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

[Miska]

The infatuation with DSD is a marketing driven circus created to sell hardware no one really needs, and give audiophiles with too much time on their hands something to talk about on the forums.

 

Yeah, I spent only a year (and some €€€) designing and building DSD DAC that I'm not selling to anybody because I'm not interested on hardware business. Plus all the effort I've put into developing delta-sigma modulators to produce DSD from PCM source. All just for sake of marketing circus (with huge marketing budget of 0€)!

 

There is much more to be gained from relentlessy innovating hardware to the point that the SQ of a DAC now costing $20K can be had for $2K

 

That's precisely what DSD128 and higher allow, by running oversampling filters and delta-sigma modulators in software. You can strip almost all of the digital side of current DACs and they suddenly become much cheaper and simpler devices. Yes, I can see that certain $$$ hardware manufacturers are very, very afraid of such thing. And don't save effort on trying to play and hush it down.

[Hiro]

Great! I guess they have created their own driver and their application talk directly to it (something like ProTools is doing)? Or how do they expose DSD in non-DoP way to third party applications?

 

Korg doesn't support DoP at all, so going the native DSD route was the only way for them. Sadly, their driver enabling 2.8224MHz, 5.6448Mhz DSD playback on Mac OS X is not available to third parties at the moment.

[SoNic67]

I am one of the ones that fights on this forum against the new "trend" of infatuation over DSD.

I am glad that Charles Hansen took the chance to tell the truth about this DSD crap, instead of playing it into marketing schemes like many other manufactures.

 

PS: I still want to see some technical specs regarding THD+N for their products.

[Miska]

I am one of the ones that fights on this forum against the new "trend" of infatuation over DSD.

I am glad that Charles Hansen took the chance to tell the truth about this DSD crap, instead of playing it into marketing schemes like many other manufactures.

 

Do you have other proposals on how to bypass crappy oversampling digital filters and delta-sigma modulators of DAC chips, other than DSD?

 

I already support also 8-bit delta-sigma output, but unfortunately only DAC that supports it is my own... I'm extremely happy if I see suitable multi-bit DACs appearing on the market. My own multi-bit can currently do 8-bit at 256x rate and doesn't have any hardware DSP at all, everything on software (in player application).

 

PCM DACs with hard-coded oversampling digital filters and delta-sigma modulators? No thanks, not going to buy.

[Miska]

Korg doesn't support DoP at all, so going the native DSD route was the only way for them. Sadly, their driver enabling 2.8224MHz, 5.6448Mhz DSD playback on Mac OS X is not available to third parties at the moment.

 

Do they support ASIO DSD or something like that on Windows for third party applications? Or is their DAC tied to their player also there?

[Blake]

I view this DSD fad as being analogous to the current 3D feature fad on televisions.

 

Something added that we really don't need, purely for the purpose of allowing manufacturers to sell more units.

[Miska]

I view this DSD fad as being analogous to the current 3D feature fad on televisions.

 

Something added that we really don't need, purely for the purpose of allowing manufacturers to sell more units.

 

I could say PCM is the thing I don't need at all. I'm playing everything as DSD, so I don't really need or want any PCM capabilities from a DAC.

 

IMO, making a pure DSD-only DAC is the perfect item for future. Extremely simple, inexpensive and high performing device. And performance can be software-upgraded every now and then.

[edorr]

I could say PCM is the thing I don't need at all. I'm playing everything as DSD, so I don't really need or want any PCM capabilities from a DAC.

 

IMO, making a pure DSD-only DAC is the perfect item for future. Extremely simple, inexpensive and high performing device. And performance can be software-upgraded every now and then.

 

That is precisely the problem. If 99.99% of the content is in PCM, but you "don't need it", because there is a better mousetrap (DSD), you are obviously not in it for the music.

[SoNic67]

Miska, the DSD DAC was tried and failed because the inherent DSD flaws. Why reinvent the wheel?

http://www.grimmaudio.com/whitepapers/discrete%20ad%20converter.pdf

 

PCM DACs with hard-coded oversampling digital filters and delta-sigma modulators? No thanks, not going to buy.

