T+a dac 8 dsd

[lmitche]

Interesting to hear.

But it would be even more interseting to know the source material you used to arrive at that conclusion.

Did you use any native DSD recorded material at all and if so what rates and what type of music?

Could you quote any specific recordings used or are we still talking digital remasters of things like Hotel California or just upsampled redbook?

Thanks in advance Chris

Chris, can you please suggest some recordings that you think would be useful for this testing?

[chrille]

DAVE is not the same FPGA scenario as Hugo. With DAVE (and its DSD setting) Rob reloads an entirely different set of FPGA code, hence the setting and the sort of reboot it goes through. I agree, though, that HQPlayer and a powerful cpu/gpu can clearly outlift any heavy lifting on a chipset.

 

Knowing that you used to regarded Hugo highly have you auditioned DAVE yet?

And if so how would you rate Hugo having heard DAVE?

With HD PCM and via HE1000 and my own HD800 DAVE was the most "undigital" realistic digital reproduction of acoustic instruments and the human voice I have heard from any consumer DAC .

 

But I was less impressed with DSD via DAVE.

 

The extreme resolution and detail via DAVE was as if the "pixels" of DSD 64 became too obvious in some cases.

And it was even more obvious than via Hugo that 24/192 was more realistic, than the less resolved DSD 64.

I have to agree a bit with Rob Watts in that DSD 64 sounded flatter and softer and less real to me.

And this was more obvious the more complex the material was.

A full orchestra fff blast sounded more congested with DSD 64 than really well recorded 24/96 via DAVE.

To me DSD 64 seems to be lacking in resolution apart from its notorious noise problem.

I am really hoping you "DSD guys" are right regarding the benefits of both higher sampling DSD rates like 256 and 512. But I also hope that what I as a photographer know as "interpolation magic", can be even better and even more successfully employed via musicplayers/computers like HQ player,and much cheaper, than the very expensive fpga route of Rob Watts.

Cheers Chris

[chrille]

Chris, can you please suggest some recordings that you think would be useful for this testing?

 

Very short and quick response since I am getting ready to go to a live classical concert in a while.

For free and easily accessible material I would suggest the testbenches from both 2L and native DSD.com both of which I have direct experience and reference to from recording sessions for starters.

I will add more examples tomorrow. I have get to the concert now.

[chrille]

Chris, can you please suggest some recordings that you think would be useful for this testing?

 

Very short and quick response since I am getting ready to go to a live classical concert in a while.

For free and easily accessible material I would suggest the testbenches from both 2L and native DSD.com both of which I have direct experience and reference to from recording sessions for starters.

I will add more examples tomorrow. I have to leave for the concert now.

[hifial]

Very short and quick response since I am getting ready to go to a live classical concert in a while.

For free and easily accessible material I would suggest the testbenches from both 2L and native DSD.com both of which I have direct experience and reference to from recording sessions for starters.

I will add more examples tomorrow. I have to leave for the concert now.

 

If I am not mistaken, the 2L is done in DXD and then converted to DSD.

 

NativeDSD.com is, as its name implies, only done in its native format.

[hifial]

Manual says only DSD64? Boxed it away already. I was assuming DSD128 aswell based on its noise profile.

 

Thanks for pointing out mine [emoji41]

 

You are welcome. Hey, none of us are perfect, myself included.

 

When I have the chance I will triple check the manual. But FYI to all, you can down load a copy from the T+A web site. That is were I got mine from. I do not have a DAC 8 DSD, yet.

[kravi4ka]

Let me clear about our findings, its only the T+A being fed DSD 512 from HQ Player running on a heavily tricked out PC that snatches the SQ prize away from the DAVE

 

 

Mmmm, putting it that way makes it easy for the naysayers to dismiss it as marketing propaganda for the upcoming device you are working on. I wish you were not right, I wish that the NAA solution was the better one but now that I am reading about the microRendu I realize you are so right.

