Head to Head JRMC19, Foobar+SACD (and HQ Player) doing Redbook to DSD and native DSD

[EuroDriver]

I hate to be the one saying this but...

Any ABX testing has been done in these listening trials?

 

I have heard sonic results contrary to my expectations so often, that I think I have my expectation bias all under control ;-). 24/192 > DSD256 was a case in point, it took less than 5 secs for both of us to say, this is awful.

 

Confession : I once heard the sound of RF injected from a Sonos Connect back into the mains, and thought the SQ improved ! In my experience long term listening is needed to ascertain if a change in sound presentation is an improvement to the listening experience or not. It is very easy to be short term captivated by a change, which over the long run is not an improvement. For this reason I don't use ABX testing, but trust my ears and try not to rush to judgement

[Maldur]

Hi Edward.

 

Can You make a such test: Redbook converted to DSD64 in offline mode, with Korg AudioGate and/or Weiss Saracon DSD? And playback as ordinary DSD file via Foobar etc.

Interesting, how it feels compared to realtime conversion... wet blanket again or something else?

[EuroDriver]

Hi Edward.

 

Can You make a such test: Redbook converted to DSD64 in offline mode, with Korg AudioGate and/or Weiss Saracon DSD? And playback as ordinary DSD file via Foobar etc.

Interesting, how it feels compared to realtime conversion... wet blanket again or something else?

 

Offline conversion will be beneficial when the processing load is high. WIth both Foobar and HQ Player we no trouble doing Redbook to DSD128 and DSD 256 on the fly, so its kind of hard to imagine that Offline Redbook to DSD would better.

 

I might be able to get hold of Weiss Saracon, if I do, I will try to make a comparison of Saracon vs HQ Player

 

Something for Geoff Armstrong's shiny new MacPro to get its teeth into . . .

[EuroDriver]

Offline conversion will be beneficial when the processing load is high. WIth both Foobar and HQ Player we no trouble doing Redbook to DSD128 and DSD 256 on the fly, so its kind of hard to imagine that Offline Redbook to DSD would better.

 

I might be able to get hold of Weiss Saracon, if I do, I will try to make a comparison of Saracon vs HQ Player

 

Something for Geoff Armstrong's shiny new MacPro to get its teeth into . . .

 

I was not able to find a copy of Saracon. It is very expensive at US$ 1,715, so not many people have bought the software.

 

the only references I could find for its use was to convert ripped SACD content from DSD to PCM, the exact reverse of what we are discussing here ;-)

[Maldur]

...Korg AudioGate is free, if You have a Twitter account.

[EuroDriver]

...Korg AudioGate is free, if You have a Twitter account.

 

Foobar + SACD is free too, and then you do not need a Korg DSD DAC to unlock the highest settings ;-)

[wisnon]

The old one, ie ver 2, not the new version 3. The old one has all the settings available, I think.

[mlgrado]

Geoffrey Armstrong of Sound Galleries in Monaco and I did a comparison of players doing Redbook to DSD, Hi Res to DSD and native DSD playback. The results were not what we would have expected a couple of months ago

 

Redbook to DSD conversion - voices and acoustic instruments the big winners, more texture and detail

JRMC 19 Redbook > DSD 128 results are very good (CPU load 13%)

Foobar + SACD in Integer (?) mode > DSD 256 is even better, jaw dropping for me as I have never heard Redbook this good. We almost gave up on Foobar until we switched to non 32 bit Floating Point mode (therefore Integer mode ?) in the SACD plug-in, and then the SQ difference was night and day (CPU load 13%).

 

What was also interesting was comparing Foobar+SACD converting to DSD64 (waste of time, a wet blanket), DSD128 very good, slightly better than JRMC19, and then superb with DSD256 in a class by itself.

HQ Player is good but the CPU load is much higher (40 %) and this might be negatively impacting the sound we could get from HQ Player, the results were not as good as the other two players. We had expected HQ Player to be the best, further investigation and tweaking is required.

 

High Res to DSD conversion - small gains but not always

Here JRMC 19 was the clear winner converting 24/192 (PCM original source) to DSD 128. The improvement was noticeable and worthwhile.

Surprisingly Foobar + SACD did poorly with 24/192 even though it was going up to DSD256, damaging the sound in parts, and making the overall presentation inferior to the 24/192 being played straight which was jolly good, and thoroughly enjoyable already.

