Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Recommended Posts

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?

 

You can implement digital volume in different ways, and there can be quite big quality variations. But when digital volume is implemented decently, it is very hard to beat with analog implementation (objectively evaluated). Certainly a potentiometer won't be enough. And if there are any active components involved on the signal path as you pretty much need to have, unless it's an integrated amp, those can only add distortion and noise.

 

Best solution is to match gains properly, so that there's no need for huge attenuation values anywhere in the middle just to be amplified later in the chain. DACs can output at least 2V and some pump out 6V, even 2V should be enough to drive most power amps loud enough and at least what I've seen will drive quite many to clipping already.

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
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 agree with Hiro. I haven't seen much evidence that major artists care much about sound quality, or even if they do, it appears that record companies and producers decide on the sound of the album, not the artists. Even artists like Paul McCartney and Paul Simon, both of whom one would think would have the ability to put out albums with proper SQ, now put out albums with heavy volume compression. Definitely not audiophile SQ. I liked the last studio release of each one, but didn't buy the albums after I heard the heavy volume compression - I found it impossible to sit through more than a couple of songs.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment
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....

 

If you mean by major artist some that make big bucks for large record companies like Madonna, then it is non-existent. It is mostly AAC in iTunes or MP3's in Amazon. No any other hires format either for that matter. Good exception being Mark Knopfler's Privateering (24/96, sounds very nice upsampled to DSD128). I'm not sure if new Daft Punk would sound any different in hires, because most synths use 44.1 or 48 rates.

 

OTOH, most of trance/house/jungle/etc is published on white label vinyl and sounds very nice as 45 rpm maxi's, I have quite a pile of these too...

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
You can implement digital volume in different ways, and there can be quite big quality variations. But when digital volume is implemented decently, it is very hard to beat with analog implementation (objectively evaluated). Certainly a potentiometer won't be enough. And if there are any active components involved on the signal path as you pretty much need to have, unless it's an integrated amp, those can only add distortion and noise.

 

Best solution is to match gains properly, so that there's no need for huge attenuation values anywhere in the middle just to be amplified later in the chain. DACs can output at least 2V and some pump out 6V, even 2V should be enough to drive most power amps loud enough and at least what I've seen will drive quite many to clipping already.

 

This is the standard answer from engineers. People that have been fortunate enough to insert a real good preamp in the chain, will nearly unanimously answer the preamp sounds better. The be fair, I only discovered this a few months ago myself, and had been squarely in the no preamp camp up to that point.

Link to comment
If DSD is so darn great then where are all the NEW recordings by major artist ( not classical) ?

 

That's a great question. There's a couple of short answers besides they don't care, leading with that there's few or none of the appropriate tools for editing and mastering available in the native DSD format. And if there were, the 64fs noise shaping envelope is too close to the audio band of interest to allow even one generation of layering before the noise would become apparent.

 

However, the release of 256fs recording potential by Merging Technologies, coupled with their DAW could change that. There's still no DSD editing platform within Pyramix, but that could/will change as demand increases. The turning point however was reasonably priced gear for 256fs recording.

 

When you listen to an analog mixed, DSD archived, acoustic event DSD recording, and then compare it to anything recorded in a PCM format, you'd hear why it's so great. It's all in the spacial reality and instrument detail. I don't believe however you'd get the same difference in a studio pop recording, which has no basis in natural sound reality.

Link to comment
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.

 

PCM1704 has pretty much hit the performance wall of multi-bit PCM DACs and there are no reasonable ways to improve from there any further. It has about 18 - 19 bits worth of precision. Sabre can do about 22 bits worth, but could perform better by removing all the built-in DSP and performing better DSP off-chip, and if they would focus on the analog and conversion side instead. Even better if the new combined TI/NS would do it, they have better analog designers.

 

Let the software guys do unconstrained DSP and hardware guys focus on the actual conversion.

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
the 64fs noise shaping envelope is too close to the audio band of interest to allow even one generation of layering before the noise would become apparent.

 

That's more problem of the implementation than any technical restriction. But 64fs is too low anyway, with 512fs you can do pretty crazy stuff already.

 

There's still no DSD editing platform within Pyramix, but that could/will change as demand increases.

 

This is the key problem. Editing DSD is not a technical problem, it is implementation problem. I have plenty of DSD processing algorithms, but I don't even consider writing a DAW, because I know too well the amount of features modern DAW's have from GUI perspective, and implementing such DAW GUI would take ages for a single guy.

 

I don't believe however you'd get the same difference in a studio pop recording, which has no basis in natural sound reality.

 

Yeah, there's no way to define "realism" of a programmable software synth. And if it's doing it's maths at 24/44.1 internally, there's no point in using anything else - you can capture the output straight without anything ever going into the real world.

