ANOTHER Example of Why I HATE DSD and Why Customers Who Bought Sony's Boloney Are So Annoying

[beetlemania]

. . . available for pennies on the dollar of the price of Ayre hardware products.

 

A) If HQPlayer can make a $1k DAC sound like a QB-9, that would really, Really, REALLY be something. Color me skeptical.

 

B) To my ears, HQP makes no difference whatsoever to the SQ of a QB-9.

 

I think it's pointless to compare software and hardware.

[Charles Hansen]

All that he has talked about is real, and available for pennies on the dollar of the price of Ayre hardware products.

 

Actually I was referring to his hardware products, which he has said many times are not for sale and only used for his software development.

 

Thanks,

[Hiro]

I am particularly impressed by Chord QuteHD especially if it gains DSD128 capability, because it combines original engineering, good performance and reasonable price tag.

 

I'm impressed by:

+ FPGA-based Delta Sigma DAC running at 100MHz.

+ native DSD64 support (rumored support for DSD128, already implemented in Chord Codex)

+ very low jitter and SNR via Sony/Philips Digital Interface

 

 

Less so, by:

- underwhelming SNR (16bit) and 13X higher jitter via USB interface

- need for investing in a separate PSU (drives up the price of the DAC)

[Hiro]

We are both dreamers. I think the main difference is that I want to design and build things that will be used and bought in the real world, whereas Miska's ideas are more along the lines of "What would be possible if there were NO constraints whatsoever beyond one's own imagination.?"

 

What's stopping his ideas (for example, the multi-level DSD input) from being implemented in an FPGA chip?

[wappinghigh]

I've been following this thread with interest, trying to add my 2 cents and the more I learn and the more I follow this fantastic thread with all you knowledgable people, the more I am coming around the Charles Hansen's point of view.

 

I'm just fed up with not being able to play my DSD files (yes they are my purchased files darn it) the way I want to. Fed up ya here..

 

If it's Sony's problem (with the original DSD format)..well then I'm fed up with Sony not offering a DSD capable multichannel streamer..

 

If it's Linn's problem..can they just get their finger stuck out of their "we know better than everybody else and who want's DSD anyway" attitude and do this for their customers...

 

If it's a problem with UPnP , well then fix the standard.

 

If it's volume dithering or filters, then make em work..

 

Can just someone make me a darn Mulitchannel UPnP gapless streamer that handles PCM *And* DSD files for F sake.

 

Is that to much to ask? It shouldn't be *that* difficult! LOL!!!

 

So I'm over it. I'm with you Chuckie it's all a load of s(*^(*)*(&)( B^%$$%$%$$#t

[pacwin]

3c) The sonic "quality" of DSD is strongly related and/or caused by the noise-shaping filter used in the feedback loop of the modulator.

QUOTE]

 

Charles,

 

You might enjoy a stroll through an interesting doctoral thesis defended in 2010 at the University of Technology at Eindhoven by Erwin Janssen and now readable online. Janssen and his colleague Reefman has published extensively in the past on 1 bit audio research for Philips. The most interesting chapter is the last where he demonstrates using advanced trellis/look ahead ninth order schemes 190dB SNR with 1 bit audio which is nearly equivalent to 32 bit PCM resolution. The theoretical maximum evidently, given enough computing power and ideal conditions, is 425dB which is equivalent to 70bit PCM resolution.

 

"... Although with this approach a world-record SNR for a 1-bit noise-shaped signal has been achieved, it is still far away from the limits imposed by information theory. As such, in practice the SNR is only limited by the amount of available computational power that is required to stabilize the higher order filters"

 

Look-ahead sigma-delta modulation and its application to super audio CD

 

Janssen, E. (2010). Look-ahead sigma-delta modulation and its application to super audio CD. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. ((Co-)promot.: prof.dr.ir. A.H.M. van Roermund).

 

These processing algorithms can also help pack more data onto SACD disks (20% gain).

 

My advice is to consider to hire Miska/license his code and develop a multichannel DSD playback solution complete with full featured room correction/convolution of the DSD data and that will work with the principal music server systems. This is what many of us are waiting for at least in certain genres of music interest.

 

 

Janssen has also recently co-authored a book on look ahead S-D modulators.

 

http://www.springer.com/engineering/circuits+%26+systems/book/978-94-007-1386-4

[wappinghigh]

My advice is to consider to hire Miska/license his code and develop a multichannel DSD playback solution complete with full featured room correction/convolution of the DSD data and that will work with the principal music server systems. This is what many of us are waiting for at least in certain genres of music interest.

 

 

You got it!!!!!!!

[edorr]

My advice is to consider to hire Miska/license his code and develop a multichannel DSD playback solution complete with full featured room correction/convolution of the DSD data and that will work with the principal music server systems. This is what many of us are waiting for at least in certain genres of music interest.

 

Thought 1: Never take business advice from an engineer. Sony could offset the losses incurred through pursuing their DSD pipedreams by selling more playstations. If Charles falls into the same trap he'll be out of business.

 

Thought 2: The same musical purist guys that have been avoiding DRC forever because it messes up the signal, are now clamoring for DRC in the DSD domain? How many of you are using DRC for their 2 channel systems with PCM sources (CDs)? Why not start where the content is?

