Ayre wants $1.5K for DSD'ed QB-9

[Charles Hansen]

One potential boon for DSD capability is if SACD titles ever become available as DSD downloads. That would be pretty cool (unless they charge $30-40 per title). In the meantime, your choice not to include DSD128 seems entirely reasonable. As I wrote in a previous post, there's barely any DSD64 I'm interested in, much less the pittance of DSD 128 titles.

 

Hello Beetle,

 

I agree that there are many excellent titles that were re-mastered as SACD's at one time. Given the politics of the situation, it is not very likely that they will ever be remastered in 192/24 (unless Pono REALLY takes off!). So for those albums, most of which are out of print and sell on eBay for many hundreds of dollars, I think that it would be great to have a DSD "rip" of them and play them back natively.

 

It is not that hard to rip an SACD to a computer. But the problem is that I don't think that the labels will ever bother to do it. The only reason that the SACD's were made in the first place was because Sony bribed them to do it. Now Sony doesn't have the money nor the motive to bribe some label to make a DSD download. So the only hope is that people will rip their SACD's and upload them to bit-torrent sites. I don't like to take the money from the artist, but if I have already bought the LP and/or the CD, and there is no way to pay the artist (or the label) and the disc is out of print, it may become tempting to "trade" SACD rips using bit-torrent sites...

 

The US Supreme Court has already said that it is legal to circumvent copy protection to make a personal back-up file of a disc that you own, despite the wording of the DMCA. Once someone has made a back-up file of their SACD, it will probably spread. I'm just sayin'. Nature abhors a vacuum....

 

Best regards,

[Freann]

I don’t believe in “only one format will survive”. There will always be diversity.

 

 

The future is audio streaming, not downloads. In the near future the established standard for “HD Sound” will be 24/96, because it requires a managable amount of broadband bandwidth. For a premium you can have “Super HD Sound” - 192/24. HDTracks.com will become a streaming service at a monthly fee. That’s my prediction.

 

 

But – “DSD” will stay. As an ultra audiophile “esoteric” format at a VERY premium price. Why? Because it is different. Because it goes against the estabished norm. Because you can make it into something that is “exclusive” and of course expensive.

[wisnon]

Hello Wisnon,

 

Three-prong plug does not help unless the transformer manufacturer always winds it correctly and the equipment manufacturer always corrects it correctly. Probably less than 20% of all equipment has both done correctly so that you can count on proper polarity.

 

Then many times DIY homeowner replace the outlets, or DIY audiophiles put in "super" outlets and they don't know and put it in backwards....

 

Only way to know for sure is to measure each component separately.

 

Cheers,

 

Or use the phase flipper!

 

Testing individually is not a practical solution here because you can't easily correct a reversed wiring. Flipping the phase is easy and reversible!

[wisnon]

 

When 192/24 is done PROPERLY, it sounds better than DSD.

 

So the obvious thing to do is keep improving the implementation of PCM. It is very simple. It is simple to see that is the future. It is simple to improve it. It is simple to understand the advantages of DSD and incorporate them into high-res PCM. It is simple for the studios to record PCM. It is simple for them to keep using the equipment they are familiar with.

 

Music is a big business. The companies that control it want to make as much money as possible. That is not done by changing to a new format. The musicians that make music want to sell as many albums as possible. If they can sign with Warner or they can sign with Blue Coast, which company do you think they will choose? This is not rocket science...

 

The only reason that DSD even exists is because Sony and Philips patents on CD were expiring. They couldn't patent high-res PCM. So they took something that didn't make very much sense and turned it into a format so they could license it. The big prize for the record companies was that nobody could copy it with a computer. That seemed like a good idea to some people 15 years ago when Napster was giving away MP3 for free. But now the only reason the DSD has a second life is because they made a version that will play on the computer.

 

But just because you can DO something, doesn't make it a good idea...

 

Best regards,

 

So what was the initial DSD advantage you have been able to study and incorporate into hirez PCM?

[MikeJazz]

I don’t believe in “only one format will survive”. There will always be diversity.

 

 

The future is audio streaming, not downloads. In the near future the established standard for “HD Sound” will be 24/96, because it requires a managable amount of broadband bandwidth. For a premium you can have “Super HD Sound” - 192/24. HDTracks.com will become a streaming service at a monthly fee. That’s my prediction.