 

This used to be one of my favorite software toys:

Reason - Complete music making, music production and recording studio software - Propellerhead

 

And even more this, now it's an App!

http://www.propellerheads.se/products/rebirth/

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment

This is the key problem. Editing DSD is not a technical problem, it is implementation problem. I have plenty of DSD processing algorithms, but I don't even consider writing a DAW, because I know too well the amount of features modern DAW's have from GUI perspective, and implementing such DAW GUI would take ages for a single guy.

 

It goes without saying that if you Miska (Signalyst), Gus Skinas (Sonoma), Korg (Clarity) and Merging (Pyramix 8.1) did a collaborative project of sorts to develop a DSD DAW, the workstation would come to the market much faster.

 

17.jpg

Link to comment
...BUT HE CANNOT NOW CONTROL HIS VOLUME LEVEL WITHOUT (UGH!, hold your nose while you picture this) inserting an ANALOG VOLUME CONTROL INTO HIS SUNCTUM PURITUM, which will obviously soil his entire musical one-ness....

 

O what to do, what to do...

Do any of you expert readers have any suggestions that will save this poor soul from a life of hardship and MUSICAL POLLUTION MOST FOUL?

 

 

not an expert but maybe a Light Dependent Resistor (LDR) based passive preamp would give him the transparency he desires and a nice hardware based volume control?

 

software ain't perfect especially at the speeds new software hits the market as developers cannot afford to release "perfect" software because then they would be too late to the game so we the user base becomes the debugging dept.

 

and computer OS's are fragile, some more so than others, and you never know how your OS and programs will play together and I don't care whether it is linux, windows or mac, you will get unintended program interactions so I shy away from relying on software to control the signal that reaches my speakers.

RIG:  iFi Zen Stream - Benchmark DAC3 L - LA4  AHB2 | Paradigm Sig S6 Cables:  anything available

Link to comment

If I'm understanding your rant correctly, the logic of your argument is flawed.

 

You're saying that a hypothetical DSD advocate is so concerned with signal purity that he/she could not live without a digital volume control - that an analog volume control would be unacceptable? If that is, if fact, what you are saying then it is utterly flawed! Sorry...

 

dsd.jpg

 

An analog volume control would require less digital processing and would be more consistent with your hypothetical DSD advocate. An emerging market you clearly don't quite understand. Blinded by your own format biases perhaps... The fact that you had to post this clearly shows that you are confronting this issue with many of the early-adopters and thought-leaders in these forums with regards to these technologies and with computer-based digital home media solutions, in general. Michael LaVorgna and many others have publicly stated many times that they greatly appreciate some qualitative aspect DSD content. This isn't a zero-sum game. With no physical media constraints we can easily have both formats with the same hardware. Thankfully, your new product clearly demonstrates this.

 

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."

--Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

Now it turns out that the customer is DEEPLY DISTRESSED that he can no longer have the "purity" of avoiding a preamp in his system, EVEN THOUGH J.RIVER INCLUDES A VERY SOPHISTICATED DIGITAL VOLUME CONTROL UTILIZING DOUBLE PRECISION FLOATING POINT CALCULATIONS (never mind how we are going to feed those fractions of a bit to the DAC chip....!

A Digital Audio Converter connected to my Home Computer taking me into the Future

Link to comment
This is the standard answer from engineers. People that have been fortunate enough to insert a real good preamp in the chain, will nearly unanimously answer the preamp sounds better. The be fair, I only discovered this a few months ago myself, and had been squarely in the no preamp camp up to that point.

 

Totally agree. I recently changed my preamp to Ref10. It makes the sound so glorious. It is one of the best purchase I ever made.

Link to comment

By this logic why are there still CDs because most people by 256kbps VBR AAC \ MP3? Why offer FLAC, or ALAC? Probably because we are forward-looking and prize sound quality.

 

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....

A Digital Audio Converter connected to my Home Computer taking me into the Future

Link to comment

Ahhh, but it is available in 24/96 PCM hi-res from HDTracks.com...

 

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD603497940912

 

Fortunately, many of our DACs can play either PCM or DSD so we don't have to worry about it and we can just press play to enjoy our libraries thanks to such great DSD compatible products from Charlie Hansen.

 

In the real world: no.

 

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

A Digital Audio Converter connected to my Home Computer taking me into the Future

Link to comment
This is the standard answer from engineers. People that have been fortunate enough to insert a real good preamp in the chain, will nearly unanimously answer the preamp sounds better. The be fair, I only discovered this a few months ago myself, and had been squarely in the no preamp camp up to that point.

 

Some people like the sound of added distortion, especially from tube amps.

 

How many have actually even tried a good gain matched DAC (without a volume control) connected straight to a power amp and then compared different digital volume controls from a player, and then compare that to an analog volume control?