 

Thought 3: If you forget about the DRC, you can already do this. Get the exasound MCH DSD dac, and presto - you're in business. You can not do channel delay, but that is all really.

[wappinghigh]

 

Thought 3: If you forget about the DRC, you can already do this. Get the exasound MCH DSD dac, and presto - you're in business. You can do channel delay, but that is all really.

 

^ Nice one. I'm a fussy geezer. I'll wait for the UPnP version.

[mav52]

Thought 1: Never take business advice from an engineer. Sony could offset the losses incurred through pursuing their DSD pipedreams by selling more playstations. If Charles falls into the same trap he'll be out of business.

 

Thought 2: The same musical purist guys that have been avoiding DRC forever because it messes up the signal, are now clamoring for DRC in the DSD domain? How many of you are using DRC for their 2 channel systems with PCM sources (CDs)? Why not start where the content is?

 

Thought 3: If you forget about the DRC, you can already do this. Get the exasound MCH DSD dac, and presto - you're in business. You can do channel delay, but that is all really.

 

edorr , Charles or someone, I had heard that True DRC only works on DD/DTS sources, is that true ?

[edorr]

^ Nice one. I'm a fussy geezer. I'll wait for the UPnP version.

 

If you don't need a DSD DSP engine, just streaming MCH DSD into a MCH DSD Dac with master volume control and channel trim (in the analog domain) should be easy to build. If Exasound is selling their MCH USB DAC like hotcakes and the market is moving to streaming, they will build one, or someone else will beat them to it.

[edorr]

edorr , Charles or someone, I had heard that True DRC only works on DD/DTS sources, is that true ?

 

All DRC engines work in the PCM domain. Decoding DD/DTS gives you PCM so yes this true, but only partially, because "true DRC" with all codecs that are decoded natively to PCM (including say Flac). DSD needs to be converted to PCM in order to run through a fully capable DSP engine, which is causing some of the fine audiophiles on this forum a lot of heartache, and is even making life unbearable for some.

[wappinghigh]

If you don't need a DSD DSP engine, just streaming MCH DSD into a MCH DSD Dac with master volume control and channel trim (in the analog domain) should be easy to build. If Exasound is selling their MCH USB DAC like hotcakes and the market is moving to streaming, they will build one, or someone else will beat them to it.

 

Well sure. But show me the product!!! Just show me the bleedin' product. Like we have been waiting years...

[wappinghigh]

Look guys. If you guys can't see that UPnP is the future for Audio distribution (that is for people who want control of their own library).. (ie a different market from the internet radio streaming guys..anyway there is no reason why both could be brought together in the same product ...)..

 

Anyway if you can't see that UPnP is the future then I give up.

 

I keep saying folks playback via USB is yesterday's technology.

 

Attaching something like a computer to a DAC is soooo like 19C...

 

JRiver is dead. So is Audiovarna (or whatever it's called), and Amarra, and all those other itunes hang on programs. So is Miska's program unless he moves it into the streaming domain... OMG. Wake up guys! LOL!!!!!

[edorr]

Well sure. But show me the product!!! Just show me the bleedin' product. Like we have been waiting years...

 

Years ago there were no downloadable MCH DSDs. Now there are close to none. Manufacturers don't build products catering to the hackers marker (i.e. Playstation rippers). Patience my friend. First we need a mass conversion of the general public to classical music lovers.

[mav52]

All DRC engines work in the PCM domain. Decoding DD/DTS gives you PCM so yes this true, but only partially, because "true DRC" with all codecs that are decoded natively to PCM (including say Flac). DSD needs to be converted to PCM in order to run through a fully capable DSP engine, which is causing some of the fine audiophiles on this forum a lot of heartache, and is even making life unbearable for some.

 

Thank you

[Hiro]

Look guys. If you guys can't see that UPnP is the future for Audio distribution (that is for people who want control of their own library).. (ie a different market from the internet radio streaming guys..anyway there is no reason why both could be brought together in the same product ...)..

 

Anyway if you can't see that UPnP is the future then I give up.

 

I keep saying folks playback via USB is yesterday's technology.

 

Attaching something like a computer to a DAC is soooo like 19C...

 

JRiver is dead. So is Audiovarna (or whatever it's called), and Amarra, and all those other itunes hang on programs. So is Miska's program unless he moves it into the streaming domain... OMG. Wake up guys! LOL!!!!!

 

I agree that streaming DSD over UPNP/DLNA is the future. There's something problematic about putting your computer on your hi-fi rack every time you want to listen to music. Streaming DSD files from a NAS to a Network player remotely controlled via iPod/iPad seems far more sleek and 21C. That being said, some people may be perfectly happy with a USB DAC connected to a computer.

[ted_b]

I agree that streaming DSD over UPNP/DLNA is the future. There's something problematic about putting your computer on your hi-fi rack every time you want to listen to music. Streaming DSD files from a NAS to a Network player remotely controlled via iPod/iPad seems far more sleek and 21C. That being said, some people may be perfectly happy with a USB DAC connected to a computer.