 

That is because DSD is a very strange animal, in fact it is analog signal that is handled as a digital one. And where actually it becomes analog is not very easy to say. So you experience that the place where it all happens - upsampling right there on the computer site and the need for good PSUs and precision clocks is unfortunately very very right... And it was so nice to think that the NAA is the easy solution, it is indeed very important but when you are doing the upsampling on a computer sadly you will be very right that you need to squeeze every single bit. Sadly is not the right word as truth cannot be sad, more appropriate is expensive...

[guiltyboxswapper]

I'm not against a optimised system, but all proof has been subjective to date to only a small handful of individuals with not one bit of hard evidence to explain why.

 

I have tried some of the suggestions to no avail. Even contradictory to the software writers themselves.

 

Understanding what makes an optimised pc with the t+a would be interesting indeed. Unfortunately I just don't see it happening.

[YashN]

That is because DSD is a very strange animal, in fact it is analog signal that is handled as a digital one.

 

True

 

And where actually it becomes analog is not very easy to say.

 

Nothing difficult in that for me: it happens at the pin it is output on.

[guiltyboxswapper]

True

 

 

 

Nothing difficult in that for me: it happens at the pin it is output on.

 

exactly, why is it so hard to track differences when one just needs to very closely inspect the USB output as to why? really wish more science is applied here.

[Miska]

The extreme resolution and detail via DAVE was as if the "pixels" of DSD 64 became too obvious in some cases.

And it was even more obvious than via Hugo that 24/192 was more realistic, than the less resolved DSD 64.

 

I would suggest to compare to DSD128 or DSD256 instead.

 

But I was less impressed with DSD via DAVE.

 

Maybe they have not spent much time and effort to make best out of DSD...

[Miska]

Chord DACs are also delta-sigma so he's not against it, on the contrary; Rob's issue is with DSD's 1 bit nature.

 

There's no issue with 1-bit, but I've covered the technical reasoning behind this in other threads on this forum.

 

Dave has a 20 elements DAC, 5 bits at 104 MHz, 17th order modulator. His noise shaper has 350dB THD and noise digital domain performance.

 

It is still quite low on number of elements, but if you are into numbers ESS Sabre can do 64 elements at 100 MHz and if you run the chip in mono-mode you get 512 elements at 100 MHz. For 104 MHz 17th order modulator I could do much much better than 350 dB THD. However, as you increase clock speed of oscillators, also jitter increases. This is also one of the issues with ESS. Doubling frequency from 24.576 MHz increases low frequency jitter by about 10 dB.

 

I can also produce any order of modulator, but as you increase the order it also increases demands for the analog section. So such DAC needs to have conversion/analog section that runs fine to GHz range.

 

It can be done, but the cost of doing such conversion and analog stages skyrockets, and I'm not really interested on things that only few people will ever use. I'm more interested on making 500€ DAC perform like 5000€ DAC by utilizing what is available in typical computer being used anyway, rather than even thinking about DACs in >10k€ price range. It is just too niche to be interesting.

 

Physics puts thermal limits somewhere between 120 - 140 dB range. HQPlayer already has >320 dB accuracy which has pretty decent safety margin. I could easily bump it to >386 dB if someone really thinks it matters.

[chrille]

If I am not mistaken, the 2L is done in DXD and then converted to DSD.

 

NativeDSD.com is, as its name implies, only done in its native format.

 

You are correct as far as 2L is concerned. Morten records everything in DXD. He could have recorded DSD128 long ago if he had wished to.

I asked why he did not when I saw the DSD128 option on his ADC at some sessions. His answer was DXD sounds better.

 

Regarding native DSD.com a lot of what they have is natively recorded,especially those from Channel Classics. But with other labels represented if varies quite a bit.

Those from Challenge Classics at DSD 64 from native DSD.com are probably in most cases from DXD masters.

At least that is how that label's own site offer them from DXD through all available DSD rates.

But Bernt van der Wolf of Challenge Classics says that via some DACs his DXD masters will sound better as DSD 128 or DSD 256.

The Reference Recordings DSD releases also seem to be native DXD masters in some cases.

 

It does in fact seem as most labels even those releasing DSD are in fact recording in DXD.

I wonder if there are any native DSD 256 1 bit recordings made at all?

Quite a few labels use Merging ADCs which can output DSD. But do they really record DSD 1 bit natively?

