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

[tailspn]

BTW, didn't Bob Ludwig say the DSD files were virtually indistinguishable from the analog tapes?

 

With a good ADC, like the Grimm, and the chip used in the Ayer QA-9 and Merging Horus, the DSD files are virtually indistinguishable from mic feeds premixed in analog.

[Adyc]

Absolute rubbish. Then again, I have no idea of your definition of "great musicians".

 

No disrespect to musicians like in Channel Classics. I would be rejoiced if I can buy 24/192 or DSD from DG, Decca, Philips or EMI. These companies at the moment are not very interested in releasing their music archive in high res music. They do release a few copies @24/96. Even Chandos only releases 24/96. However, I see this is the way for them to make more money because they can release 24/192 or DSD version a few years later if there is demand.

 

To be honest, I am quite happy with the sound from their CD releases. I download a few copies from Channel Classics. However, I can only say I prefer performance over sound quality. Furthermore, I do not think there is BIG improvement in sound moving from CD to DSD such that I cannot listen to CD anymore.

 

I am not sure whether we need to settle in one format either. The only way to buy high res music is through internet. And it is convenient for the record companies to offer both in DSD or 24/192.

[Miska]

Our A/D converter uses a 12.288 MHz, 6-bit modulator which has FAR, FAR more resolution than the modulators you describe in your post.

 

Again, output that as a 12.288 MHz 8-bit byte stream and don't do any PCM conversion. Much better than any PCM conversion.

 

If you must convert to PCM, convert it to 1.536 MHz 32-bit PCM and pass that out.

 

By the way, why does the modulator noise bump in figure 11 look much more like DSD64 than something like DSD128 or DSD256? At 12.288 MHz it shouldn't start appearing from the noise floor until ~80 kHz. Here:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-qa-9-usb-ad-converter-measurements

 

Other than that, 6-bit has just managed to lower it by 36 dB (with likely tradeoff in linearity).

[Miska]

Other than that, 6-bit has just managed to lower it by 36 dB (with likely tradeoff in linearity).

 

Argh, sorry, of course 30 dB not 36... (shouldn't be writing here at 3 am)

 

IMO, it should be two octaves higher though at that sampling rate.

[Miska]

Argh, sorry, of course 30 dB not 36... (shouldn't be writing here at 3 am)

 

Oh, and if it's variant of unary coding like proper SDMs do, it has whopping 14 dB more SNR (14 dB less noise) than 1-bit DSD. Meaning it would be a seven-level SDM.

[Robert Hutton]

No disrespect to musicians like in Channel Classics. I would be rejoiced if I can buy 24/192 or DSD from DG, Decca, Philips or EMI. These companies at the moment are not very interested in releasing their music archive in high res music. They do release a few copies @24/96. Even Chandos only releases 24/96. However, I see this is the way for them to make more money because they can release 24/192 or DSD version a few years later if there is demand.

 

To be honest, I am quite happy with the sound from their CD releases. I download a few copies from Channel Classics. However, I can only say I prefer performance over sound quality. Furthermore, I do not think there is BIG improvement in sound moving from CD to DSD such that I cannot listen to CD anymore.

 

I am not sure whether we need to settle in one format either. The only way to buy high res music is through internet. And it is convenient for the record companies to offer both in DSD or 24/192.

 

I agree that Channel among others are offering glorious sounding second rate performances by third tier artists.

 

Chandos - and recently BIS, as well as Decca and DG are only recording at 24/96. There will never be anything better from those recordings.

 

On the other hand, the much more interesting DaCapo is recording at 24/192 more often, even the occasional DXD. So is Ondine, but they seem to have not embraced online hi-res yet.

 

I take performance over sound also, but I have to say that I have increasing difficulty listening to 16/44. It is simply flat and one dimensional compared to any 24 bit recording regardless of sampling rate. DSD I have become warmer to, I still do not prefer it to 24/192 PCM, but it greatly exceeds CD to me.

 

What would be most convenient to record companies is to simply offer the native format only - DSD or PCM.

[wdw]

Ok Guys - Enough personal comments. I've received too many emails about this thread turning into a pissing match. If the personal stuff continues I may simply remove the entire thread. Combing through each post can be more time consuming than it's worth. Act like adults people.

 

Chris,

 

Please don't remove this one, as this is one of the most fascinating threads I've seen for some time...we should all feel free to have our weighed opinions (admittedly without agenda) and Mr. C.H. has a perceptive I welcome. So there are a few darlings, and we know there are.....they'll survive!

 

WW

[wdw]

double post...WW

[wdw]

[

QUOTE=Robert Hutton;231434]I agree that Channel among others are offering glorious sounding second rate performances by third tier artists.

 

true....mean spirited but may be truly an artifact of audiophilia, listening to sonics rather than music.