What was disastrous was 24/192 material which had been sourced from original DSD 64. The conversion of this material to DSD128 or DSD 256 was strident and unlistenable. It appears that the record company's effort to produce an attractive sound in 24/192 PCM from a DSD64 original including adding "stuff" to make it sound sharper more etched. This "stuff" then becomes poisonous when it's converted to DSD.

 

Native DSD playback - simply surberb, but watch out for the provenance !

We only had native DSD64 material. Played straight with Foobar and JRMC 19 it sounded surprisingly good. Much better than Redbook converted to DSD 64 and in a similar league to a Redbook converted to DSD 128. Then using Foobar to upsample to DSD128, the sound really sparkled. Then we up sampled to DSD256, and the sound was incredible. It's the best I have ever heard. Better than a Light Harmonic DSD setup I heard 3 years ago at the New York Show (I am sure LH have upped their game since then).

 

A further finding is that DSD64 as a recording format may well be good enough. DSD 64 is not good enough as a playback format, but that is easily handled by software upsampling that seems to have no bad effects what so ever, and then sounds fantastic at DSD256. It seems that there are no sound damaging filters perceptible when the DAC is playing DSD256

 

The SACD track of Kind of Blue was sad, close to awful, the technology of converting to DSD was clearly in the dark ages. We don't know if it was done from master tapes or PCM remasters

 

I have been converted from being skeptical about the hassle and inconvenience of DSD recording, to now fully supporting DSD recording at source. Cookie Marenco is on to something, her ears are telling her something that a lot of male recording engineers and electronics wizzes do not want to hear, decimation is damaging !

pink fish media - View Single Post - DSD Dacs Spreadsheet

 

The other thing we tried with good success was doing low frequency room correction (FabFilter) on the latest 24/192 remaster of Kind of Blue and then conversion to DSD128. Room correction seems to improve PRAT in a big way. We could not stop our feet from tapping. DSD 128 was then the icing, the additional clarity, the track sounded pristine. We got to have our cake and eat it too !

 

Playback hardware and OS notes

Item Audio T1, i5 quad core Ivy Bridge, SSD, Linear power supply > Win 8 ASIO > Exasound E20 > Hypex NCore 400 > KEF Blade

We are just starting to explore the tweaking possibilities with the Item T1. The i5 Quadcore seems to be a good recommendation by Mark Welsh. Powerful enough to handle format conversion, upsampling and room correction on the fly, but still staying comfortably cool and quiet with fanless heat pipe cooling provided by the Streamcon housing. Mark knows his stuff ! Coming up next is trying out Windows Server 2012 Essentials as the OS

 

Software Notes

Foobar 2000 with plug-in “Super Audio CD Decoder” programmed by Maxim Anisiutkin and ASIO Support components

This combination allows conversion of various PCM to DSD64, DSD128, and DSD256 with following a number of options:

SDM Type A through D

and

SDM Type A (FP32) through Type D (FP32)

 

Because Type D (FP32) is the final option and appears to be the most demanding of CPU, we initially tried that expecting it would yield the better results but were severely disappointed. Then we tried SDM Type D, i.e. no Floating Point 32 bit mode, which we think is probably integer mode.

 

DSD up-sampling.

The same Foobar + SACD combo allows DSD64 to be up-sampled to DSD128 or DSD256. The options for this DSD up-sampling are limited to SDM Type A through D integer modes. There are no Floating Point options for DSD up-sampling.

 

Room Correction filters

FabFilter Pro by Clayton Shaw of Spatial Audio,

Dimension EQ

 

Ears and the grey matter between them

Geoffrey is very experienced with over 30 years of serious listening and collecting content in every format that exists. He has his personal PS3 game console to do SACD rips to iso as well as turntables. Geoffrey is big into Pace Rhythm and Timing, and the emotional connection the music can make with the listener. With his previous professional IT career, Geoff is unrelenting in his pursuit of software improving the sonic experience as well as good value to the finest hardware. (He is a Grimm dealer)

 

Me, I am kid that will never grow up. Big into acoustic fireworks and detail, detail, detail. Breathing, fingers sliding over strings, audience whistling float my boat. I am very sensitive to any kind of degradation of high frequencies. I am also pretty timbre sensitive, the harmonics and tones have to sound right.