The only true native 1 bit ADC used today that I am aware of is the Grimm Channel Classics uses. But it is limited to DSD 64.

[chrille]

I would suggest to compare to DSD128 or DSD256 instead.

 

 

 

Maybe they have not spent much time and effort to make best out of DSD...

 

1:I did use the few DSD 128 samples I have and they sounded very good indeed via DAVE.

I couldn't play any DSD 256 via my mbp.

Do you know any ADC that actually records 1 bit DSD 256 natively?

2: Regarding your last statement. I am pretty sure DAVE was a cost no object project and that Rob has not intentionally compromised DSD.

I tend to suspect that on the contrary, his DSD plus approach may squeeze so much from DSD 64 that its inherent limitations are becoming a bit too obvious to ignore.

Judging by your other post you seem a lot more interested in compromising for monetary reasons than Rob Watts who seems to apply no limits in his approach for "digital veritas extremis"?

I must admit that I haven't followed the HQplayer thread a lot so I may have missed some points you make.

But I would be interested to know if your "interpolation magic" if I may call it so, tries to solve the same problems in digital audio as Rob Watts tries to do with his approach to the problems or not?

Personally I am MUCH MORE interested in the highest possible transparency and accuracy possible than making a 500 dollar dac sound like a 5000 dollar one.

I have very simple taste: only the very best is good enough.

Chord already have the Hugo and Mojo which are both very good indeed at showing a lot of the many times more expensive conventional "off the shelf chip" DAC competition the door provided one uses suitable source material.

[EuroDriver]

I tend to suspect that on the contrary, his DSD plus approach may squeeze so much from DSD 64 that its inherent limitations are becoming a bit too obvious to ignore.

 

With the DAVE, you get much much better SQ upsampling DSD 64 material to DSD 512 using HQ Player, than delivering the track untouched as DSD 64. It's clear to us that the DAVE's processing of DSD 64 cannot match that done by HQP. We did not do a comparison on DSD 128, but reasonably expect HQ Player to be better

 

I am repeating myself, but DAVE internal upsampling of 16/44 sounds better than HQ P upsampling to 24/352, so Kudos to Rob Watts

 

I have very simple taste, only the very best is good enough

 

The Sound Galleries Server team suffers from this malady too ! The treatment bills are horrendous

[One and a half]

I've been looking for a DAC that has multiple coax inputs and am pleased to see the DAC 8 has four to suit 2 x 48kHz radios, CD player input, and optical for the TV.

The AES3 is for the two Mutecs, Intona USB feed, that leaves a spare coax, optical, and USB spare for the future.

 

Counter to this, the Simaudio 380D has what I need in the way of inputs, a few less which is a little bit on the down side, but it does have a digital output loop (like the old analog TAPE LOOP) and additional AES3 input. This can be used for a processor, like an external SRC for the radios to change to 96kHz fixed and re-clocked for example. Tidal is offered with the 380D as standard.

 

BUT. Which DAC sounds the better? DSD512 is all well and good, but not essential (for my needs). At the moment, the system is sounding the best it has ever been with the MC-3+USB stacked & Intona using HQ Player upsampling everything to DSD128.

[hifial]

I've been looking for a DAC that has multiple coax inputs and am pleased to see the DAC 8 has four to suit 2 x 48kHz radios, CD player input, and optical for the TV.

The AES3 is for the two Mutecs, Intona USB feed, that leaves a spare coax, optical, and USB spare for the future.

 

Counter to this, the Simaudio 380D has what I need in the way of inputs, a few less which is a little bit on the down side, but it does have a digital output loop (like the old analog TAPE LOOP) and additional AES3 input. This can be used for a processor, like an external SRC for the radios to change to 96kHz fixed and re-clocked for example. Tidal is offered with the 380D as standard.

 

BUT. Which DAC sounds the better? DSD512 is all well and good, but not essential (for my needs). At the moment, the system is sounding the best it has ever been with the MC-3+USB stacked & Intona using HQ Player upsampling everything to DSD128.