 

But...and PeeWee Herman wisely said " We all have a big but..."

 

....sometimes the simple physical noise/sound/music is a tonic for the human heart.

 

Music should never be a killing field

WDW

[labjr]

Ok Guys - Enough personal comments. I've received too many emails about this thread turning into a pissing match. If the personal stuff continues I may simply remove the entire thread. Combing through each post can be more time consuming than it's worth. Act like adults people.

 

Occasionally, I hang out with a couple guys from Boxing Commission. Nothing sells lots of tickets like a good fight.

[beetlemania]

There is one group that is working on making good sounding recordings be the standard format. That is Pono, led by Neil Young. There is a lot of support for what they are doing among the big record labels. They are working on it. It MAY be successful. It is the only system that has any chance of success. It uses 192/24 PCM. I know some people who have heard the prototype system. They have said that it sounds incredible.

 

Again, I'm looking forward to trying DSD for myself atho' it's hard to believe that it could be better than SACD.

 

But, much more, I'm looking forward to Pono, ie, music I'm willing to pay for.

 

Thanks again for your information and perspectives. It will be a shame if Chris kills this thread (altho' if you check out the "Linkbacks", you'll see that a lot of people believe the thread's title).

[barrows]

I think almost everyone who buys or makes high end audio knows this by now. Nobody else really cares. Things were different 15 years ago. Computers couldn't handle handle high resolution formats and hard drives weren't large enough to store it all. But times have changed. The internet has grown. When you look back it's easy to see what Sony was doing. But before age of powerful computers and internet, audiophiles wanted something better than CD.

 

 

 

 

 

So why isn't someone doing this now? Why isn't there a consortium with a common goal of making the highest possible quality recording system which will benefit PCM and DSD people.

 

L: I think this is pretty clear already from Charles' responses. The motivation behind record companies is profit, and not recording quality. These companies view the consumer as a rather simple person who is concerned with convenience over quality. Sure, there will be audiophile niche companies trying to make something better, but most consumers these days are listening to low bit rate mp3 files. There is no money (at least not the big money the recording companies are looking for) in developing a new format with the goal of higher quality sound-hell, convenience brought us the LP 33 1/3 rpm, a step down in sound quality from the 78 rpm discs which preceded it, then the cassette tape, a step down from the LP, then the CD, a replacement for cassettes, another step down from the LP, then mp3. Convenience for the consumer drives the development of new formats, not sound quality.

I happen to agree with Mr Hansen, right now, we have a chance, for the first time in a long time, that it might be possible for record companies to adopt an approach where they might be willing to release music in levels of resolution: mp3, 24/48, 24/176.4, etc. since the distribution is no longer tied to the expense of a physical medium and different hardware to record and playback the different resolution levels. But DSD does require a huge change for everyone (studios, mastering rooms, and consumers) which is much less likely to happen.

[Hiro]

we have a chance, for the first time in a long time, that it might be possible for record companies to adopt an approach where they might be willing to release music in levels of resolution: mp3, 24/48, 24/176.4, etc. since the distribution is no longer tied to the expense of a physical medium and different hardware to record and playback the different resolution levels. But DSD does require a huge change for everyone (studios, mastering rooms, and consumers) which is much less likely to happen.

 

With the proliferation of DSD-ready pro-hardware (operating at 2.8MHz, 5.6MHz, 11.2MHz) and consumer DACs, the DSD files can only grow in popularity. It would be a damn shame, if they didn't.

[Hiro]

BTW, those of you living the fantasy that people will massively adopt 24/192 files are in for a shock. The format failed not once but many times already (DAD,HDAD, DVD-A...) and removing the physical disc from the picture won't make its adoption any easier. The larger files that can't be played on every device will be PITA for the average consumer who couldn't care less about higher than CD resolution. It will be funny, though, to read the marketing nonsense about 144dB performance beamed at unsuspecting consumers listening to pop records that can hardly make use of half the dynamic range.

[k-man]

There will ALWAYS be creative people that will be perfectly happy to make tubed equipment in their garage. They will be happy to have a little one-man company and make equipment that they like and if they can make a living at it, then they will be completely satisfied.

 

Charles,

You could easily be referring to the great David Berning. Your review of his ZH-270 is on his website. Should bring back some good memories. I also know one other CA member who owns this amp ;-)

[Charles Hansen]

Charles, I wish I had more time to reply to your biased and misleading posts about DSD. Unfortunately I can barely scratch the surface, and not even Gus, Tom and Miska together can keep up correcting them.

 

Yawn.

[Charles Hansen]

Thank you again Charles for your very detailed response. I would like to say I understood it perfectly but then I would lie.

Can you please explain the following part of your answer in other terms and give me a definition of what is a "switching power supply". As you see, my English isn't as fine as needed.

