Bel Canto's take on DSD

[iwf]

John Stronczer has an interesting take on DSD.

 

http://www.belcantodesign.com/pdfs/Optimal_DSD_Playback.pdf

 

Really pleased I didn't invest after all

[matthias]

Really pleased I didn't invest after all

 

+1

If JS converts DSD to PCM he gets PCM.....

[Hiro]

Optimal DSD playback, my ass. This isn't DSD playback at all.

 

As for the noise level in the inaudible spectrum, here's an interesting measurement Archimago made for his Teac UD-501 DSD DAC.

 

 

As you can see it's not all that much different from PCM, and is still lower than -100dB at 100kHz.

[Paul R]

John Stronczer has an interesting take on DSD.

 

http://www.belcantodesign.com/pdfs/Optimal_DSD_Playback.pdf

 

Really pleased I didn't invest after all

 

Oh Dear - then how does he account for the great number of people that think DSD sounds better? Mass hallucination?

 

-Paul

[Savage]

If you make a PCM only dac the fact that people like DSD SQ may be a metric you would want to leave off the charts.

 

I like both for different reasons...is there something wrong with giving the user the final choice?

[Audio_ELF]

Isn't this a similar point of view as Berkerley put forward?

[elcorso]

Oh Dear - then how does he account for the great number of people that think DSD sounds better? Mass hallucination?

 

-Paul

 

Is Mr. Stronczer a test tone and the resulting graphs listener? I don't know, but not me, I'm a music as a whole listener...

 

If some one rejects a digital music format based on graphs, please change your hobbie. "The proof of a pudding is in his taste"... Isn't?

 

Roch

[iwf]

I was interested in this, because being BC owner I was waiting for a DSD upgrade to the BC DACs.

 

Personally and having tried the TEAC dsd DAC I couldn't tell the difference, and believe me I wanted to, between the higher res DSD and PCM files.

 

I longed for a reason to buy a DSD DAC even though I have BC 3.5, but maybe I've finally grown up as I've accepted that if I can't tell the difference there's no point in spending more. As someone said spend the money on the music.

[audio.bill]

I find it interesting that despite BC's take on DSD linked to in the original post of this thread, they chose to support DSD in their reference Bel Canto Black ASC1 as can be seen in the linked specs.

[Hiro]

I find it interesting that despite BC's take on DSD linked to in the original post of this thread, they chose to support DSD in their reference Bel Canto Black ASC1 as can be seen in the linked specs.

 

Interesting indeed. Whatever function this stream controller plays, its DSD capability is useless as their DACs apparently only handle PCM.

 

BTW, do you know if their DACs are native PCM, or do they convert PCM to SDM?

[matthias]

I find it interesting that despite BC's take on DSD linked to in the original post of this thread, they chose to support DSD in their reference Bel Canto Black ASC1 as can be seen in the linked specs.

 

DSD64, but I did not find any informations about the DAC and the specs are not impressive at all.

 

Matt

[audio.bill]

Interesting indeed. Whatever function this stream controller plays, its DSD capability is useless as their DACs apparently only handle PCM.

 

BTW, do you know if their DACs are native PCM, or do they convert PCM to SDM?

I'm sorry, but I have no first hand knowledge of how their DACs process the data.

[Hiro]

I'm sorry, but I have no first hand knowledge of how their DACs process the data.

 

I'm asking because despite all the talk about PCM most manufacturers almost always convert PCM to SDM/PDM/PWM in their DACs and/or class D amplifiers.

[audio.bill]

I'm asking because despite all the talk about PCM most manufacturers almost always convert PCM to SDM/PDM/PWM in their DACs and/or class D amplifiers.

I have read that Bel Canto's Black series mono power amps utilize the Ncore NC1200 modules from Hypex.

[wgscott]

Oh Dear - then how does he account for the great number of people that think DSD sounds better? Mass hallucination?

 

-Paul

 

As much as I tend to favor such conclusions, the Bel Canto pronouncement seems remarkably self-serving.

[kbkaran]

I did buy some SACDs few years ago and have been listening to them via analog and pcm conversion (albeit with mediocre players). I felt that the quality depended more on the source (analog tapes, dsd, pcm masters) than on the technology per se. My assessment was analog recorded/mixed and converted to DSD was the best. Even then I felt the sound was more of a flavor vs superior sound quality than a well recorded high-bit rate PCM recording.

As a recent bel Canto owner (of uLInk) and the improvement it made to my squeezebox, I have respect for John@BC. I doubt this DSD to PCM conversion would provide inferior playback than a native DSD dac.

I think audiophiles should go for a very low jitter playback first with their PCM dacs before investing in another new technology. I am not the one into 'sweet' sound, but if low jitter is providing me that then I am all for it. Maybe this is what we have been in digital vs LPs. All those people who complain about low jitter of, say , the OffRamp, is robbing the music of 'air and vibrancy' should just turn up the volume.