 

 

But – “DSD” will stay. As an ultra audiophile “esoteric” format at a VERY premium price. Why? Because it is different. Because it goes against the estabished norm. Because you can make it into something that is “exclusive” and of course expensive.

 

I agree and was thinking the same..

Some Audiophiles - the tweekers - they don't like the mainstream solutions...

When hig-rez is becoming popular (at least amongst us), some will want an even smaller niche solution...

[elcorso]

Hello Corso,

 

Yes, both are capable of excellent sound. But only one will survive. It is only a matter of time. Nobody wants two formats. Not the record companies, not the retailers, not the customers. If you look at history, every time there is a format war, one will always lose.

 

So VHS beat Beta (even though Beta was better). Blu-ray beat HD-DVD (even though HD-DVD made much more sense, Sony knew the right people to bribe -- they owned a movie studio!). Sometimes two formats can co-exist because they serve different needs. So cassette and LP coexisted. But cassette beat 8-track.

 

If DSD were inherently a superior format that was capable of much better sound than high-res PCM, it MIGHT survive. But even then probably not, because it is too expensive to convert all the studios and too difficult to process in modern recording methods. But since it is not hard to make high-res PCM that has all of the advantages of DSD, it is only a matter of time before DSD dies off. That doesn't mean it is bad or it sounds bad. It just doesn't offer any real advantage and it has many, many practical disadvantages.

 

Best regards,

 

Hi Charles,

 

Yes, I know, at the end everything is about money, since it's is very expensive to recording engineers & companies to implement both formats, and also for the user. But, in he mean time, a lot of audiophiles when looking for a new DAC, they want both capabilities. And, if we talk about DL time DSD64 has the same disadvantage than PCM 24/192: DL time thanks of the size.

 

I personally doesn't lose the hope of DSD survival, as a niche of course (like Hi Res PCM is). If this doesn't happens, I have enough titles to listen for a long, long time.

 

Kind regards,

 

Roch

[tailspn]

When 192/24 is done PROPERLY, it sounds better than DSD.

 

The record/playback process of music is on the surface very simple and straight forward, but in practice is quite complex. All MODERN A/D converters in use by production companies are front ended with Delta-Sigma Modulators. The one (only?) exception is Reference Recordings, which use the Pacific Microsonics ADC, which has been out of manufacture for thirteen years. Modern A/D converters, depending on their particular type of Delta-Sigma Modulator, produce some variant of a derivative bit stream of the analog input signal. This can be as simple as 1-bit, two levels (DSD), or n multi-bit at different orders. This is as close as it gets to the mic feed(s).

 

Following the A/D conversion and recording (tracking), the next step is editing, mixing, and/or sweetening, also known as post processing. This is where the technical artistry is applied. The recording's Delta-Sigma Modulator bit stream format must be converted into a quantized digital representation (PCM), either in the DAW, or as a post function of the A/D converter. The requirement for this format conversion is two: the need to convert to a binary word based format in order to use the plethora of processing tools for post production, and conversion to the desired delivery format.

 

An unintended consequence of this format conversion is that the natural sound of the instruments and space is reduced or masked to some degree. This is the price of the process. Sadly, each additional format conversion, if any, further rob the original sound quality

 

While each delivery or processing format has their MEASURABLE differences, and peculiarities, none are intrinsically superior to the other perceptively. What we do perceive are the losses incurred from the conversion from one format into another. There is no decimation involved in the digital process of re-modulating the original bit stream into a 1-bit two level bit stream (DSD). Decimation is the process of filtering the original Delta-Sigma Modulator bit stream so as to not alias in the slower sample rate of the resulting PCM. It's that which does most of the sound quality degradation in conversion.

 

IMO, the belief that PCM is somehow superior to the original bit stream produced by the Delta-Sigma Modulator in the ADC is the tail wagging the bull. And we all know what comes out the tail end of such an animal.

 

Tom Caulfield

[tailspn]

So the only hope is that people will rip their SACD's and upload them to bit-torrent sites. I don't like to take the money from the artist, but if I have already bought the LP and/or the CD, and there is no way to pay the artist (or the label) and the disc is out of print, it may become tempting to "trade" SACD rips using bit-torrent sites...