 

Hope the above is helpful to fellow sound hounds

 

 

Interesting, but I am not sure what upsampling DSD64 does to make it any better a playback format. The ultrasonic noise does NOT magically disappear with upsampling. I have looked at spectrograms of Merging upsampling, and the noise profile is almost exactly the same as the native 64fs file.

 

The only way you can lessen the noise is with filtering, and if you want to 'eliminate' the noise rise of DSD64, it takes an agressive filter with a low cut frequency. Which is detrimental to sound quality. That is, aggressive filters with low cut frequencies. Then re-modulate at a higher sample rate.

 

Of course, the nature of the ultrasonic noise used in the re-modulation can indeed sound very different. I often upsample DSD64 to DSD128 with ASIO Proxy in Jriver. The sound certainly 'sweetens' and gets even more 'euphonic'. Often at the expense of detail. There are times I really, really like it, though.

 

I NEVER use DSD256, even though my DAC supports it. It has NEVER sounded as good as 128. I did not realize why, until I say your post. CPU overhead. Makes sense....

 

But back to 64fs as a playback format. If you are using a DAC that simply low pass filters for DSD analog conversion, I fail to see what difference upsampling really makes. Some filters scale their impulse response with sample rate. That is the only real possible technical benefit I can think of.

 

 

Finally, I don't use Jriver's upconversion of PCM to DSD. Ring, ring, ring city!! Several measurements show that Jriver uses a linear phase reconstruction filter, with typical pre and post ringing.

 

ASIO-proxy shows no such ringing in it's upconversion. Just a clean impulse response. Which is in my opinion kind of the point of DSD upsampling. I believe the difference is audible, as well. Jriver DSD upconversion gives you an extra dose of 'pcm' compared to ASIO proxy.

[EuroDriver]

Interesting, but I am not sure what upsampling DSD64 does to make it any better a playback format. The ultrasonic noise does NOT magically disappear with upsampling. I have looked at spectrograms of Merging upsampling, and the noise profile is almost exactly the same as the native 64fs file.

 

The only way you can lessen the noise is with filtering, and if you want to 'eliminate' the noise rise of DSD64, it takes an agressive filter with a low cut frequency. Which is detrimental to sound quality. That is, aggressive filters with low cut frequencies.

 

Of course, the nature of the ultrasonic noise used in the re-modulation can indeed sound very different. I often upsample DSD64 to DSD128 with ASIO Proxy in Jriver. The sound certainly 'sweetens' and gets even more 'euphonic'. Often at the expense of detail. There are times I really, really like it, though.

 

I NEVER use DSD256, even though my DAC supports it. It has NEVER sounded as good as 128. I did not realize why, until I say your post. CPU overhead. Makes sense....

 

But back to 64fs as a playback format. If you are using a DAC that simply low pass filters for DSD analog conversion, I fail to see what difference upsampling really makes. Some filters scale their impulse response with sample rate. That is the only real possible technical benefit I can think of.

 

 

Finally, I don't use Jriver's upconversion of PCM to DSD. Ring, ring, ring city!! Several measurements show that Jriver uses a linear phase reconstruction filter, with typical pre and post ringing.

 

ASIO-proxy shows no such ringing in it's upconversion. Just a clean impulse response. Which is in my opinion kind of the point of DSD upsampling. I believe the difference is audible, as well. Jriver DSD upconversion gives you an extra dose of 'pcm' compared to ASIO proxy.

 

Just to clarify, ASIO-proxy is the other name for Maxim's SACD plugin, or am I mistaken ?

 

The post you quoted has been superseded by the fabulous results we are now getting with HQ Player. The difference we get between play back of DSD 64 up sampled to DSD128 and DSD256, is very definite, not subtle and immediately recognizable. I would even wager that I could distinguish in a blind test ! The musical data input, is exactly the same, but the spectrum of the noise is different (DSD has a lot of noise ;-) and the playback filters in operation in the Exasound E20 when playing DSD256, let more of the music through.

 

I have not had the chance to hear HQ Player running on the trash can Mac Pro (which can handle the most computational intensive filter in HQP), but Geoff tells me it's even better than the Polysinc-2s which has me waxing ecstatically

 

exciting times !

