T+a dac 8 dsd

[warp2600]

So if you were not there why not ASK if he played any classical at all during the demo instead of ASSUMING he did not. It is my understanding, and I could have misunderstood, that it was played during the second half of the demo. See quote from the horses mouth "not a single classical track was played before dinner." He did not stay to hear what was played after dinner.

 

I find it amazing that there are people that were NOT there and/or have NOT heard this DAC but seem to have a need to find something negative to post about it.

 

 

I have NO problem if someone were to hear it the way we have described it should be heard (HQP DSD512) and it does not float their boat. Hell, for all I care one could hate it. There is never going to be 100% consensus. Just hear it for yourself before judging. And that goes for any piece of Audio, whatever it is.

 

Sorry I went on a rant.

 

I was reflecting to the post above and I quote "with our lack of classical music". I am sorry if I understood "the lack of..." as something not being there.

 

And I DID give the benefit of doubt by saying it was my opinion as I was not there to know for sure. I have been following this thread from the start for I am interested in the new T&A dac but I must have missed the part where it was mentioned that classical had been played in the afternoon. Apologies for that. And I did not say anything about the sound quality of the DAC either playing files the way you suggest or otherwise.

[kravi4ka]

I am still struggling with finding time to try DSD512 upsampling but from what I have heard so far from from the DAC is totaly musically engaging, great tonal balance as well. I am used to a tiny bit more depth and decay from my CD player(Muse Erato II) but I am happy for sure that there is a DAC on the planet that does not make me miss the Erato.

 

I have heard the speakers, the DAC and I would say that the only component that is suspicious in my book is the Class D amp. I have heard them all and while I like what I hear I have always been on JVS's side regarding involvment, they somehow manage to leave me somehow emotionally distant..

 

But the T+A DAC 8 DSD is a marvel, I am trying hard to get one as soon as possible, the one I am listening to now is a demo unit from the dealer.

[guiltyboxswapper]

I am still struggling with finding time to try DSD512 upsampling but from what I have heard so far from from the DAC is totaly musically engaging, great tonal balance as well. I am used to a tiny bit more depth and decay from my CD player(Muse Erato II) but I am happy for sure that there is a DAC on the planet that does not make me miss the Erato.

 

I have heard the speakers, the DAC and I would say that the only component that is suspicious in my book is the Class D amp. I have heard them all and while I like what I hear I have always been on JVS's side regarding involvment, they somehow manage to leave me somehow emotionally distant..

 

But the T+A DAC 8 DSD is a marvel, I am trying hard to get one as soon as possible, the one I am listening to now is a demo unit from the dealer.

 

It's a huge room they were trying to prep and demo in, your always going to struggle to get the ideal sound out of a setup with limited time. This often gets overlooked. I have the NC400 based NCores myself and the T+A has no problems there. NCores arent your usual ClassD affair.

[EuroDriver]

Ups and Downs at Munich High End | Stereophile.com

 

"While soundstage size was mighty impressive, and bass control was as fast and absolute as any I have witnessed—one meaningless, take-no-prisoners, pound pound boom boom crash crash percussion track proved that the Giyas are killer loudspeakers—the sound was gray, lifeless, and distinctly unmusical. There was never a time that I felt engaged emotionally. Nor was I alone. Trust me on that one."

 

Well Joelha has just posted this comment on Jason's blog

 

As much I respect Jason's reviews and comments, we had very different experiences of the system he heard. In fairness, I was at the public event which was not nearly as well attended as the evening event. As a result, I had a chance to hear some of the music I requested in a room which was not packed with attendees.

I stayed for about 2-1/2 hours for one simple reason . . . I didn't want to leave. Hearing redbook upsampled to DSD512 and comparing it to the same redbook file without upsampling was revelatory. I believe this was a comparison that Jason and many other attendees didn't hear that night unless they stayed a while after dinner (I understand some reviewers had other commitments to meet later that night).

Up until that day I had never heard upsampling I liked (either software or hardware generated). That all changed as I experienced this remarkable system.

The DSD512 upsampled presentation was so alive and three-dimensional that I couldn't get the sound out of my mind after I had left. And all of this from a system, the front of end of which was less expensive than single components being shown at the High-End show.

As a result, I'm now looking to try HQPlayer and other related components, and do a deep dive into the world of upsampled music.

For this audiophile, the event was nothing less than a gift and I thank the entire Sound Galleries team for the wonderful experience and the highly valuable information they gave me and many others.