 

The US Supreme Court has already said that it is legal to circumvent copy protection to make a personal back-up file of a disc that you own, despite the wording of the DMCA. Once someone has made a back-up file of their SACD, it will probably spread. I'm just sayin'. Nature abhors a vacuum....

 

Charles, do I understand that you're advocating the theft of copywrited recordings?

[Charles Hansen]

Or use the phase flipper!

 

Testing individually is not a practical solution here because you can't easily correct a reversed wiring. Flipping the phase is easy and reversible!

 

Hello Wisnon,

 

Do you mean the small adapter used in the US with a ground wire instead of the ground pin? (We call this a "cheater" plug.) If so, it is good for testing, but the extra contacts will degrade the sound slightly. If you find a piece of equipment that is miswired, it is usually worth paying a technician to correct it if it a good unit that you plan to keep.

 

Best regards,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

I don’t believe in “only one format will survive”. There will always be diversity.

 

 

The future is audio streaming, not downloads. In the near future the established standard for “HD Sound” will be 24/96, because it requires a managable amount of broadband bandwidth. For a premium you can have “Super HD Sound” - 192/24. HDTracks.com will become a streaming service at a monthly fee. That’s my prediction.

 

 

But – “DSD” will stay. As an ultra audiophile “esoteric” format at a VERY premium price. Why? Because it is different. Because it goes against the estabished norm. Because you can make it into something that is “exclusive” and of course expensive.

 

Hello Freann,

 

Just look at history. Learn from the past so we don't make the same mistakes over and over again. How many HD-DVD discs do you have? How many Mini-Discs do you have? How many 8-tracks do you have? How many pre-recorded open reel tapes do you have? How many dbx LPs do you have? Haw many quadraphonic LP's do you have (CBS SQ or JVC)?

 

Formats die.

 

Best,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

So what was the initial DSD advantage you have been able to study and incorporate into hirez PCM?

 

Wisnon,

 

Haven't you been reading the thread at all? I have already explained this two or three times already...

 

Best,

Charles Hansen

[Charles Hansen]

There is no decimation involved in the digital process of re-modulating the original bit stream into a 1-bit two level bit stream (DSD). Decimation is the process of filtering the original Delta-Sigma Modulator bit stream so as to not alias in the slower sample rate of the resulting PCM. It's that which does most of the sound quality degradation in conversion.

 

IMO, the belief that PCM is somehow superior to the original bit stream produced by the Delta-Sigma Modulator in the ADC is the tail wagging the bull. And we all know what comes out the tail end of such an animal.

 

Hello Tom,

 

The problem when re-modulating from PCM for post-production to DSD for release is that ANOTHER layer of noise is added in again. If you do this more than a few times, you end up with more noise than signal! That is why studios do not like to use this format.

 

As far as PCM being like "dog poop", I disagree strongly. Many PCM does not sound good. That is NOT because of the format but only the result of poor implementation.

 

When the PCM is implemented properly it will have all of the sonic benefits of DSD but with none of the sonic or practical drawbacks of DSD.. Read this review of the Ayre QA-9:

 

Ayre Acoustics QA-9 USB A/D converter | Stereophile.com

 

Mr. John Atkinson, Editor of Stereophile wih over 35 years of reviewing experience was absolutely unable to distinguish the digital copy from the original analog recording. This is with "boring" old PCM. He said this was perhaps the most truly transparent piece of equipment he has ever reviewed. Even though he already owns a half-dozen A/D converters, he purchased the review sample.

 

You can already purchase a download of one very beautiful pipe organ recording made with this converter. Later this month I believe that Mr. Atkinson will make another recording using the Ayre converter. Perhaps by the end of this year you can purchase this and hear for yourself.

 

Kind regards,

Charles Hansen

[Miska]

Not when the PCM is implemented properly.

 

Why does it have such a huge amount of harmonic and intermodulation distortion?

 

(especially the repeating IMD images every 20 kHz look nasty, peaking at 60 kHz)

[Freann]

Hello Charles

Most format die, yes. But not all. Vinyl is the most prominent example. Vinyl is a good product – easy to understand, easy to use and playable on an easy to understand hardware (and on an open standard…).