 

I cannot say anything for AR Ref 10, it is not available here, closest dealer is in Sweden and it costs around 30k€. Which is around 252x more than my software based digital volume control. I think software based digital volume has pretty unbeatable price/performance ratio.

 

(I wouldn't buy 30k€ audio equipment anyway, I rather design and build my own instead, saves quite a lot, because there's at least 60% markup on the price tag anyway)

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
Some people like the sound of added distortion, especially from tube amps.

 

How many have actually even tried a good gain matched DAC (without a volume control) connected straight to a power amp and then compared different digital volume controls from a player, and then compare that to an analog volume control?

 

I cannot say anything for AR Ref 10, it is not available here, closest dealer is in Sweden and it costs around 30k€. Which is around 252x more than my software based digital volume control. I think software based digital volume has pretty unbeatable price/performance ratio.

 

(I wouldn't buy 30k€ audio equipment anyway, I rather design and build my own instead, saves quite a lot, because there's at least 60% markup on the price tag anyway)

 

I do not think your comments are fair at all if you have not listened to a world class preamp. Added distortion?? The sound bouncing off the walls and floors are already adding distortions. Otherwise, why do you bother to do DRC? Different target curve gives different sound. What is the meaning of accurate sound? The preamp also gives me flexibility to compare different DACs.

 

It seems that you give the impressions in here that your own design software and hardware are the greatest. The other alternatives are not worth to explore.

 

If you will commercialize your own design DAC, I love to buy and try. Otherwise, all your talk is meaningless to the rest of us here.

Link to comment
I do not think your comments are fair at all if you have not listened to a world class preamp.

 

I've heard these (not Ref 10 though), but could you please explain technically, how adding an extra component between two could improve quality? Any extra component on the signal path can only degrade signal.

 

Properly designed power amp should have exactly same kind of input impedance as pre-amp inputs, so from a DAC's perspective there shouldn't be any difference.

 

The preamp also gives me flexibility to compare different DACs.

 

I use a plain source switch for that, no active components on a signal path at all, only a switch.

 

It seems that you give the impressions in here that your own design software and hardware are the greatest. The other alternatives are not worth to explore.

 

No, I buy equipment and software too. I only create my own when I think I can do something better for less or same money, or if something is not available at all on the market. I have not said anything about something being greatest, but why on earth would I create and use my own stuff if it wouldn't be the best for me?

 

But I have to also objectively evaluate things, in addition to listening. Yeah, I'm boring engineer in a way that if something sounds better, but measures worse, it is no-go for me. I require better sound and better measurement results, simultaneously.

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
I've heard these (not Ref 10 though), but could you please explain technically, how adding an extra component between two could improve quality? Any extra component on the signal path can only degrade signal.

 

Sorry, I do not have the theory. But luckily, I have ears. My ears tell me that I like the sound of a preamp between DAC and power amp.

Link to comment

How many have actually even tried a good gain matched DAC (without a volume control) connected straight to a power amp and then compared different digital volume controls from a player, and then compare that to an analog volume control?

 

 

I tried something like this some 15 years ago, but with hardware digital control and Power Amp. This was a Cirrus hardware codec, below -8db the sound degradation was obvious.

 

Today, my signal flow is: WM8741 based Direct Out DAC with various sources, passive analog volume control (ALPS made) with switchable "loudness" and straight to Power Amp.

With computer sources, their digital volume control is not very bad, but for critical listening I prefer full digital output and analog volume.

 

(OT for Miska: In next week some other CS4398 based PCM/DSD capable hardvare arrives. If I decided to rebuilt that "thing", this become a four CS4398 DAC in parallel, or two in parallel for Front and other two for surround 5.1 duties... :)

Or this is a overkill, pushing CS4398 to parallel?)

Sorry, english is not my native language.

Fools and fanatics are always certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.

Link to comment
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...

 

Hello Miska.

 

I obviously respect a lot your original thinking. And I am a "buyer" of your concepts, that I expect to try one day...

 

But one thing is still not logical to me.

 

If we accept that any format conversion produces losses in quality, and therefore should be avoided...´

(1) if most (99%??) or the digital sources are PCM, why do you propose an additional conversion to DSD?

- are you not able to do the same digital processes and calculations without getting out of the PCM "domain"?

- are PCM dacs not abble to accept that stream without changing it?

 

(2) I believe that, concerning "the price-performance" ratio, for me and for most consumers that are not technically gifted and tweekers (99% of them, probably)...besides "price" and "performance" a third variable is extremely important: "ergonomics".

Concerning ergonomics, nothing beats a simple solution where all-in-one box (the dac) performs everything.

If this one box performs admirably well (say a Chord QBD76 for example), it's natural than a consumer is not hard pressed to change completely the perspective and adopt your landscape.

 

I guess what I mean is that the musical end result of your solution must be considerably better (say, of a Chord QBD76) to be a "imperative" to the average user to feel the need to change...