[Geoffrey Armstrong]

 

ASIO-proxy shows no such ringing in it's upconversion. Just a clean impulse response. Which is in my opinion kind of the point of DSD upsampling. I believe the difference is audible, as well. Jriver DSD upconversion gives you an extra dose of 'pcm' compared to ASIO proxy.

 

This is something I missed and is very interesting. It means you can indeed use Maxim's filters for conversion to DSD from within J River with, I agree, much better results than J River's own conversion. Second only to HQPlayer.

 

Using the exasound asio native DSD256 Dac, I am getting DSD256 registered on the exasound. In this case YOU DO NOT select any of the conversion options within J River's DSP panel since foo_dsd_asio takes care of this.

 

For those of us who prefer the sound of Maxim's foo_dsd_asio and included filters; but prefer J River's interface over foobar, this is a real boon.

 

Thanks Migrado!

 

Concerning the noise, it's all a question of which filters are used for the up sampling/conversion and the modulator. HQPlayer's are the creme de la creme.

 

geoff

[BobSherman]

Interesting, but I am not sure what upsampling DSD64 does to make it any better a playback format. The ultrasonic noise does NOT magically disappear with upsampling. I have looked at spectrograms of Merging upsampling, and the noise profile is almost exactly the same as the native 64fs file.

 

The only way you can lessen the noise is with filtering, and if you want to 'eliminate' the noise rise of DSD64, it takes an agressive filter with a low cut frequency. Which is detrimental to sound quality. That is, aggressive filters with low cut frequencies. Then re-modulate at a higher sample rate.

 

Of course, the nature of the ultrasonic noise used in the re-modulation can indeed sound very different. I often upsample DSD64 to DSD128 with ASIO Proxy in Jriver. The sound certainly 'sweetens' and gets even more 'euphonic'. Often at the expense of detail. There are times I really, really like it, though.

 

I NEVER use DSD256, even though my DAC supports it. It has NEVER sounded as good as 128. I did not realize why, until I say your post. CPU overhead. Makes sense....

 

But back to 64fs as a playback format. If you are using a DAC that simply low pass filters for DSD analog conversion, I fail to see what difference upsampling really makes. Some filters scale their impulse response with sample rate. That is the only real possible technical benefit I can think of.

 

 

Finally, I don't use Jriver's upconversion of PCM to DSD. Ring, ring, ring city!! Several measurements show that Jriver uses a linear phase reconstruction filter, with typical pre and post ringing.

 

ASIO-proxy shows no such ringing in it's upconversion. Just a clean impulse response. Which is in my opinion kind of the point of DSD upsampling. I believe the difference is audible, as well. Jriver DSD upconversion gives you an extra dose of 'pcm' compared to ASIO proxy.

 

Hi,

 

 

What conversion setting do you prefer in foobar?

 

regards

Bob

[EuroDriver]

 

Concerning the noise, it's all a question of which filters are used for the up sampling/conversion and the modulator. HQPlayer's are the creme de la creme.

 

geoff

 

+1 :-)

[Sam Lord]

This is an excellent post. Thanks for the time and effort you've put into it.

 

+++1 Eurodriver, great work!

 

First off, I'll state that I am extremely pleased with the sound I'm getting with HQPlayer on a i5 Mac Mini converting 16/44 flac files to DSD128 through an SOtM SMS100 to a new Oppo 105D DAC.

 

I love JRiver's UI and will most likely continue to use it for library management even if I prefer HQPlayer's SQ. HQPlayer's library search and navigation appear (from the screenshots) to be spartan, to put it mildly.

 

I think the full screen windows on HQP are wonderful, especially the album art page. JRMC is obviously the gold standard for usability. My biggest HQP problem is that *on my machine* it won't play any playlists, m3u or m3u8, that I haven't laboriously constructed from HQP's menus. It's a serious problem which Jussi hasn't yet solved in my particular case; he says it usually works fine. I expect the problem is just some file attribute.

 

Some additional repeat options are needed: playlist repeat, all music repeat, and shuffle play. But I'm sure all those needs will be addressed. HQP's full screen views are *very* pleasing to use: if one could only select multiple items from each of the Artist, Album, and Song columns, the playlist creation process would be excellent.

 

...It means you can indeed use Maxim's filters for conversion to DSD from within J River with, I agree, much better results than J River's own conversion. Second only to HQPlayer... ...Concerning the noise, it's all a question of which filters are used for the up sampling/conversion and the modulator. HQPlayer's are the creme de la creme.