 

 

The “format” is being resplaced by “the service”. What format does Spotify use? I don’t know/care. Netflix? HBO? Googles streaming service? Apple´s?

 

 

What history tells us that things change. But change happens faster today than it did yesterday. In the future there will be no single format that rules supremely for a quarter of a century – like CD did. New format will pop up all the time, become widely used and then quickly disappear again.

[Hiro]

Most format die, yes. But not all. Vinyl is the most prominent example.

 

Freann,

 

Analog stopped being analog long time ago, just like PCM converters stopped being PCM.

[Freann]

Hiro: that is true. My thinking is from a consumer perspective, not a producers.

[tailspn]

The problem when re-modulating from PCM for post-production to DSD for release is that ANOTHER layer of noise is added in again. If you do this more than a few times, you end up with more noise than signal! That is why studios do not like to use this format.

 

Hello Charles,

 

Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree. But that disagreement is over the principle of PCM being somehow as good as, or better than the multi-bit Delta-Sigma Modulator it was derived from, and not over the inherent quality of your QA-9, particularly the Pro version.

 

The Merging Technologies Horus A/D converter also uses the same ARDA AT1201 chip. My experience with it so far has been very positive. But there's no doubt when listening, particularly in 5 channel, between the DXD (352.8KHz PCM) conversion, and DSD files at any of the DSD sampling rates. This is particularly evident with massed strings and choral groups. The raw session files recorded and played out in DSD, at either 256fs or 64fs are remarkably more spacious and detailed than the same files converted and played out as DXD. You could argue that the Pyramix 32 bit algorithm that does this DSD>DXD conversion is wanting, and I would agree. But I'd opine that it's quite a bit less degrading than the onboard multi-bit to PCM converter in the AT1201 chip. Also, there's much less degradation with the multi-bit to 1-bit two level (DSD) because there's no decimation filter involved, as is required in the PCM conversion.

 

To your point though, I agree with your central argument about multiple format conversions. That's why most studios limit the number of conversions from the multi-bit Delta-Sigma Modulator output of the ADC front end to PCM for processing to once, then either release in PCM, or one more conversion to DSD for SACD release. But it's also why labels like Channel Classics do a completely analog session balance and mix, and remain in DSD through the editing process. They want to avoid the DSD > PCM conversion degradation.

 

I wish you great success with your QA-9. It has all the elements of a great A/D converter, particularly with your expertise in front end analog design. For prosumer customers that are searching for the highest quality for transcribing their analog sources, my hope is they consider the Pro version with its DSD output. Also that hardware developers like you bring to market SDIF to USB interfaces. This will IMO, allow the high end consumer the same quality level that the highest sound quality driven studios are now able to achieve. The software is available to edit in DSD, and can be re-packaged for much less money if the consumer market creates a demand.

 

And thank you, I've heard examples of John's recordings. He does fine work in stereo with purest microphone techniques

 

All the best,

Tom Caulfield

[wisnon]

Wisnon,

 

Haven't you been reading the thread at all? I have already explained this two or three times already...

 

Best,

Charles Hansen

Travelling a lot so I have printed a lot to read later and read the answer after I posted. I said as much in a pm.

[barrows]

Tom: Just checking in on this thread… you appear to be ignoring one of CH's primary points; that the digital filter used in the converter is critical for best PCM performance. Ayre uses proprietary digital filters; I do believe that when Mr. Hansen is talking about well implemented PCM, he is including the use of a sophisticated digital filter, which takes into account the nature of human perception and subjective listening testing. In other words, it is not about the ADC/DAC chip so much, but much more about the nature of the digital filters in use. Perhaps you need to make a comparison with the QA-9 between PCM at 24/192 and DSD, so far it appears that those who have...

[tailspn]

Hi Barrows, Thanks for the post!

 

No, I don't think I'm ignoring Charles primary point. His point that I have been responding to is:

 

Originally Posted by Charles Hansen

When 192/24 is done PROPERLY, it sounds better than DSD.

 

192/24 PCM may sound different, and he and others may even prefer it, but it is certainly not better in any accuracy measure than DSD. And isn't accuracy the purpose of a good ADC?

