How important is DSD compatibility when buying a new DAC/Streamer?

[Randy Myers]

It may very be that both DACs I own simply play DSD better... however to me DSD just sounds fuller, richer, more natural... very airy sounding for lack of better term, with a much better sound stage. Some PCMs that I have approach this, but most do not.

Jumping pretty heavy into DSD I have discovered many artist who are new to me. A few have become my absolute favorites.

 

[Mike]

Make sure you all vote in this poll.

 

[Mechnutt]

I like DSD but I have heard good PCM sound better than a lot of DSD. My Luxman does DSD but it's sweet spot is 352-384khz.

 

[Mike]

So, almost 70% consider DSD compatibility in their DAC of the utmost importance. Interesting.

 

[Paul]

I like DSD but I have heard good PCM sound better than a lot of DSD. My Luxman does DSD but it's sweet spot is 352-384khz.

Agree. If you asked me this question earlier I would say 100% for DSD but now I heard good PCM files through 16/24 bits files so as of today I would say 60:40

 

[jdandy]

I did not cast a vote in the poll. It did not include the importance of DSD playback via SACD. That is the only DSD I care about. DSD playback via USB does not interest me.

 

[wisnon]

Interesting Dan…why is that?

 

[Glareskin]

DSD.......meh. The artists that I like are not very available on DSD. I have one or two DSD titles, one sounds great,the other not so much.

And I have absolutely no interest in DSD titles that have been converted from PCM sources.

I completely agree with you Mark! I have acquired an Auralic Mini to be able to play DSD because I felt left out after all the stories here on the forum. I have to admit that I hardly use it because the DSD titles are not interesting to me.

 

[jdandy]

Interesting Dan…why is that?

Norman.......Several reasons, one being the limited DSD catalog of music and artists I enjoy. I'm not one who purchases music for "demonstration" purposes to show how awesome my system can sound. I purchase music to enjoy, sooth my soul, entertain me, and have fun with. I view purchasing esoteric DSD downloads of music I don't enjoy a waste of money. Another reason is the file size of DSD recordings bloating my laptop hard drive. The third, I don't have great confidence in what is actually being sold as DSD. The market is ripe for the picking. Many consumers don't have a clue what they are purchasing beyond what the advertising tells them. It has been discovered multiple times that a number of so called DSD files are nothing more than converted PCM files. Some unscrupulous entrepreneurs see gold in the hills and do whatever they can to get their share. Finally, the Redbook CD sounds fabulous when properly recorded, mastered, and played back on high quality equipment. My collection of CD's isn't huge, 1500 or so. My SACD library is just over 50. My experience with DSD on SACD discs has demonstrated to me that some recordings sound slightly better than CD, some sound as good as CD, and some sound mediocre at best. Not every CD sounds fabulous either, but those that sound excellent compete admirably with DSD. The attention paid during recording, mixing, mastering and pressing of CD's means more to the sonic quality of a recording than a given format in my opinion. And one more reason DSD downloads hold no interest for me is duplication of my library. When I already own the vinyl, CD, SACD, and high-res FLAC download of a particular artist's recording, why would I want a DSD file of the same recording on my laptop? The answer is, I wouldn't.

We all enjoy our sound systems and music collections in our own inalienable way. Likewise, we all have our own bias. In that respect, I don't think of myself as different than any other audio enthusiast. Like everything else in this world, some things appeal to me and some don't.

 

[wisnon]

Dan,
Thanks for taking the time to give a fullsome anwer.

 

[Randy Myers]

I have some CDs, probably about 400. I have ripped them all to Flac files simply for convenience. Honestly I don't have a top end player, just a basic Cambridge. The CDs sound fine and I believe about the same as the rips. It is just easier to play the files ...

I now have 69 92kHz and 192 kHz albums (actually 2 are 44.1/16 and 1 is 48/24), so 66 HDs.... I also have 69 DSD albums. Many of artists that I always liked, but I have discovered several artists that I really enjoy from DSD downloads. For me the DSD just sound better. Almost every time I play the CDs/Flacs just don't sound as good to me as the DSDs. And for this I firmly blame Wisnon ... he convinced me to give it a try....

 

[Al M.]

DSD.......meh. The artists that I like are not very available on DSD. I have one or two DSD titles, one sounds great,the other not so much.

And I have absolutely no interest in DSD titles that have been converted from PCM sources.

Precisely. No interest in DSD whatsoever. I go with the format where all the music is, which is CD. Incidentally, the best digital playback that I have heard so far was from the dCS Rossini and dCS Vivaldi, playing Redbook CD (I haven't heard hi-res on these players, does not interest me; too limited catalog). That Redbook CD playback beat the Quad DSD that I have heard, or at the minimum was as good.

I don't want to spend my money on fringe formats. Rather getting the very best that I possibly can afford out of the most important format, CD. I am saving for a dCS Rossini player which costs enough already, no room for extra expenses.

 

[Mivera Audio]

Precisely. No interest in DSD whatsoever. I go with the format where all the music is, which is CD. Incidentally, the best digital playback that I have heard so far was from the dCS Rossini and dCS Vivaldi, playing Redbook CD (I haven't heard hi-res on these players, does not interest me; too limited catalog). That Redbook CD playback beat the Quad DSD that I have heard, or at the minimum was as good.