 

Geoffrey, so you and Eurodriver are using the efficient Polysinc-2s (-2s means 2 stages, requiring less computation but with some SQ reduction) like I am? What about all the other settings? I'm using FIR, Polysinc-2s, and DSD5.1. I wish I knew more about those settings, though Jussi does explain a lot of their attributes in the manual. Polysinc should be a little better than the less resource-hungry Polysinc-2s version. I tried Polysinc (single-stage) for 16/44 to DSD128 but had too much CPU load, more than double at 60%, and got dropouts. And I don't know how the various filter (polynomial coefficient?) types like DSD5, DSD5.1, and DSD7 compare in SQ and computation load.

 

Does the Exasound process any of these datastreams, in addition to the obvious DoP unpacking and analog filtering?

 

...fabulous results we are now getting with HQ Player. The difference we get between play back of DSD 64 up sampled to DSD128 and DSD256, is very definite, not subtle and immediately recognizable... ...and the playback filters in operation in the Exasound E20 when playing DSD256, let more of the music through.

I have not had the chance to hear HQ Player running on the trash can Mac Pro (which can handle the most computational intensive filter in HQP), but Geoff tells me it's even better than the Polysinc-2s which has me waxing ecstatically...

 

Edward (name correct?), I have a short Off Topic question. Your system appears to be a model of careful, balanced component choices. I'm about to get 4 channels of nCore400 amp kits to replace my Bel Canto class D amps. Would you comment on the quality of your amps? Also, would you comment on the E20's SQ when connected directly to your amps vs. an analog preamp? I'm using the variable output of my Oppo105D player now and am very happy with it so far.

 

On the same subject but *back* on topic, would any or all please give some views about volume control and SQ using the 3 kinds of rendering/server software in the thread title, and whether people are using volume control in that software *or* their DACs instead of analog preamps. EDIT: Any SQ problem with allowing DSD to keep its -6dB max level relative to 16/44? I want to manage my gain-staging carefully for optimum SQ but allowing for sufficient level. Jussi says not to depend *only* on the volume control in HQP, I expect for system safety reasons, but all your opinions are welcome.

 

Cheers!

[Superdad]

Wow, great thread and very useful reports! I am about to replace my 2010 Core 2 Duo mini with a new one. You guys have helped me make up my mind: I am going to stretch my budget and go for the i7.

 

The discussion of hyperthreading has me wondering about the quad-core i7 on Macs under OS X. Does anyone know how that is handled? Is there anyway to alter such core usage settings in he Mac world?

 

Thanks,

Alex C.

[EuroDriver]

duplicate !

[EuroDriver]

Edward (name correct?), Yes I have a short Off Topic question. Your system appears to be a model of careful, balanced component choices. I'm about to get 4 channels of nCore400 amp kits to replace my Bel Canto class D amps. Would you comment on the quality of your amps? Also, would you comment on the E20's SQ when connected directly to your amps vs. an analog preamp? I'm using the variable output of my Oppo105D player now and am very happy with it so far.

 

 

My previous amp was a W4S ST-500 which I was very happy with and has similar B&O ICE modules as the Bel Canto 300's. I enjoyed the warm voicing of the ST-500 way over the Jeff Rowland ICE power amp which was very cold to my taste. The Hypex NC400, is another category from the ST-500. There is so much more low level detail. Mind you the extra detail is a two edged sword. On one Julia Fischer Bach Violin concerto CD, the sound stage collapsed with the NCore. I had to add an additional GIK absorber panel in front of the big wooden chest that sits between / behind the speakers for the sound stage to snap back in place. My brain was getting confused, and I had to remove secondary reflections. SO be prepared to add room treatment especially if your listening room is small. The control the NCore exhibts over the speaker cone is very impressive. With the ST-500 I found my B&W 805D a bit short in the dynamics department, with the NC400 driving them I no longer had any complaints about dynamics. I have to say after 20 months of ownership, I could not be happier. Have you thought about an active cross infront of the amps or you prefer to stick with the passive cross over in the speaker ?

 

Geoff and I find the volume control implementation on the E20 very good if not superb. The E20's volume control enabled sounds noticeably better than HQ P's volume control at 2 O'clock which was a surprise to us

 

Does the Exasound process any of these datastreams, in addition to the obvious DoP unpacking and analog filtering?

