Miska Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Do you (all) have opinions why many high end DAC manufacturers are still choosing not to make their products DSD compatible given its apparent superiority? Like dCS, Playback Designs, EMM Labs / Meitner, Esoteric, T+A, Chord, etc? Where PBD and EMM/Meitner are explicitly DSD-only architectures and convert to DSD internally. While T+A has a completely separate discrete DAC section for handling DSD: What high end manufacturer you have in mind who doesn't support DSD? Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
Miska Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Related to the this thread and following Miska's comment that a 18bit/96KHz FLAC would actually be smaller than an MQA file plus would include more information (at least this is what I understood)... Is there a variable bit rate / variable bit depth format out there that could do this dynamically and efficiently? Yes, it would be lossy, but I'm not so concerned about that. FLAC can support anything from 1 Hz to at least 384 kHz as sampling rate and 1 - 32 bits. You cannot change rate or word length during the track though, but you can vary it from track to track freely. Maybe the answer is actually as simple as streaming in compressed DSD64? Miska: What's the bandwidth requirement of that? DSD is simple, required bitrate is the sampling rate multiplied by channels. So stereo DSD64 stereo is 5.6 megabits. You can shave off at least about 30% of that with lossless compression. Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
Miska Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 In a sense Apple created the need for Tidal/MQA by never delivering a high res streaming capability. Nevertheless they still have time to do so, and have the technology chops to make this happen. If I owned the Tidal or MQA company, a high resolution format from Apple would be the seen as the biggest risk to my business. Given Apple's recent focus on managed services revenues, it would not be surprising to hear an announcement of a competitive response from them in the near future. I'm pretty sure they'll have some 96/24 AAC compressed hires any time soon. Would be great if they'd do 96/24 ALAC though... If I would have to choose between 96/24 AAC or MQA, I would take the AAC because I know exactly how it works... Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
Jud Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Do you (all) have opinions why many high end DAC manufacturers are still choosing not to make their products DSD compatible given its apparent superiority? Very few DACs these days don't accept DSD input, even among critics like Charles Hansen of Ayre and John Siau of Benchmark. I can think of Schiit and the various R2R-NOS DACs. Regarding "superiority," IMO there are various paths to great sound. Years ago DSD was adopted in part because it was inexpensive compared to the multibit PCM chips of the day, and because Philips and particularly Sony largely controlled the technology. I get the feeling some engineers still think of DSD in this context. But now people like the ESS folks and Miska are making better use of the format. Meanwhile, Schiit, PeterSt and others are re-exploring the possibilities of PCM. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
jeffmudrick Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Very few DACs these days don't accept DSD input, even among critics like Charles Hansen of Ayre and John Siau of Benchmark. I can think of Schiit and the various R2R-NOS DACs. Regarding "superiority," IMO there are various paths to great sound. Years ago DSD was adopted in part because it was inexpensive compared to the multibit PCM chips of the day, and because Philips and particularly Sony largely controlled the technology. I get the feeling some engineers still think of DSD in this context. But now people like the ESS folks and Miska are making better use of the format. Meanwhile, Schiit, PeterSt and others are re-exploring the possibilities of PCM. Was thinking also of Octave and Aqua. Audio-Gd makes both but his 1704 DACs seem to get the most love. Not making a case against DSD, just curious. Link to comment
Miska Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Was thinking also of Octave and Aqua. Audio-Gd makes both but his 1704 DACs seem to get the most love. Not making a case against DSD, just curious. I have also Metrum Musette which is discrete R2R (no DAC chips), it can take in 352.8/384k PCM, so a good target for software upsampling... Naturally it cannot deal with DSD because it is one of the rare PCM DACs. Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
jeffmudrick Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 I have also Metrum Musette which is discrete R2R (no DAC chips), it can take in 352.8/384k PCM, so a good target for software upsampling... Naturally it cannot deal with DSD because it is one of the rare PCM DACs. Right. Rega would be another. Why the resistance? Of course Rega doesn't want MQA either. Link to comment
miguelito Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Do you (all) have opinions why many high end DAC manufacturers are still choosing not to make their products DSD compatible given its apparent superiority? In the mid tier, a product like the Schiit multibit DAC is by design a PCM device. The Berkeley Alpha doesn't support DSD either, I suppose it's a choice - I don't think that DAC is multibit. I'm not aware of many high end DACs (ie > 10k) that do not support DSD... MSB, dcs, EmmLabs, Playback Designs all support DSD. NUC10i7 + Roon ROCK > dCS Rossini APEX DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock SME 20/3 + SME V + Dynavector XV-1s or ANUK IO Gold > vdH The Grail or Kondo KSL-SFz + ANK L3 Phono Audio Note Kondo Ongaku > Avantgarde Duo Mezzo Signal cables: Kondo Silver, Crystal Cable phono Power cables: Kondo, Shunyata, van den Hul system pics Link to comment
Hiro Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 In the mid tier, a product like the Schiit multibit DAC is by design a PCM device. The Berkeley Alpha doesn't support DSD either, I suppose it's a choice - I don't think that DAC is multibit. I'm not aware of many high end DACs (ie > 10k) that do not support DSD... MSB, dcs, EmmLabs, Playback Designs all support DSD. There are already more than 400 different DACs supporting DSD. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GPtrINDXXFW9Nm7A7YJ6Jsiu54hKXD7vUmrAbtwrSG0/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0 How many DACs are there with MQA? Two? Link to comment