 

The reason for this is simple. The ADC stage of his QA-9 converter is the excellent ARDA AT1201. Its front end is a multi-bit (6-bit) Delta-Sigma Modulator, whose output may be taken natively and used with custom external filters, taken as a PCM data word stream, or as a 1-bit two level (DSD) bit stream. Regardless of the output format chosen, or derived, it can not be a more accurate representation of the original analog input than the AT1201's Delta-Sigma Modulators 6-bit representation. There are losses in every conversion.

 

So let's consider the conversion into both PCM and DSD. PCM is a 2's complement binary word based system of discrete level values of n bits, which operates at slower sampling rates than the 6-bit Delta-Sigma Modulator. Much slower! Taken to the extreme for this QA-9 ADC, 11.29MHz (256fs) translated to 192KHz is a ratio of 58.8 times slower. The Nyquist frequencies of both sampling rates are the same ratio, meaning that a decimation filter, including Charles' proprietary (?) digital filter, has to filter to below -160dB the Delta-Sigma Modulator's 6-bit stream of all the frequencies above one half of 192KHz, or 96KHz. That requires an aggressive filter. And this is before the math conversion can take place, with its attendant round-off errors.

 

By contrast, the conversion to DSD (2.8224MHz 64fs) requires decimation filtering of a ratio of 4X, and no math translation.

 

In other words, there's just allot more accuracy degradation when converting to any sampling rate PCM, then when re-modulating to DSD from any Delta-Sigma Modulator front ended Analog to Digital Converter.

 

As an aside, a point not mentioned much is that DSD is a marketing term coined to describe ONE of an infinite variety of outputs available from then MANY configurations of Delta-Sigma Modulators. DSD describes a 1-bit two level bit stream, usually associated with 2.8224MHz sampling rate (64fs). As a practical matter, Delta-Sigma Modulators in A/D Converters, and D/A Converters operate at multiples of 2.8224MHz. In the case of the AT1201 chip, 11.29MHz. The point being that while there always degradation in any format translation of different sampling rates, there's less translating to DSD than ANY PCM variant.

 

To your suggestion though, I have not compared the QA-9 at 24/192 and DSD. I am however familiar with the excellent AT1201 ADC chip as used in the Merging Technologies Horus, and am very impressed with its sound quality. But using that hardware, and comparing its DXD PCM output (352.8KHz) as derived by the Pyramix software and its unrestricted computer operated filters, and the subsampled DSD, leaves the DXD PCM wanting. As I reported earlier, the DSD has a clarity and ease, a heightened sense of spaciousness and instrument individuality that is reduced in the DXD PCM. Just my humble observation, and may apply to me only. But to me, it's very noticeable.

 

As I said previously, I hope Charles sells a ton of these QA-9's! To the degree that it broadens the use of DSD, and its higher sample rate variants, the greater return it will be for the audiophile interest fraternity, and their quest for the best sound quality.

 

Thanks again Barrows,

Tom

[vortecjr]

But it's also why labels like Channel Classics do a completely analog session balance and mix, and remain in DSD through the editing process. They want to avoid the DSD > PCM conversion degradation.

 

Tom, I have been looking for this kind of information for my DSD database. Can you post a link or a quote from Channel Classics on this?

 

Charles, if I understand your posts you feel that there is a theoretical advantage to PCM. BTW I'm a big fan of your filter white paper. PCM can be great and you will not get an argument from me about that. You also seem to suggest a practical advantage to DSD because of XY&Z circumstances. To me an advantage is an advantage even if by circumstance and that is enough to drive people to the format. I enjoy the collecting aspect of 176.4/192 PCM and that spills over to DSD content. Besides why download a 24/96 PCM files made from SACDs when I can just play the DSD rips...

 

Jesus R

[barrows]

Hmmm, I guess we are talking about semantics then:

 

"Originally Posted by Charles Hansen

When 192/24 is done PROPERLY, it sounds better than DSD."

 

When someone tells me something "sounds better", I equate that statement with an analysis based on listening, not a technical theoretical discussion such as you gave. But, even your technical explanation has flaws: the noise inherent in DSD is a technical flaw, for example, which you appear to dismiss.