Link to comment
--- you have not listened to a world class preamp. Added distortion?? The sound bouncing off the walls and floors are already adding distortions. Otherwise, why do you bother to do DRC? Different target curve gives different sound. What is the meaning of accurate sound? The preamp also gives me flexibility to compare different DACs.

 

 

This reminds me "discussion" with T1 Aune DAC/Tube/Headphone combo owners. T1 have a DAC, then sound goes to Tube and after that... a 5532 OP amp! And proud owner buy's different Tubes around the Globe and every time says - WHOA when new Tube installed... :).

 

I think it's a very expencive way to experiment with simple Equaliser (ok, Tube Equaliser :)).

Sorry, english is not my native language.

Fools and fanatics are always certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.

Link to comment
If we accept that any format conversion produces losses in quality, and therefore should be avoided...´

(1) if most (99%??) or the digital sources are PCM, why do you propose an additional conversion to DSD?

- are you not able to do the same digital processes and calculations without getting out of the PCM "domain"?

 

Because it allows better performance for less money. For example the best multi-bit true PCM converter, PCM1704 costs around 60$ and has accuracy of around 18-19 PCM bits. Best delta-sigma converters have accuracy of 21-22 PCM bits and these converters traditionally do that kind of conversion DSP inside and cost around $10.

 

- are PCM dacs not abble to accept that stream without changing it?

 

Most of the "PCM" DACs and ADCs are delta-sigma converters so they have to employ bunch of DSP inside to do the conversion. DSD on the other hand is 1-bit delta-sigma data, intended to bypass this back-and-forth conversion DSP at both ends, in ADC and DAC.

 

So essentially what I'm doing, is moving the format conversion DSP from the DAC to the computer. This allows making the DAC much simpler because it doesn't need to do any DSP. And also if you compare processing capabilities of a quad-core Core i7 CPU on a modern computer to capabilities of that $10 DAC chip...

 

 

(2) I believe that, concerning "the price-performance" ratio, for me and for most consumers that are not technically gifted and tweekers (99% of them, probably)...besides "price" and "performance" a third variable is extremely important: "ergonomics".

Concerning ergonomics, nothing beats a simple solution where all-in-one box (the dac) performs everything.

If this one box performs admirably well (say a Chord QBD76 for example), it's natural than a consumer is not hard pressed to change completely the perspective and adopt your landscape.

 

Sure, no doubt about that. It becomes trade-off between ergonomics, capabilities and flexibility. And also price...

 

I go for maximum capabilities at lowest price.

 

I guess what I mean is that the musical end result of your solution must be considerably better (say, of a Chord QBD76) to be a "imperative" to the average user to feel the need to change...

 

My take is that since I anyway play content from my computer using a player software, I can better utilize capabilities of the computer to improve sound while lowering cost. In this kind of scenario, it is not even clearly visible where the DSP processing happens. You have the same two components, computer and DAC, just part of the process has been moved from DAC to the computer...

 

DRC, volume control and multi-channel speaker placement processing can be performed as side effect on the computer too.

 

True DSD-capability in a modern DAC kind of turns it into a "NOS" mode and allows bypass of the internal DSP (or part of it depending on chip). You still don't loose any of the traditional capabilities though. So you can even make comparisons!

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
By this logic why are there still CDs because most people by 256kbps VBR AAC \ MP3? Why offer FLAC, or ALAC? Probably because we are forward-looking and prize sound quality.

 

I would use MOST people loosely. Most people are not buying DSD and sure people are buying downloads via iTunes, Amazon and even CD's but I'm not sure it's about sound quality when these people are using a ipod device and earbuds, its about mobility and convenience.

The Truth Is Out There

Link to comment
Some people like the sound of added distortion, especially from tube amps.

 

The vocabulary of (some) design engineers is limited to "impedance matching", "distortion", and "measurement". Do you ever actually listen to music? You sound like a celibate priest lecturing his flock about sex.

 

I wouldn't buy 30k€ audio equipment anyway, I rather design and build my own instead, saves quite a lot, because there's at least 60% markup on the price tag anyway

 

Here's how it works - if function features of a specific type of widget is worth the cost of acquisition to you and you have the discretionary funds to buy it, you buy it. If not, you don't. This system has worked quite beautifully creating prosperity for a lot of people for some time - at least materialistically. By the way, 60% is about the operating margin on an iPhone - how far along are you with your own design?

Link to comment

I sussed a long time ago that I could build a decent playback system for not a lot of money, the knowledge made me feel that some things are rather expensive from the what is inside perspective. However in the cases where the unit has properly been designed then fair plays it can cost a lot to run an R&D section. Still a lot of stuff is just an expensive use of application notes and the chip/fet makers have done the bulk of the design work. That being said all my stuff though good on the sound dept looks poor.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...