I don't want to spend my money on fringe formats. Rather getting the very best that I possibly can afford out of the most important format, CD. I am saving for a dCS Rossini player which costs enough already, no room for extra expenses.

You should considering listening to redbook upsampled with Hqplayer to quad DSD through a DAC that has a DSD direct bypass mode. It could save you a pile of money and get you superior sound. After realizing that the main advantage to DSD is how it's processed on the DAC end, I'm enjoying redbook just as much as quad DSD these days. This is exactly what the Rossini does to redbook to make it sound so good anyways. In my system all audio regardless of format is upsampled to quad DSD.

 

[madfloyd]

You should considering listening to redbook upsampled with Hqplayer to quad DSD through a DAC that has a DSD direct bypass mode. It could save you a pile of money and get you superior sound. After realizing that the main advantage to DSD is how it's processed on the DAC end, I'm enjoying redbook just as much as quad DSD these days. This is exactly what the Rossini does to redbook to make it sound so good anyways. In my system all audio regardless of format is upsampled to quad DSD.

He has - my NADAC. It just doesn't compare favorably to the Rossini (which to be fair costs a lot more), perhaps because of the difference in output stages but that's just a guess.

 

[Randy Myers]

You should considering listening to redbook upsampled with Hqplayer to quad DSD through a DAC that has a DSD direct bypass mode. It could save you a pile of money and get you superior sound. After realizing that the main advantage to DSD is how it's processed on the DAC end, I'm enjoying redbook just as much as quad DSD these days. This is exactly what the Rossini does to redbook to make it sound so good anyways. In my system all audio regardless of format is upsampled to quad DSD.

Would it be the same if it were ripped in DSD. for example JRiver can rip the CDs into DSD and I play everything back using Roon in my main system and JRiver on my headphones.

 

[Mivera Audio]

He has - my NADAC. It just doesn't compare favorably to the Rossini (which to be fair costs a lot more), perhaps because of the difference in output stages but that's just a guess.

The issue with the NADAC and Hqplayer upsampling is, with the Sabre chip there's no way to bypass the internal SDM/SRC section of the chip. So although the sound is superior to PCM, it's not near as good as what's possible from a DAC that bypasses that section on the chip, and uses discrete DSD filters to handle the DSD. Another thing is the IC opamp based output stage. Some prefer the warm analog like richness of discrete class A gain stages with far more current capability behind them. Also, as you have found with your experience, you must use a preamp together with the NADAC to get the best sound. Doing this you're forced to go through the IC opamp gain stages of the NADAC, then through a set of interconnects, before making it to the superior gain stages in your preamp. The reason I'm distributing the Phison PD2, is because it handles all of this in the best way possible. It also has a true SOTA analog preamp with single ended and balanced analog inputs. An optional SOTA phono stage with 100% discrete circuitry is available as well. Not an IC opamp in the complete unit. As a former owner of a Lampi GG, my first P2D client is absolutely thrilled with this unit. He also bought the matching amp and will take delivery on April 15th.

 

[Mivera Audio]

Would it be the same if it were ripped in DSD. for example JRiver can rip the CDs into DSD and I play everything back using Roon in my main system and JRiver on my headphones.

It's the algorithms used that make the difference. So far Jussi from Hqplayer is the algorithm master. Nobody can make them as good as him. I've tried everything. The only other software that might match or beat it is the very expensive ($3500) Merging Pyramix mastering software. But it has a very steep learning curve.

 

[Randy Myers]

I am listening to a CD ripped to DSD now.... It definitely sounds better than the CD played in my Cambridge player or the flac rip. I don't know, it must be how my DACs handles the playback, but both DACs sound much better when playing DSD native...

 

[Mivera Audio]

I am listening to a CD ripped to DSD now.... It definitely sounds better than the CD played in my Cambridge player or the flac rip. I don't know, it must be how my DACs handles the playback, but both DACs sound much better when playing DSD native...

I've extensively experimented with this over the last few years with several DAC chips, and prototypes for the PD2. I've come to the indisputable conclusion that the main reason DSD sounds superior to PCM with pretty much all DSD compatible DAC's is because it allows bypassing of most of the processing inside the SDM DAC chips these DAC's use. It's also the exact reason why many of today's best sounding PCM DAC's (DCS, Emm labs, ps audio, Mola Mola etc) upsample all PCM internally to DSD, then use DSD filtering to finish things off.

 

[wisnon]

I have some CDs, probably about 400. I have ripped them all to Flac files simply for convenience. Honestly I don't have a top end player, just a basic Cambridge. The CDs sound fine and I believe about the same as the rips. It is just easier to play the files ...

I now have 69 92kHz and 192 kHz albums (actually 2 are 44.1/16 and 1 is 48/24), so 66 HDs.... I also have 69 DSD albums. Many of artists that I always liked, but I have discovered several artists that I really enjoy from DSD downloads. For me the DSD just sound better. Almost every one I play the CDs/Flacs just don't sound as good to me as the DSDs. And for this I firmly blame Wisnon ... he convinced me to give it a try....

:yahoo1::tutu:
Heheheheh!