Joel

[Miska]

It's rather neutral/real sounding to me. The chord dave surely sounds "leaner/more clinical". The obvious other end of the voicing scale is a lampizator dac. Actually I'd say tonally it sounds pretty close to the PS Audio DS. All these dacs are in a different pricerange, im sure you can see the value proposition here. The T+A does sound clean at dsd512, cleaner then the Dave, I could see someone needing some acclimatization time to get used to that which for me adds to the realism of the performance. The voicing is definately warmer, more colourfull though. Its quite special in both sounding cleaner and having a more colourfull midrange and saturated low end at the same time. Where the Dave shines is high frequency detailing. Its unbelievable how much detail it's able to retrieve from a plain 16/44.1 source. Anyway Michael's personal tastes wouldve been better served with a lampizator. Hope this helps...

 

If you would like to move HQPlayer sound perhaps closer to Dave (I have not heard it so cannot say for sure), you could try poly-sinc-ext or closed-form filters. The actual D/A and analog sections of course still play a big role to the sound, something that is not easily switched.

[pipis2010]

I believe that a faster and easier way (in terms of setup) for people who want to try upsampling to DSD256-512 would be Daphile. It's Linux based on LMS-Squeezelite and you get the DSD filters of mansr (he's the same guy who built the DSD filters for latest beta of A+), maybe previous generation and I am pretty sure you wouldn't need a power-hungry system to implement them.

 

I am using Daphile for some months now and successfully upsample to DSD256 with an i5 Haswell.

 

I am only suggesting this, because HQPlayer is more advanced and apparently needs more resources to successfully upsample to DSD512.

 

Just an easier method, because Daphile can be run off a usb disk, so no installation required and you can setup a small library, just to test the waters. Later, you can go back to HQPlayer in all its DSD512 goodness!!! Again that's just my 2c...

[Miska]

I am using Daphile for some months now and successfully upsample to DSD256 with an i5 Haswell.

 

It also depends a lot on CPU generation. I can also upsample to stereo DSD256 on i5 6600T (Skylake) using HQPlayer without problems, on purely CPU. I can also upsample to 8-channel DSD256 on the same machine with the help of GTX980 GPU.

 

I can also upsample RedBook to DSD256 using -2s filters on my i5 Mac Mini (i5-2415M, 2.3 GHz), but upsampling hires PCM is too much and becomes unreliable.

 

But remember that every time you double the output sampling rate, you at least double the CPU load.

 

Of course it is possible to make things run on lower end machines by trading quality for speed.

 

At the moment playing @DSD512 to the T+A DAC8 DSD from my Linux workstation, using the MacMini as Windows-based NAA:

[orgel]

At the moment playing @DSD512 to the T+A DAC8 DSD from my Linux workstation, using the MacMini as Windows-based NAA…

 

Any thoughts on the T+A? I'm very curious about how DSD512 and DSD256 compare on that DAC.

 

--David

[lmitche]

 

At the moment playing @DSD512 to the T+A DAC8 DSD from my Linux workstation, using the MacMini as Windows-based NAA:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26050[/ATTACH]

 

Hi Miska,

 

Is there any hope for raw DSD 512 from Linux with the T&A? I'd like to through Windows out the Window!

 

Thanks,

 

Larry

[pipis2010]

It also depends a lot on CPU generation. I can also upsample to stereo DSD256 on i5 6600T (Skylake) using HQPlayer without problems, on purely CPU. I can also upsample to 8-channel DSD256 on the same machine with the help of GTX980 GPU.

 

I can also upsample RedBook to DSD256 using -2s filters on my i5 Mac Mini (i5-2415M, 2.3 GHz), but upsampling hires PCM is too much and becomes unreliable.

 

But remember that every time you double the output sampling rate, you at least double the CPU load.

 

Of course it is possible to make things run on lower end machines by trading quality for speed.

 

At the moment playing @DSD512 to the T+A DAC8 DSD from my Linux workstation, using the MacMini as Windows-based NAA:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26050[/ATTACH]

 

Hey Miska, thanks for your input and I hope that you didn't mind my comment concerning Daphile, nor am I trying to lure people away from HQPlayer.

 

I completely understand what you are saying, but I was just under the impression that your filters are much more resource-hungry than Daphile's. Of course I wouldn't know for sure, because I am not an expert, just based my opinion on what I have been reading in these forums for the past few months.

 

Anyway, sorry to T+A for going off-topic and I am really looking forward to listening to the DAC8-HQP combo one day!!

[Jud]

Hey Miska, thanks for your input and I hope that you didn't mind my comment concerning Daphile, nor am I trying to lure people away from HQPlayer.