 

Hello Onkle,

 

Your English is fine. A switching power supply has rectifiers connected directly to the AC main supply in your house. This creates (in Europe) a DC voltage of 325 volts. Then instead of using a transformer at 50 Hz, they use MOSFETs as high speed switches to turn the high DC voltage on and off to make a square wave, usually between 100 kHz and 1 MHz. The reason to do this is that the higher the frequency, the smaller, lighter, and CHEAPER the power transformer needs to be. So they can make a very low-cost power supply.

 

But it is bad enough to have such high frequency signals on your AC power mains in your home. It is even worse because it is a square wave and the harmonics reach at least 10x the fundamental frequency. So you are generating RFI between 1 MHz and 10 MHz and it is coupled to all of wires in your home. It radiates from these wires (they make a very good antenna!) and it also is coupled through the power cords into the rest of your stereo system also. All of this RFI degrades the performance of any sound system. Many people spend hundreds of dollars to purchase linear power supplies to replace the switching power supply that comes with the computer.

 

If you are interested in electronics, that is a fairly simple project to start with. But BE VERY CAREFUL!! The voltages inside the box are enough to kill you! So don't just do something unless you know it is the right thing. If you can finds some plans on the internet, that may be helpful. Or it may be better to just purchase something that is already made. I am sure that you can find many companies that advertise at Computer Audiophile who make and sell linear power supplies for Mac computers. Another very good source of information is:

 

The Well-Tempered Computer

 

Best regards,

[Charles Hansen]

By the way, why does the modulator noise bump in figure 11 look much more like DSD64 than something like DSD128 or DSD256? At 12.288 MHz it shouldn't start appearing from the noise floor until ~80 kHz. Here:

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

 

Miska, Miska, Miska,

 

I hope that you take more care with your products than you do with your posts. Figure 11 in the Stereophile article is a measurement of the dCS converter. You know the one that uses the 5-bit "Ring DAC"?

 

You would have to ask dCS about their designs. I know nothing about them.

 

Regards,

[Charles Hansen]

Charles,

You could easily be referring to the great David Berning. Your review of his ZH-270 is on his website. Should bring back some good memories. I also know one other CA member who owns this amp ;-)

 

Hello K-Man,

 

I know that it is confusing, but there are actually TWO "Charles Hansen"s in audio. I live in Colorado and manufacture equipment. The other Charles Hansen lives in Maryland (I believe) and is retired from a career designing something like radar equipment. (I'm sorry I can't remember better.) He often writes articles for AudioXpress magazine (formerly The Audio Amateur). There has been so much confusion over this that about two years ago I asked him to use his nick-name "Chuck" as he sometimes likes to do. He readily agreed and for the last two or three years all of his articles have the byline "Chuck Hansen". He is a very nice man and very enthusiastic about audio but normally stays to less esoteric subjects than the things that we do at Ayre.

 

But yes, David Berning has a day job working for the Federal Government in Washington, DC. He designs and builds small quantities of very interesting tube-based amplifiers strictly as a hobby.

 

Best regards,

[firedog]

SACD's are DSD. Just need to RIP them. So DSD is the best digital format that these albums are available in.

 

BTW, didn't Bob Ludwig say the DSD files were virtually indistinguishable from the analog tapes?

 

Again, you miss the point. People in this thread are so involved in the miniscule computer audiophile world that they can't see past the ends of their noses to see how the world works.

 

SACDs are NOT not DSD files. I can't play the DSD layer of a Stones SACDon my PC or transfer it to my HD. "Just" ripping them requires hacking a hard to find and no longer produced PS3 (and in the near future there will probably won't be any more of them that still work on the market). There are maybe 2000 - 3000 people max in the entire world who rip SACDs.

 

This number will not grow much (and if it grows to 4000 or 5000 people that is insignificant), as it is exactly the type of thing 99% of users never want to do.Too geeky and too much trouble for most people. It is a dead end as a commercial/consumer channel. The discussions at this forum about SACD ripping are not even relevant to more than a tiny fraction of people who already own SACD players. Even many professionals in the audio and equipment fields know nothing about it.

 

Those of you in this thread who think SACD ripping under the present HW and software constraints will become in any sense a mainstream activity of music lovers are deluding themselves.

 

So again, the DSD has NOT been released. It is not available in any normal sense of the world to the general music loving public. When the DSD files of the Stones ABKCO albums are available for legal download, then the situation will have changed.

[Axiom05]

BTW, those of you living the fantasy that people will massively adopt 24/192 files are in for a shock. The format failed not once but many times already (DAD,HDAD, DVD-A...) and removing the physical disc from the picture won't make its adoption any easier. The larger files that can't be played on every device will be PITA for the average consumer who couldn't care less about higher than CD resolution. It will be funny, though, to read the marketing nonsense about 144dB performance beamed at unsuspecting consumers listening to pop records that can hardly make use of half the dynamic range.

