was a massive dumping of used LPs into the marketplace after the CD was introduced.

 

[jphelan]

Yes, there was a "massive dumping" of LP - because of the *mass-market*. Audiophiles did not do this - when CD came out.

And if something wasn't recorded up front, it can't be "created" later. The designer of the PS Audio DAC said the most impressive thing it does is decode Red Book.

All DACs - including SACD-compatible, transcode to *PCM*. It sounds like you didn't know this...

 

[mep]

Now we are playing with semantics aren't we Mr. Phelan? We previously weren't discussing whether or not if you take PCM and convert it to DSD if it becomes native DSD. Of course the answer is no as I stated before. However, that wasn't your argument. You argument was that the PS Audio DAC didn't convert PCM into DSD. You were clearly wrong and now you are changing strategies as you backpedal your statements.

And your statement that "all" DACs transcode to PCM is another one of your statements that isn't true. If you want to make statements like this, please back them up with some facts.

This is from the JRiver website:

It is possible to bitstream DSD to certain DACs. This bypasses the DSD to PCM conversion.

There are multiple DSD bitstreaming technologies.
ASIO 2.2
This uses the native DSD bitstreaming support built into ASIO 2.2. The ASIO driver for your DAC must support it.
To bitstream using this method:

• Select 'ASIO' in Options > Audio > Output mode (and configure 'Output mode settings...' as necessary)
• Select Options > Audio > Bitstreaming > Custom... and check _only_ 'DSD' (in MC17 and earlier, Bitstreaming is under Options > Video)

I'm done with you Mr. Phelan.

 

[jphelan]

There's a thread on Audio Asylum called "DSD-only DACs - a survey". In it, the tech-guru of AMR ("Thorsten") cleared-up the matter of bits on playback. I suggest you read it.

No DACs are pure-DSD - it's right in the white papers and technical reports. 1-bit DSD was all marketing hype - it really was....

 

[Myles B. Astor]

There's a thread on Audio Asylum called "DSD-only DACs - a survey". In it, the tech-guru of AMR ("Thorsten") cleared-up the matter of bits on playback. I suggest you read it.

No DACs are pure-DSD - it's right in the white papers and technical reports. 1-bit DSD was all marketing hype - it really was....

You say all. Does that include Playback Design products?

 

[jphelan]

No - because they don't use a commercial DAC-chip. "DAC" meaning IC-chip - which 99.5% use.

 

[Myles B. Astor]

No - because they don't use a commercial DAC-chip. "DAC" meaning IC-chip - which 99.5% use.

Right. So if Bruce Brown does a tape to digital transfer using the PD A-->D and you playback on PD, you are hearing true DSD.

Moreso, you're saying anyone who hears a difference between PCM and DSD is imagining things?

But it's not all as you claim.

 

[jphelan]

I don't doubt for a minute that folks heard /are hearing a difference. Both systems are multi-bit - so they should sound similar.

But still - some don't like the sound of the lower-bit format - including well-known people in audio.

 

[mep]

I don't doubt for a minute that folks heard /are hearing a difference. Both systems are multi-bit - so they should sound similar.

But still - some don't like the sound of the lower-bit format - including well-known people in audio.

From Wikipedia: DSD is 1-bit, has a sampling rate of 2.8224 MHz

 

[jphelan]

I guess you're not "done with me" -

Live by Wikipedia - die by Wikipedia. DSD is not 1-bit...