Jump to content
IGNORED

Bel Canto's take on DSD


Recommended Posts

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.

 

Noise.png

 

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

Link to comment

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?

Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not." — Nelson Pass

Link to comment

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

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment
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

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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

"I want to know why the musicians are on stage, not where". (John Farlowe)

 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment

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 [email protected] 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.

Link to comment
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 [email protected] 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

Link to comment
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.

Main System: Auralic Aries G2, Ayre QX-5 Twenty, Ayre KX-5 Twenty, Ayre VX-5 Twenty, Revel Ultima Studio2, Iconoclast speaker cables & interconnects, RealTraps acoustic treatments, TP-Link MC200CM (X2)

Living Room: Sonore ultraRendu, Ayre QB-9DSD, SimAudio Moon 340iX, B&W 802 Diamond

Link to comment
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

Link to comment

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.

Claude

Link to comment
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.

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to comment
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.

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +_iFi  AC iPurifiers >Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Conditioning+Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Listening: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Matrix Element i Streamer/DAC (XLR)+Schiit Freya>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
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?

Link to comment
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) :)

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

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...