 

Hiro,

I respect your posts, but you lost me. You don't want to put a music server (computer) on your hi-fi rack, but you are willing to put a streaming box (computer) on it. ?? Not sure of the logic in your statement. I assume you still want a separate DAC (streaming box does not mean integrated DAC per se..especially for those of us who have very capable DACs and/or want typical dedicated component flexibility). Streaming or not streaming, you still have a "computer" in your hi-fi system...it might look different, and most of all it's just accepting data differently.

 

Maybe it's me but I believe the vast majority of serious users here do not use a general-use computer for serving music, so they do not have to "put your computer on your hi-fi rack every time you want to listen to music".

[psme]

Manufacturers don't build products catering to the hackers marker (i.e. Playstation rippers).

 

I'm not so sure about that! On the other hand, none of my audiophile friends do audiophile MCH. Anyway it's off topic...

[Maldur]

There's something problematic about putting your computer on your hi-fi rack every time you want to listen to music.

 

I personally have two (2) computers permanently connected to "rack", I don't see the problem there. Even NAS not needed - because computers are MacPro's with four HDD bays each. Noise... not problem at all, because they are physically in different room (behind the speakers and screen). Computers are controlled via iPod/iPad and via Apple remote (with Mira software and USB dongle).

Sound output coming from modded ESI Juli@ coax SPDIF (or even via analog when needed).

Why two computers?

One for audio/video (with terrestial DVB-T HD and satellite DVB-S2 HD PVR Elgato EyeTV) and one for pure audio, for analog recordings.

Maybe it's me but I believe the vast majority of serious users here do not use a general-use computer for serving music, so they do not have to "put your computer on your hi-fi rack every time you want to listen to music".

[edorr]

Hiro,

I respect your posts, but you lost me. You don't want to put a music server (computer) on your hi-fi rack, but you are willing to put a streaming box (computer) on it. ?? Not sure of the logic in your statement. I assume you still want a separate DAC (streaming box does not mean integrated DAC per se..especially for those of us who have very capable DACs and/or want typical dedicated component flexibility). Streaming or not streaming, you still have a "computer" in your hi-fi system...it might look different, and most of all it's just accepting data differently.

 

Maybe it's me but I believe the vast majority of serious users here do not use a general-use computer for serving music, so they do not have to "put your computer on your hi-fi rack every time you want to listen to music".

 

You can put a very small footprint computer behind your audio rack, control it via iPad and send data via USB to the DAC. The beauty of this architecture is you can have powerful features on the PC - all very cheaply - and let the DAC just be the DAC. If you stream to the DAC you still need a PC and DLNA server, but a lot of processing moves to the DAC. This is not necessarily desirable, because now the DAC vendor needs to stay up do date with codecs, enable gapless and make it all work seamlessly. This is not trivial. The beauty of streaming to the DAC is you go from a data feed over Ethernet to a processor / buffer and feed the DAC I2S which should be sonically superior, all else being equal. All else is of course never equal, but streaming is very elegant in principle.

[SoNic67]

^ Nice one. I'm a fussy geezer. I'll wait for the UPnP version.

I agree that streaming DSD over UPNP/DLNA is the future.

Just forget about UPnP/DNLA. It's crap, UPnP was not well defined from beginning. Then the DNLA come and butchered it even further...

If you don't believe me, read this blog:

 

http://gxben.wordpress.com/2008/08/24/why-do-i-hate-dlna-protocol-so-much/

[ted_b]

You can put a very small footprint computer behind your audio rack, control it via iPad and send data via USB to the DAC. The beauty of this architecture is you can have powerful features on the PC - all very cheaply - and let the DAC just be the DAC. If you stream to the DAC you still need a PC and DLNA server, but a lot of processing moves to the DAC. This is not necessarily desirable, because now the DAC vendor needs to stay up do date with codecs, enable gapless and make it all work seamlessly. This is not trivial. The beauty of streaming to the DAC is you go from a data feed over Ethernet to a processor / buffer and feed the DAC I2S which should be sonically superior, all else being equal. All else is of course never equal, but streaming is very elegant in principle.

 

Erik..yes, we are saying the exact same thing. It is what I do. My point to Hiro is that most of us don't use our daily general-use computers for servers, and that we would not need to put it in our setup and out of our setup on a daily basis. Mine is an i7-based WS 2012, behind the 2 channel setup, in a nice little Streamcom case, with heatpipes.. And then to think that a streamer is not a computer...well that is just marketing.

[Miska]

All DRC engines work in the PCM domain. Decoding DD/DTS gives you PCM so yes this true, but only partially, because "true DRC" with all codecs that are decoded natively to PCM (including say Flac). DSD needs to be converted to PCM in order to run through a fully capable DSP engine, which is causing some of the fine audiophiles on this forum a lot of heartache, and is even making life unbearable for some.

 

I have two completely separate equally capable DSP engines, one for PCM and one for SDM (DSD)...

[edorr]

I have two completely separate equally capable DSP engines, one for PCM and one for SDM (DSD)...

 

I anticipated this response. If your software can do in DSD domain what say Trinnov or Dirac can do with PCM you need to talk to a venture capitalist and bring this to market quickly.