Well, try true multibit DAC's with good separated digital filters. Or use your own software oversampling with NOS multibit... if that's your pleasure.

[Miska]

Miska, the DSD DAC was tried and failed because the inherent DSD flaws. Why reinvent the wheel?

 

Could you be more specific? The ones I have perform very well, from both measured and sound perspective.

 

http://www.grimmaudio.com/whitepapers/discrete%20ad%20converter.pdf

 

How is that related to anything?

 

For fun, from the same guy:

DAC

 

See the line with "100 MHz 1-bit" arrow going to the DAC section... So this is practically a DSD DAC running at 100 MHz. DSD = PDM = PWM, PWM is PDM where adjacent 1's or 0's are joined together and don't cause a state transition.

 

I just run equivalent of what "SHARC1", "SHARC2" and "SHARC3" there do, in player software, but in better way (because of more available number crunching power), especially for DSD.

[Miska]

That is precisely the problem. If 99.99% of the content is in PCM, but you "don't need it", because there is a better mousetrap (DSD), you are obviously not in it for the music.

 

No, now 99.99% of the PCM DACs on the market run digital oversampling filters and delta-sigma modulator (bunch of DSP stuff) in hardware to produce data for the actual conversion section. What goes to the conversion section is similar to what DSD is. Same happens in inverse order in 99.99% of current PCM ADC when music is being recorded.

 

I don't want any of that processing in hardware, I want a DAC that just converts to analog and nothing more. I run all that processing in software because it is cheaper and the algorithms can be much more advanced because there's lot more processing power available at unbeatable price performance ratio.

 

So your PCM music content is going to be converted anyway to something else, so my choice is to do it in software. You want to stick with doing it in hardware. That's fine, but you should realize what is really going on, end-to-end. (and most of your PCM music content is end result of conversion too)

 

P.S. Most of my music content is RedBook PCM and when I'm listening it, it goes to the DAC as DSD...

[edorr]

No, now 99.99% of the PCM DACs on the market run digital oversampling filters and delta-sigma modulator (bunch of DSP stuff) in hardware to produce data for the actual conversion section. What goes to the conversion section is similar to what DSD is. Same happens in inverse order in 99.99% of current PCM ADC when music is being recorded.

 

I don't want any of that processing in hardware, I want a DAC that just converts to analog and nothing more. I run all that processing in software because it is cheaper and the algorithms can be much more advanced because there's lot more processing power available at unbeatable price performance ratio.

 

So your PCM music content is going to be converted anyway to something else, so my choice is to do it in software. You want to stick with doing it in hardware. That's fine, but you should realize what is really going on, end-to-end. (and most of your PCM music content is end result of conversion too)

 

Who cares? There are only two important parameters. Availability of content, and price/performance of the hardware/software needed to convert that content into music in a listening room. The way I see it is native DSD content is a classical music niche, and price/performance of PCM based playback systems is advancing rapidly. If conversion of that PCM content to DSD somewhere in the digital chain contributes to that advance - wonderful. This does not rationalize why manufacturers are falling over themselves to release DACs with native DSD playback capability, and somehow convinced the audiophile community we actually need this.

[Miska]

Who cares?

 

I obviously do...

 

Availability of content, and price/performance of the hardware/software needed to convert that content into music in a listening room.

 

And I am trying to optimize the price-performance of that... And I'm always looking for new ways how to do that, primarily how to squeeze more out of what ever reasonably priced hardware is out there.

 

The way I see it is native DSD content is a classical music niche, and price/performance of PCM based playback systems is advancing rapidly. If conversion of that PCM content to DSD somewhere in the digital chain contributes to that advance - wonderful. This does not rationalize why manufacturers are falling over themselves to release DACs with native DSD playback capability, and somehow convinced the audiophile community we actually need this.

 

If you care about shortest possible path from microphone to your speakers, DSD is one vehicle for that. And there are number of companies offering DSD content so you can make your choice.

 

Rock and pop are the genres where there's not that much DSD content, but still if the only way to get Pink Floyd in hires is to get it on SACD I'm perfectly happy. I have "Dark side of the moon" and "Wish you were here" on SACD and these are better sounding than the equivalent CD versions, which I also have...