In any case, I have nothing against DSD per se, but there is nothing in my experience to suggest that DSD "sounds better" than well done PCM at 24/192. I find good examples for analysis can be had from Channel Classics: I suggest that readers here might make their own comparisons. Channel Classics is now using the highly regarded Grimm Audio ADC for DSD recording, and sells both DSD downloads and PCM downloads (converted using Weiss Saracon). Purchase a DSD file from them (I would recommend one of the recent recordings done with the Grimm), and compare vs a 24/192 PCM conversion. Or, use the Korg SRC to make some PCM conversions of your own to 24/176.4, try the soft filter. And listen in your own system.

Some DACs may produce better sound on DSD, some with PCM, but if people make their own comparisons, they will have a better understanding of how things sound in their own systems.

I am not sure why anyone would want to start these types of compaprisons with a PCM source (the confusingly named "DXD") although, I suspect that "DXD" when done well is transparent anyway... but for the sake of keeping things fair for DSD, I would prefer a native DSD file be used for comparisons.

[mav52]

Charles

"Originally Posted by Charles Hansen

When 192/24 is done PROPERLY, it sounds better than DSD."

 

When someone tells me something "sounds better", I equate that statement with an analysis based on listening, not a technical theoretical discussion such as you gave. But, even your technical explanation has flaws: the noise inherent in DSD is a technical flaw, for example, which you appear to dismiss.

In any case, I have nothing against DSD per se, but there is nothing in my experience to suggest that DSD "sounds better" than well done PCM at 24/192 .

If that is how you feel about DSD then why are you upgrading a DAC to support it ? just wondering. But of course incoming revenue comes to mind.

[vortecjr]

Hmmm, I guess we are talking about semantics then:

 

"Originally Posted by Charles Hansen

When 192/24 is done PROPERLY, it sounds better than DSD."

 

When someone tells me something "sounds better", I equate that statement with an analysis based on listening, not a technical theoretical discussion such as you gave. But, even your technical explanation has flaws: the noise inherent in DSD is a technical flaw, for example, which you appear to dismiss.

In any case, I have nothing against DSD per se, but there is nothing in my experience to suggest that DSD "sounds better" than well done PCM at 24/192. I find good examples for analysis can be had from Channel Classics: I suggest that readers here might make their own comparisons. Channel Classics is now using the highly regarded Grimm Audio ADC for DSD recording, and sells both DSD downloads and PCM downloads (converted using Weiss Saracon). Purchase a DSD file from them (I would recommend one of the recent recordings done with the Grimm), and compare vs a 24/192 PCM conversion. Or, use the Korg SRC to make some PCM conversions of your own to 24/176.4, try the soft filter. And listen in your own system.

Some DACs may produce better sound on DSD, some with PCM, but if people make their own comparisons, they will have a better understanding of how things sound in their own systems.

I am not sure why anyone would want to start these types of compaprisons with a PCM source (the confusingly named "DXD") although, I suspect that "DXD" when done well is transparent anyway... but for the sake of keeping things fair for DSD, I would prefer a native DSD file be used for comparisons.

 

No. I don't dismiss it. I choose embrace it and do what is needed in filtering it. PCM has it's filters and those who specialize in them make them differently. I have read Charles white paper and I have spoken to industry leaders such as Jurgen at MBL. I don't judge them because they both feel they are right and who am I to judge what the signature sound of their products should be. Look a filter is a filter is a filter...

 

Jesus R

[barrows]

Jesus: Sorry for any confusions, I was responding to Tom.

And, Tom: sorry for my confusion, I re-read your post and realized you were comparing native DXD to native DSD, but it was too late for me to edit my previous post.

 

And, why wouldn't Ayre include DSD playback (and record on the QA-9) capabilities on the QB-9? It is easy to do so, and Mr Hansen himself agrees that there are some titles where DSD is the best sounding version available. The fact is that adding DSD capability adds no significant cost to the QB-9 (as long as you consider that the upgrade improves performance across the board, and is not just to add DSD capability) so of course it makes sense to allow for DSD playback capability.

I suggest that anyone who is curious to learn more about what Mr Hansen is saying, and the design approach of his company, read the Stereophile review of the QA-9 ADC he has linked below-there are many details there which might illuminate how PCM can achieve improved performance.