[elcorso]

I did buy some SACDs few years ago and have been listening to them via analog and pcm conversion (albeit with mediocre players). I felt that the quality depended more on the source (analog tapes, dsd, pcm masters) than on the technology per se. My assessment was analog recorded/mixed and converted to DSD was the best. Even then I felt the sound was more of a flavor vs superior sound quality than a well recorded high-bit rate PCM recording.

As a recent bel Canto owner (of uLInk) and the improvement it made to my squeezebox, I have respect for John@BC. I doubt this DSD to PCM conversion would provide inferior playback than a native DSD dac.

I think audiophiles should go for a very low jitter playback first with their PCM dacs before investing in another new technology. I am not the one into 'sweet' sound, but if low jitter is providing me that then I am all for it. Maybe this is what we have been in digital vs LPs. All those people who complain about low jitter of, say , the OffRamp, is robbing the music of 'air and vibrancy' should just turn up the volume.

 

Try any decent DSD DAC and your doubts will be solved, very easy and very fast.

 

BTW, low jitter is not exclusive of PCM DACs, it's easier to get low jitter from DSD DACs.

 

Also there are several very nice DACs that plays PCM & DSD with very low jitter (between another things).

 

Me, and a lot of people believes that DSD is the closets to analogue (if not better?).

 

Regarding sweetness, it should be closer to real life, like in DSD.

 

Sheers!

 

Roch

[john57]

What bothers me on Mr. Stronczer statement was that analog filters cause more distortion than digital filters. It is like saying that digital filters do not cause any pre-ringing on the signals.

[Axiom05]

What bothers me on Mr. Stronczer statement was that analog filters cause more distortion than digital filters. It is like saying that digital filters do not cause any pre-ringing on the signals.

 

Analog filters do have their own set of problems and they are expensive to implement. This is one of the reasons that manufacturers switched to digital filters in the later generation of CD players.

[kbkaran]

Try any decent DSD DAC and your doubts will be solved, very easy and very fast.

 

BTW, low jitter is not exclusive of PCM DACs, it's easier to get low jitter from DSD DACs.

 

Also there are several very nice DACs that plays PCM & DSD with very low jitter (between another things).

 

Me, and a lot of people believes that DSD is the closets to analogue (if not better?).

 

Regarding sweetness, it should be closer to real life, like in DSD.

 

Sheers!

l

Roch

 

Well.. there is no DAC in my current setup. I am using a TACT S2150 Digital Integrated Amp. I feel this is the most transparent for majority of my recordings which is in RedBook. Yesterday I played a 24bit/192Khz Ella album from highdeftapetransfers. In terms of character of sound, it was similar/close to the SACD of 'Ella and Louis'.

Anyways, what are the good reasonable DSD DACs (with prices) ? Thx

[CatManDo]

That document looks like a lame excuse for not adding DSD support to their DACs.

 

But I understand that not every DAC maker wants to invest into this, given the lack of available DSD material, if you exclude SACD rips. The DSD downloads that Acoustic Sounds is offering all come from SACD mastering sessions. Once the SACD format disappears, DSD as a recording/digitization format will disappear as well.

[Miska]

Analog filters do have their own set of problems and they are expensive to implement. This is one of the reasons that manufacturers switched to digital filters in the later generation of CD players.

 

Just that you cannot replace analog filters with digital filters. Higher the oversampling digital filter ratio, simpler analog filters you can use, but you always need analog filter. In optimal case you would use high enough sampling frequency to be OK with first order analog low pass. That's about 24 octaves oversampling ratio.

[firedog]

The DSD downloads that Acoustic Sounds is offering all come from SACD mastering sessions. Once the SACD format disappears, DSD as a recording/digitization format will disappear as well.

 

Well, I'm not sure about that. If the download business is successful, they may continue DSD mastering just for the download market. Since so many DACs these days are being made with DSD capability, soon there will be a very large number of people with DSD dacs - possibly more than the number with SACD players, which is definitely not growing.

[Superdad]

Just that you cannot replace analog filters with digital filters. Higher the oversampling digital filter ratio, simpler analog filters you can use, but you always need analog filter. In optimal case you would use high enough sampling frequency to be OK with first order analog low pass. That's about 24 octaves oversampling ratio.

 

If you really mean octaves Miska, then isn't that some crazy big number? 44,100 to the 24th power?!

Or do you just mean 44.1KHz x 24= 1.0584MHz?

[Miska]

If you really mean octaves Miska, then isn't that some crazy big number? 44,100 to the 24th power?!

Or do you just mean 44.1KHz x 24= 1.0584MHz?

 

First order filter is 6 dB/octave and you need to reach at least 144 dB attenuation by new fs minus original fs/2.

 

44.1 = -6

88.2 = -12

176.4 = -18

352.8 = -24

705.6 = -30

1411.2 = -36

2822.4 = -42

...

some pretty big number (about 7.2 decades)