[edorr]

Rock and pop are the genres where there's not that much DSD content, but still if the only way to get Pink Floyd in hires is to get it on SACD I'm perfectly happy. I have "Dark side of the moon" and "Wish you were here" on SACD and these are better sounding than the equivalent CD versions, which I also have...

 

All else being equal, SACD versions tend to sound (marginally) better than CD or high-rez. In the absence of content its a moot point. I play a DSOTM track every three year to show of my system to a visitor.

 

Personally, what I would like to see is tons of good MCH content (at 48/24 would be just fine). CD to SACD/DSD is incremental improvement (best case). 2 channel to MCH is a completely different experience - unfortunately, not much MCH content either and nothing showing on the horizon.

[burnspbesq]

Why is it that a certain line from a certain Talking Heads song just popped into my head?

[Blake]

Why is it that a certain line from a certain Talking Heads song just popped into my head?

 

 

You start a conversation you can't even finish it.

You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything.

When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.

Say something once, why say it again?

 

or

 

Psycho Killer,

Qu'est-ce que c'est

fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better

Run run run run run run run away?

[edorr]

You start a conversation you can't even finish it.

You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything.

When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.

Say something once, why say it again?

 

or

 

Psycho Killer,

Qu'est-ce que c'est

fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better

Run run run run run run run away?

 

Very cute. Is this out on DSD yet?

[Blake]

Very cute. Is this out on DSD yet?

 

 

In the real world: no.

 

In a theoretical fantasy land: still no, but wouldn't it be awesome if it was?

[firedog]

Edorr-

 

"Who cares?"

 

Well, obviously not you.

 

I get your point, but you are being a little too self centered and limited in perspective. Who said all items in the market have to be directed towards the majority?

 

Historically and even today, lots of audiophillia is oriented toward classical music lovers, because they tend to be well off (read: older) and have money to spend on music - which they do. I agree that DSD downloading is mainly realistic for classical. But worldwide, that's a very large market for hi-end DAC producers, certainly enough for them to produce for and make money off of with DSD DACs.

 

And this doesn't even take into account the large number of people worldwide that have large SACD collections of all types of music. (Note that outside of the US, in Japan and the far East, SACD is still popular and viable.) These music lovers also tend to be well heeled - or at least willing to spend lots of money on audio - and are now interested in, and very happy to be able to rip their SACDs and move over to computer audio.

 

The hi-end DAC makers don't think they are going to sell multiple five and six figure numbers of units. So the relatively small markets mentioned above, that don't mean much in the overall market picture, are definitely relevant to them in terms of making money. So DSD capable DACs make business sense.

 

In addition, even you have said that SACD versions and DSD versions of music often sound "marginally better" - I'd agree. Well, don't we know that lots of audiophiles are willing to spend money just to get that "marginally better" version of an album, or on HW to get marginally better sound from their equipment? So again, for others (obviously not you) DSD makes lots of sense. And by the way, some of the native DSD classical recordings available for download are some of the best sounding recordings I've ever heard. So for lots of audiophiles, that's enough of a reason to have a DSD DAC.

[edorr]

Edorr-

 

 

 

Well, obviously not you.

 

I get your point, but you are being a little too self centered and limited in perspective. Who said all items in the market have to be directed towards the majority?

 

Historically and even today, lots of audiophillia is oriented toward classical music lovers, because they tend to be well off (read: older) and have money to spend on music - which they do. I agree that DSD downloading is mainly realistic for classical. But worldwide, that's a very large market for hi-end DAC producers, certainly enough for them to produce for and make money off of with DSD DACs.

 

And this doesn't even take into account the large number of people worldwide that have large SACD collections of all types of music. (Note that outside of the US, in Japan and the far East, SACD is still popular and viable.) These music lovers also tend to be well heeled - or at least willing to spend lots of money on audio - and are now interested in, and very happy to be able to rip their SACDs and move over to computer audio.