 

LOL! This exact thing applies to DSD, only more so (which is what Charles Hansen has been saying). If you think that 24/192 files are too much of a PITA for average consumers why would DSD files be any better? As far as I can see it is worse: two different file formats, one that is non-compressible (lossless) and one that cannot incorporate tags. Will the average consumer pay $35+ for one album download? I am not saying anything about sound quality, which is probably not relevant for commercial success (unfortunately), and I am not debating the merits of PCM vs DSD. This is probably also why the major music labels have not jumped into Hi-Res with both feet first, i.e., the average consumer does not care about Hi-res or Hi-End DACS or advanced music players. The average consumer provides the critical mass for commercial success and without that critical mass behind a format the major players will not get on board in a big way.

[REShaman]

Again, you miss the point. People in this thread are so involved in the miniscule computer audiophile world that they can't see past the ends of their noses to see how the world works.

 

SACDs are NOT not DSD files. I can't play the DSD layer of a Stones SACDon my PC or transfer it to my HD. "Just" ripping them requires hacking a hard to find and no longer produced PS3 (and in the near future there will probably won't be any more of them that still work on the market). There are maybe 2000 - 3000 people max in the entire world who rip SACDs.

 

This number will not grow much (and if it grows to 4000 or 5000 people that is insignificant), as it is exactly the type of thing 99% of users never want to do.Too geeky and too much trouble for most people. It is a dead end as a commercial/consumer channel. The discussions at this forum about SACD ripping are not even relevant to more than a tiny fraction of people who already own SACD players. Even many professionals in the audio and equipment fields know nothing about it.

 

Those of you in this thread who think SACD ripping under the present HW and software constraints will become in any sense a mainstream activity of music lovers are deluding themselves.

 

So again, the DSD has NOT been released. It is not available in any normal sense of the world to the general music loving public. When the DSD files of the Stones ABKCO albums are available for legal download, then the situation will have changed.

 

Concur. From your mouth to G-D's PS3 to my music collection. ;>}

Best,

Richard

[REShaman]

LOL! This exact thing applies to DSD, only more so (which is what Charles Hansen has been saying). If you think that 24/192 files are too much of a PITA for average consumers why would DSD files be any better? As far as I can see it is worse: two different file formats, one that is non-compressible (lossless) and one that cannot incorporate tags. Will the average consumer pay $35+ for one album download? I am not saying anything about sound quality, which is probably not relevant for commercial success (unfortunately), and I am not debating the merits of PCM vs DSD. This is probably also why the major music labels have not jumped into Hi-Res with both feet first, i.e., the average consumer does not care about Hi-res or Hi-End DACS or advanced music players. The average consumer provides the critical mass for commercial success and without that critical mass behind a format the major players will not get on board in a big way.

 

Where does that leave me? I am not the average consumer. I already pay close to that $35 for Hybrid SACD and much more for SHM SACD. I want my MTV, er' SACD/DSD and eat it. And I also support Hi-Res PCM. There is nothing about me that is average consumer. So feed me. Please, Sir, Can I have some more? :>}

 

Best,

Richard

[mav52]

Again, you miss the point. People in this thread are so involved in the miniscule computer audiophile world that they can't see past the ends of their noses to see how the world works.

 

SACDs are NOT not DSD files. I can't play the DSD layer of a Stones SACDon my PC or transfer it to my HD. "Just" ripping them requires hacking a hard to find and no longer produced PS3 (and in the near future there will probably won't be any more of them that still work on the market). There are maybe 2000 - 3000 people max in the entire world who rip SACDs.

 

This number will not grow much (and if it grows to 4000 or 5000 people that is insignificant), as it is exactly the type of thing 99% of users never want to do.Too geeky and too much trouble for most people. It is a dead end as a commercial/consumer channel. The discussions at this forum about SACD ripping are not even relevant to more than a tiny fraction of people who already own SACD players. Even many professionals in the audio and equipment fields know nothing about it.

 

Those of you in this thread who think SACD ripping under the present HW and software constraints will become in any sense a mainstream activity of music lovers are deluding themselves.

 

So again, the DSD has NOT been released. It is not available in any normal sense of the world to the general music loving public. When the DSD files of the Stones ABKCO albums are available for legal download, then the situation will have changed.

 

 

+ 2 Very well said..

 

And like your comment

People in this thread are so involved in the miniscule computer audiophile world that they can't see past the ends of their noses to see how the world works.

Some people get so wrapped up in the technical side of things that they at times miss out on the enjoyment of just the music. Maybe that is the reason I still enjoy my turntable and tubes.

[pawel8]

What would happen to the sound if PCM is converted to DSD using Weiss Saracon software?