 

I completely understand what you are saying, but I was just under the impression that your filters are much more resource-hungry than Daphile's. Of course I wouldn't know for sure, because I am not an expert, just based my opinion on what I have been reading in these forums for the past few months.

 

Anyway, sorry to T+A for going off-topic and I am really looking forward to listening to the DAC8-HQP combo one day!!

 

Pay close attention to what Miska writes, and also try to test with your own system - it isn't difficult.

 

Just as Miska says, upsampling RedBook to DSD with HQP is not terribly difficult. In fact it uses substantially less CPU resources than Audirvana+ for RedBook (A+ uses pretty much the same modulators as Daphile, I believe, or at least very similar ones). As the file to be upsampled becomes higher resolution, HQP uses more CPU resources, being about equal to A+ when upsampling 88.2/96KHz, for example.

[ted_b]

Delete; misread Jussi's comments as Linux NAA.

[EuroDriver]

Any thoughts on the T+A? I'm very curious about how DSD512 and DSD256 compare on that DAC.

 

--David

 

The SQ improvement going from DSD256 to DSD 512 was the big surprise for us. We were used to the level of improvement going from DSD128 to DSD 256 on the Exasound E20/E22. Expecting diminishing returns, we were expecting to have another half step up going from DSD256 to DSD 512. What we find is an improvement Delta 3 times that of going from DSD128 to DSD256, a difference six times greater than we expected.

 

the reasons ?

 

- the two oscillators in the DAC are 22.6 MHz and 24 MHz, so at DSD512, they are operative at "Native" frequency and not being down sampled by a counter circuit or other frequency reduction scheme.

 

- the oscillators operating at their native frequencies are amenable to have their jitter specs further improved by PLL's which T+A have done with German efficiency and quality

 

- with the implementation being discrete instead of being in chip, signal path length and component value tolerances can be tightly controlled to a degree that is not possible in commercially available chips

 

- HQ Player operating at DSD 512, is building a much larger digital filter file, which takes much longer, but also delivering significantly more precision.

 

Some of the front end data manipulation is performed in HQ Player with 80 bit floating point arithmetic so as to get data output with 64 bit floating point precision. Marry this with sigma delta modulation at 22.6 or 24 MHz, then it's not so surprising that the combination of HQP and the T+A DAC 8 DSD is getting stellar results.

 

one other take away is that the bit length of the shift register used in the DAC 8 DSD is significantly shorter than we expected, the beneficial result of this is the very fast reaction to transients

[Miska]

I completely understand what you are saying, but I was just under the impression that your filters are much more resource-hungry than Daphile's. Of course I wouldn't know for sure, because I am not an expert, just based my opinion on what I have been reading in these forums for the past few months.

 

There may be differences, and HQPlayer may be more complex. But the figures are not very straightforward to compare, so complexity doesn't always directly translate to load figures. For load comparisons you would need to use the same computer hardware, same material and to the same output rate. And then the result would only apply for that particular computer hardware. For example changing hardware or source material could change the relative results (you can see this on many of the well known computer benchmarks commonly posted online).

 

Let's say for example that one piece of software supports AVX2 instruction set (introduced in Haswell) and the other one doesn't. This could already make a roughly 2x theoretical difference on a hardware that supports AVX2 instructions, but not on hardware that doesn't. Some algorithms benefit from such instructions more than others. There are many other variables too, like use of offload mechanisms such as CUDA.

 

So the total load in the end depends on many factors:

- Algorithm complexity

- Algorithm efficiency (optimization)

- Fit for a particular hardware

...and so on...

 

Still, of course all else being equal, by trading quality one can gain speed.

[Miska]

Is there any hope for raw DSD 512 from Linux with the T&A? I'd like to through Windows out the Window!

 

If Amanero gets a working firmware out (with the common method) and T+A would switch over to it, perhaps... But this will probably at least take some time to realize.

[Nikhil]

The SQ improvement going from DSD256 to DSD 512 was the big surprise for us. We were used to the level of improvement going from DSD128 to DSD 256 on the Exasound E20/E22. Expecting diminishing returns, we were expecting to have another half step up going from DSD256 to DSD 512. What we find is an improvement Delta 3 times that of going from DSD128 to DSD256, a difference six times greater than we expected.

 

the reasons ?

 

...

 

That is some really interesting stuff. Subscribed!

[Priaptor]

That is some really interesting stuff. Subscribed!

 

I have this DAC for evaluation and can vouch at 512 it is pretty amazing.

 

By itself the DAC is an incredible performer particularly when price is taken into account.