 

The hi-end DAC makers don't think they are going to sell multiple five and six figure numbers of units. So the relatively small markets mentioned above, that don't mean much in the overall market picture, are definitely relevant to them in terms of making money. So DSD capable DACs make business sense.

 

In addition, even you have said that SACD versions and DSD versions of music often sound "marginally better" - I'd agree. Well, don't we know that lots of audiophiles are willing to spend money just to get that "marginally better" version of an album, or on HW to get marginally better sound from their equipment? So again, for others (obviously not you) DSD makes lots of sense. And by the way, some of the native DSD classical recordings available for download are some of the best sounding recordings I've ever heard. So for lots of audiophiles, that's enough of a reason to have a DSD DAC.

 

If you're a classical music aficionado with money to spend and appreciation of good sound, you playback system/format of choice is MCH SACD. You are not going to rip these MCH discs in 2 channel for 2 channel playback into a DSD DAC. 2 channel native DSD cannot hold a candle to MCH SACD converted to PCM into a processor in surround sound.

 

While there are some emerging platforms to do MCH DSD, this is not the market being addressed by 2 channel DSD DACs. So the rationale for SACD ripping and 2 DSD DACS for classical lovers is highly questionable.

 

For the record, I have been playing DSD pure direct in my erstwhile analog SACD players since day one, have a collection of 2 channel DSD rips, a PS3 boxed up that I will eventually unpack to rip my MCH SACDs AND full DSD capable hardware, so I'm hardly DSD phobic. All I'm saying is there is no real need for it.

[mav52]

I obviously do...

 

 

 

And I am trying to optimize the price-performance of that... And I'm always looking for new ways how to do that, primarily how to squeeze more out of what ever reasonably priced hardware is out there.

 

 

 

If you care about shortest possible path from microphone to your speakers, DSD is one vehicle for that. And there are number of companies offering DSD content so you can make your choice.

 

Rock and pop are the genres where there's not that much DSD content, but still if the only way to get Pink Floyd in hires is to get it on SACD I'm perfectly happy. I have "Dark side of the moon" and "Wish you were here" on SACD and these are better sounding than the equivalent CD versions, which I also have...

 

If DSD is so darn great then where are all the NEW recordings by major artist ( not classical) ? If DSD was the "go to format" then why aren't the artist demanding their music be in DSD. I surely don't know and it's not on the DSD download sites....

[Hiro]

Do they support ASIO DSD or something like that on Windows for third party applications? Or is their DAC tied to their player also there?

 

Good question. I know that they support ASIO 2.1 and that they have a dedicated software player (Audio Gate) for the DAC, but I'm not sure if the DAC is compatible with their player only.

[Hiro]

If DSD is so darn great then where are all the NEW recordings by major artist ( not classical) ? If DSD was the "go to format" then why aren't the artist demanding their music be in DSD. I surely don't know and it's not on the DSD download sites....

 

I don't think that major artists or major labels for that matter, care that much about sound quality. Majority of (non-classical) DSD releases come from specialist labels like MoFi, Analogue Productions, Audio Fidelity, ORG Music...

[christopher3393]

Tell him to return his DAC and buy one with a built in volume control... A MSB Analogue should suit him!

 

Whistles innocently :-)

 

Eloise

Naughty Elf! And besides, check this out (from another thread):

 

I have an MSB Diamond and "they" say it negates the preamp. Regardless of price I have yet to hear a DAC that sounds better direct than through a preamp. BUT, I guess it depends upon the preamp

 

So my question is: how much do you have to pay for a pre- or integrated with a truly high quality volume control that will clearly best most digital volume controls? Does it have to be "high-end" as I've read in several places?

[edorr]

So my question is: how much do you have to pay for a pre- or integrated with a truly high quality volume control that will clearly best most digital volume controls? Does it have to be "high-end" as I've read in several places?

 

I tried a few preamps in the below $10K price bracket, and none bested the volume control in the DAC (first Perfectwave MKII and then MSB Signature Plus). Enter the ARC Ref5SE and it was no contests. So yes, the preamp route ultimately sounds better, but you need to go way up the preamp foodchain to get this result. Just one man's experience of course.