 

The Exasound will process anything and evrything HQ Player can throw at it incuding PCM 384 and DSD256. We have yet to test out if there are any SQ differences between DSD streams MAC with Core Audio (don't know the limits) vs MAC DOP (limited to 128). Exasound has just relased a MAC driver that will handle DSD256 but we have not tested that yet either.

 

BBC 3 radio 320 kbps converted to DSD256 with Maxim's SACD plugin running under JR MC 19 in loopback mode has been the latest excitement that has our jaws dropping. The various software modules have been around for close to 9 months, but we never realized that this could be possible

 

Have you tried HQP upsampling Redbook to 24/352 to your Oppo, and how does it sound compared to DSD128 ?

 

[EuroDriver]

The discussion of hyperthreading has me wondering about the quad-core i7 on Macs under OS X. Does anyone know how that is handled? Is there anyway to alter such core usage settings in he Mac world?

 

Thanks,

Alex C.

 

There are threads about disabling Hyperthreading in the MAC OS, but it requires downloading some tools. Hopefully this week we can run a comparison between Win 8.1 running on the MAC Pro, and Maverick running on the MAC Pro and perhaps gain some insight on if hyperthreading is helpful or detrimental.

 

I just received my Intel i7 4930K which I will try to plug in on Monday. I'm pretty excited about the prospect of hearing the full Polysinc with no short cuts

[a.dent]

Can anyone tell me how to use Maxim's SACD decoder to convert PCM to DSD128 via JRiver to play on my Teac UD 501?

Please restrict answers to words of one syllable as I am computer illiterate.

[k6davis]

Can anyone tell me how to use Maxim's SACD decoder to convert PCM to DSD128 via JRiver to play on my Teac UD 501?

Please restrict answers to words of one syllable as I am computer illiterate.

 

+1

[Paul R]

Can anyone tell me how to use Maxim's SACD decoder to convert PCM to DSD128 via JRiver to play on my Teac UD 501?

Please restrict answers to words of one syllable as I am computer illiterate.

 

+2

[EuroDriver]

Can anyone tell me how to use Maxim's SACD decoder to convert PCM to DSD128 via JRiver to play on my Teac UD 501?

Please restrict answers to words of one syllable as I am computer illiterate.

 

Have you studied this post ?

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/qobuz-flac-bbc-radio-3-320kbps-and-cesnet-flac-streams-converted-dsd256-20903/#post331246

 

Geoff is spending quality time with his family right now, tomorrow he should be back :-)

[k6davis]

Have you studied this post ?

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/qobuz-flac-bbc-radio-3-320kbps-and-cesnet-flac-streams-converted-dsd256-20903/#post331246

 

Geoff is spending quality time with his family right now, tomorrow he should be back :-)

 

My goal was to get the plug-in for foobar PCM -> DSD upsampling working in JRiver and I succeeded.

 

There's a link inside of the above referenced post that explains in detail how to get DSD playback working with foobar & the exaSound DAC. At first glance, it doesn't appear that it would be particularly helpful with JRiver, PCM - DSD upsampling and other DACs, but it is.

 

The way I got it to work was to follow those instructions (including a full install of the free, lightweight foobar and the associated components), substituting my DAC for the exaSound. After I got the music playing from within foobar, "foo_dsd_asio" was available in the list of output options from within JRiver!

 

As for the sound, I'm converting everything to DSD128 and compared to JRiver's internal upsampling, it seems more open and immediate. As though a veil or two had been lifted. It's free and absolutely worth trying and not difficult to do. Just follow the detailed instructions given.

 

Thanks for pointing me to the link EuroDriver.

[Sam Lord]

My previous amp was a W4S ST-500... ...The Hypex NC400, is another category from the ST-500. There is so much more low level detail... ...I no longer had any complaints about dynamics. I have to say after 20 months of ownership, I could not be happier. Have you thought about an active cross infront of the amps or you prefer to stick with the passive cross over in the speaker?

 

Thank you very much Edward for your detailed response! My experience is that components which measure very well with *no* weak spots sound very good or fantastic, period. Of course some bad-measuring gear sounds wonderful but is usually quite colored. My amps *should* be the weakest part of my system now: while they are very dynamic they have troubling weak spots in their measurements. Now there is a green and affordable alternative. This is fairly relevant to the discussion IMO, given that amplifiers too have seen amazing progress similar to new line stages and DACs.