 

When upsampled to 512 it is an incredible experience and unfortunately my computing power isn'r allowing to max out Jussi's best.

 

I am very impressed.

[hifial]

The SQ improvement going from DSD256 to DSD 512 was the big surprise for us. We were used to the level of improvement going from DSD128 to DSD 256 on the Exasound E20/E22. Expecting diminishing returns, we were expecting to have another half step up going from DSD256 to DSD 512. What we find is an improvement Delta 3 times that of going from DSD128 to DSD256, a difference six times greater than we expected.

 

one other take away is that the bit length of the shift register used in the DAC 8 DSD is significantly shorter than we expected, the beneficial result of this is the very fast reaction to transients

 

I concur with EuroDriver.

 

After hearing the DAC 8 DSD doing DSD256 vs DSD512 I was amazed at the difference. While going from DSD128 to DSD256 (on my exaSound E20 MK III .082 Clock) is easy to hear and a worthwhile improvement it is nowhere near the difference and improvement of going to DSD512. At least with the DAC 8 DSD and HQ Player. I would expect that the potential is there on other DAC's that will be able to do DSD512. BUT I suspect that the DAC 8 DSD will have an edge in most cases because of the way T+A has implemented DSD etc.

 

Well done T+A, with a big assist from HQ Player.

[pipis2010]

The SQ improvement going from DSD256 to DSD 512 was the big surprise for us. We were used to the level of improvement going from DSD128 to DSD 256 on the Exasound E20/E22. Expecting diminishing returns, we were expecting to have another half step up going from DSD256 to DSD 512. What we find is an improvement Delta 3 times that of going from DSD128 to DSD256, a difference six times greater than we expected.

 

the reasons ?

 

- the two oscillators in the DAC are 22.6 MHz and 24 MHz, so at DSD512, they are operative at "Native" frequency and not being down sampled by a counter circuit or other frequency reduction scheme.

 

- the oscillators operating at their native frequencies are amenable to have their jitter specs further improved by PLL's which T+A have done with German efficiency and quality

 

- with the implementation being discrete instead of being in chip, signal path length and component value tolerances can be tightly controlled to a degree that is not possible in commercially available chips

 

- HQ Player operating at DSD 512, is building a much larger digital filter file, which takes much longer, but also delivering significantly more precision.

 

Some of the front end data manipulation is performed in HQ Player with 80 bit floating point arithmetic so as to get data output with 64 bit floating point precision. Marry this with sigma delta modulation at 22.6 or 24 MHz, then it's not so surprising that the combination of HQP and the T+A DAC 8 DSD is getting stellar results.

 

one other take away is that the bit length of the shift register used in the DAC 8 DSD is significantly shorter than we expected, the beneficial result of this is the very fast reaction to transients

 

I honestly have to ask, because reading the forums one can immediately see that as we go up the ladder of DSD, the better the SQ becomes arriving at the DSD512 and its implementation by T+A and HQP.

But does that mean that potentially DSD1024 would sound even better? Does it even exist yet or is it possible to exist? Sorry for my newbie question, but logic suggests that since DSD512 sounds so good, then most likely DSD1024 will sound stellar with the appropriate implementation, or we will just hit the ceiling in terms of SQ improvement...

[Sunya]

Emm Labs new $25k DA2 DAC upsamples everything to DSD1024.

[hifial]

FYI at Mono & Stereo

 

Mono and Stereo High-End Audio Magazine: Sound Galleries SGM 2015 music server exclusive presentation at BMW Welt

[bibo01]

Emm Labs new $25k DA2 DAC upsamples everything to DSD1024.

 

True, but input is only up to DSD128... at the moment

[Distinctive]

Miska;

Is it possible to do a FPGA integrated solution containing your filters and offer this as an OEM version for other DAC manufacturers to implement (e.g. T+A)?

The requirement for a separate, powerful and potentially noisy computer running HQP is not appealing to me.

[hifial]

Miska;

Is it possible to do a FPGA integrated solution containing your filters and offer this as an OEM version for other DAC manufacturers to implement (e.g. T+A)?

The requirement for a separate, powerful and potentially noisy computer running HQP is not appealing to me.

 

 

You are totally missing the point.

 

FPGA can not do what that "separate, powerful and potentially noisy computer running HQP" can do.

 

That computer allows all the computational goodness that HQP needs.

 

And it allows full user interface of choices to tailor the sound.

 

I am sure more knowledgeable people will chime in.

[ted_b]

And the computer does not need to be noisy. Mine has seven fans but is basically silent, and even if it wasn't, is in another room anyway.