ted_b Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 There are already more than 400 different DACs supporting DSD. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GPtrINDXXFW9Nm7A7YJ6Jsiu54hKXD7vUmrAbtwrSG0/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0 How many DACs are there with MQA? Two? Yes, Jesus and I have a real difficulty keeping that database anywhere near up to date. Brian has jumped on to help, which is appreciated. Net/net, unless the dac is a multibit (ladder) it usually is now designed to accept DSD. Note: I still can't figure out how MSB's ladders support DSD, but oh well. Glad they do. "We're all bozos on this bus"....F.T. My JRIver tutorial videos Actual JRIver tutorial MP4 video links My eleven yr old SACD Ripping Guide for PS3 (needs updating but still works) US Technical Advisor, NativeDSD.com Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 There are already more than 400 different DACs supporting DSD. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GPtrINDXXFW9Nm7A7YJ6Jsiu54hKXD7vUmrAbtwrSG0/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=0 How many DACs are there with MQA? Two? currently there are zero because the MQA firmware isn't released :~) Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
mansr Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Note: I still can't figure out how MSB's ladders support DSD, but oh well. Glad they do. 1-bit DSD into most significant bit and analogue low-pass filter would do it. Link to comment
Hiro Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 I have also Metrum Musette which is discrete R2R (no DAC chips), it can take in 352.8/384k PCM, so a good target for software upsampling... Naturally it cannot deal with DSD because it is one of the rare PCM DACs. R2R PCM DACs are rare, but R2R/flash PCM ADCs are rarer still. Which means that even on the R2R PCM DACs what people listen to most of the time are delta sigma recordings (downsampled and decimated to PCM with on-board ADC filters). But that part of the story is rarely mentioned in R2R DACs' marketing materials Link to comment
jeffmudrick Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 currently there are zero because the MQA firmware isn't released :~) And the initial question was simply why certain manufacturers were holding out on DSD compatibility. Link to comment
Miska Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Right. Rega would be another. Why the resistance? Of course Rega doesn't want MQA either. Rega uses standard SDM DAC chip, they just don't support DSD inputs. But the DAC chip itself converts to DSD-like format before the actual conversion. Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
Miska Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 R2R PCM DACs are rare, but R2R/flash PCM ADCs are rarer still. Which means that even on the R2R PCM DACs what people listen to most of the time are delta sigma recordings (downsampled and decimated to PCM with on-board ADC filters). But that part of the story is rarely mentioned in R2R DACs' marketing materials I'm not aware of any non-SDM audio ADC on the market at the moment. Is there any? Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
Hiro Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 And the initial question was simply why certain manufacturers were holding out on DSD compatibility. We could also ask why certain manufacturers are holding out on class D amplifiers, while others are embracing the technology. Or why certain manufacturers are holding out on tube amplifiers, while others firmly believe they deliver the best sound, etc. etc. Link to comment
Miska Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 1-bit DSD into most significant bit and analogue low-pass filter would do it. Or maybe they run it over a moving average filter of N-size window, which is almost "bit-perfect"... That would give some use for more bits. Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
Miska Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 We could also ask why certain manufacturers are holding out on class D amplifiers, while others are embracing the technology. Or why certain manufacturers are holding out on tube amplifiers, while others firmly believe they deliver the best sound, etc. etc. If you make a really sophisticated class-D amplifier it looks like a high-voltage DSD-DAC... Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
Hiro Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 I'm not aware of any non-SDM audio ADC on the market at the moment. Is there any? AFAIK all studio ADCs that are currently in production are SDM-based. Link to comment
jeffmudrick Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 We could also ask why certain manufacturers are holding out on class D amplifiers, while others are embracing the technology. Or why certain manufacturers are holding out on tube amplifiers, while others firmly believe they deliver the best sound, etc. etc. Hard to get a straight answer from this crowd. Sorry I asked. Link to comment
dean70 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 If you make a really sophisticated class-D amplifier it looks like a high-voltage DSD-DAC... It was done ahead of its time: Product Review Alchemy Desktop http://www.origen.net.au/Alchemy/ Link to comment
Jud Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Right. Rega would be another. Why the resistance? Of course Rega doesn't want MQA either. My feeling with Rega is that like other such DACs with sigma-delta modulation in the DAC chip, they are in a position now of being late to the party and still aren't certain whether the DSD thing is ever going to be popular enough to support all the DACs that accept it. So why go through expense to change your DAC that doesn't currently accept DSD input? For the folks with R2R/NOS DACs, I think they're aiming at a market niche. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Gadgety Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 It's easy to ignore history... But if you do you will be sorry... Look at all proprietary formats out there... They are all dead. Except Apple, and Dolby plus a few others, I guess? Link to comment
Gadgety Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 I am no convinced it is a "gamble", in that I suspect that Tidal has the full support of labels/artists in that they have wanted a DRM solution (like their counterparts in video) for a long time. Since MQA is being marketed as "just PCM to non-MQA DACS", then any degradation will be spun as an "audiophile myth" and for the 99% who can't tell the difference between 320 and 16/44, then MQA vs non-MQA (through non-MQA DAC) will prove to be even more esoteric. MQA will be offered "in parallel" I believe at first if nothing else because of the logistics... Finally, the "free market" in reality is not all that free, and a format such as MQA has particular advantage in the way it can fundamentally change and dominate a market when key players have the will to make it happen. Yes, Tidal being owned by artists is a driving force. The risk is still there. If there's cost and it's not covered by return, it's a gamble, or in business speak, a calculated risk. If the return is guaranteed, i e consumer uptake it guaranteed, it's not a gamble, but then everyone will be on board. It's far too early to say the risk is gone. Hence, for Tidal, it's a gamble. As for degradation or not, I guess that can be measured somehow, or else it is indeed a myth, or anecdotal evidence. BTW, markets are usually free only at the beginning, everyone in a "free" market will do everything they can do to make it less free in order to avoid simply competing on price, ending up with near zero profit. Frequently markets end up divided in blocks, oligopolies. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now