 

Geoff and I find the volume control implementation on the E20 very good if not superb. The E20's volume control enabled sounds noticeably better than HQ P's volume control at 2 O'clock which was a surprise to us.

 

The Exasound will process anything and everything HQ Player can throw at it incuding PCM 384 and DSD256. We have yet to test out if there are any SQ differences between DSD streams MAC with Core Audio (don't know the limits) vs MAC DOP (limited to 128). Exasound has just relased a MAC driver that will handle DSD256 but we have not tested that yet either.

 

BBC 3 radio 320 kbps converted to DSD256 with Maxim's SACD plugin running under JR MC 19 in loopback mode has been the latest excitement that has our jaws dropping...

...Have you tried HQP upsampling Redbook to 24/352 to your Oppo, and how does it sound compared to DSD128?

 

Thank you also for assessing the E20 line stage. Great preamps are not cheap these days...

 

Re. E20 signal handling, I intended to ask not whether it plays those formats it claims to play, but if it does any *further* (i.e. SabreDAC-required) treatment of the incoming signal apart from the protocol items I mentioned. I expect and hope the answer is no: it's really a question for Exasound or ESS. I asked because my Schiit Bifrost, now sitting in the corner, didn't enable "native" playback of hi-res signals. The result was, in my flawed experience, worse with the external digital filtering and oversampling that Audirvana gave it. Instead having Audirvana feed it straight 16/44 sounded best. The Bifrost lets its (non-ESS) DAC chip to re-filter and re-upsample signals in a way that actually negated any benefit from similar but more precise work done upstream by server/renderer CPUs and Audirvana (and, I expect, any other very good software). This behavior is predicted by Schiit and agreed by some other listeners, hence my question.

 

Interesting observation on 320kbps interpolation, I'll have to see what my software can do. Umm whoops, I never listen to streaming music stations, because...I don't know how! I always begin with audiophile concerns, *then* address convenience! Finally, sorry I tried 24/352 briefly but early in the process, using JRMC before I even had HQP. I'll attempt to try it again and compare it to DSD128 in a few days. But then there are all those filter choices... =8O . Thanks again and cheers!

[EuroDriver]

Re. E20 signal handling, I intended to ask not whether it plays those formats it claims to play, but if it does any *further* (i.e. SabreDAC-required) treatment of the incoming signal apart from the protocol items I mentioned. I expect and hope the answer is no: it's really a question for Exasound or ESS. I asked because my Schiit Bifrost, now sitting in the corner, didn't enable "native" playback of hi-res signals. The result was, in my flawed experience, worse with the external digital filtering and oversampling that Audirvana gave it. Instead having Audirvana feed it straight 16/44 sounded best. The Bifrost lets its (non-ESS) DAC chip to re-filter and re-upsample signals in a way that actually negated any benefit from similar but more precise work done upstream by server/renderer CPUs and Audirvana (and, I expect, any other very good software). This behavior is predicted by Schiit and agreed by some other listeners, hence my question.

 

 

My understanding of philosophy at Exasound is that their DAC's should play each format as natively as possible, and leave it up to the software players to do their alchemy. That being said 16/44 with "minimal intervention" sounds pretty good. Mind you the ESS chip inside is doing all kinds of stuff and it's the 1-bit demodulators which are doing the crucial work

 

Exasound works closely with various player coders, and has invested heavily in develping USB drivers that will run under MAC OS, Windows and they are working on Linux.

 

For me the huge plus of the Exasound is DSD 256 for both Win and MAC OS, it sounds simply gorgeous with either Maxim's SACD or HQ Player

[Sam Lord]

Thanks Edward, that makes perfect sense.

 

Oh, I might eventually get a Hypex DLCP processor or try HQP's crossover function, but for the former it's a *lot* of work to cut away the internal xovers and also to emulate my ATCs and Velodynes, then patch those speakers. My CPU is too strained for the latter. I'm looking at a much more muscular computer, but that's for later. Also, ATC's internal crossover is quite good and beautifully constructed, I inspected it when replacing a woofer. You know, it's *long* past time some of these top pro/consumer builders like ATC and B&W offered zero-crossover versions...