 

Well, if you are already up-sampling everything to DSD128 why not then to DSD512 if it will give you better sound quality. And until you try the T+A it my sound better then what you have even at DSD128.

Only by trying can you have your answer.

 

PS I think that the Tidal is only for a limited time period so does that mean a whole lot. Maybe it is for you.

[guiltyboxswapper]

1:I did use the few DSD 128 samples I have and they sounded very good indeed via DAVE.

I couldn't play any DSD 256 via my mbp.

Do you know any ADC that actually records 1 bit DSD 256 natively?

2: Regarding your last statement. I am pretty sure DAVE was a cost no object project and that Rob has not intentionally compromised DSD.

I tend to suspect that on the contrary, his DSD plus approach may squeeze so much from DSD 64 that its inherent limitations are becoming a bit too obvious to ignore.

Judging by your other post you seem a lot more interested in compromising for monetary reasons than Rob Watts who seems to apply no limits in his approach for "digital veritas extremis"?

I must admit that I haven't followed the HQplayer thread a lot so I may have missed some points you make.

But I would be interested to know if your "interpolation magic" if I may call it so, tries to solve the same problems in digital audio as Rob Watts tries to do with his approach to the problems or not?

Personally I am MUCH MORE interested in the highest possible transparency and accuracy possible than making a 500 dollar dac sound like a 5000 dollar one.

I have very simple taste: only the very best is good enough.

Chord already have the Hugo and Mojo which are both very good indeed at showing a lot of the many times more expensive conventional "off the shelf chip" DAC competition the door provided one uses suitable source material.

 

Latest AKM ADC chips can now record at DSD256 but there's not many (if any) implementations at the moment.

 

What software developer wouldn't focus on making less expensive equipment sound better? Miska isn't a charity (last time I checked), and I'd imagine the market for anything beyond €1k DACs is tiny. Who says that the focus on less expensive equipment can't just as much enhance better equipment - is there some magical pixie dust that more expensive equipment applies, therefore rendering Miska's work pointless?

 

If only the best is good enough, why are you even looking at the T+A, with its lowly 'on paper' 116DB DR? Surely it's too cheap to keep up with the DAVE

 

I still don't agree that you need a super tricked out PC to get the best out of the T+A. OTOH HQ Player is a must. I have mine connected to a Mac Pro hex core via Intona, and I somehow doubt it's the 'cleanest' of systems with such a tight arrangement and 'dirty' SMPS

[guiltyboxswapper]

Will be conducting an experiment later - connecting the T+A to my dirtiest computer to hand, an i7 Quad Dell with Win10 system latency all over the place.

[Miska]

I am repeating myself, but DAVE internal upsampling of 16/44 sounds better than HQ P upsampling to 24/352, so Kudos to Rob Watts

 

I have Mojo, and to me it definitely sounds better with HQP upsampling to 705.6/768 32-bit compared to it's internal upsampling. Using DSD256 instead doesn't make much difference, probably due to the way it is handled (converted down to 705.6 PCM).

 

It's biggest culprit is the built-in volume control, so it sounds best booted up in volume control disabled mode.

 

Since it is a mobile DAC, positive thing is that upsampling to 16x PCM consumes very little CPU time so it doesn't affect laptop's battery life.

[Miska]

The only true native 1 bit ADC used today that I am aware of is the Grimm Channel Classics uses. But it is limited to DSD 64.

 

The TI's PCM4202/PCM4204 chip I've been using and that is used in Korg and TASCAM DSD-recorders is true 1-bit ADC chip. Goes up to DSD128. With a small trick these can be made to record DSD256 too.

[Miska]

Do you know any ADC that actually records 1 bit DSD 256 natively?

 

You can find some DSD256 recordings from nativedsd.com

 

Judging by your other post you seem a lot more interested in compromising for monetary reasons than Rob Watts who seems to apply no limits in his approach for "digital veritas extremis"?

 

I don't make any compromises in HQPlayer. Objective of HQPlayer is to replace compromised DAC's DSP processing with better one.

 

But I would be interested to know if your "interpolation magic" if I may call it so, tries to solve the same problems in digital audio as Rob Watts tries to do with his approach to the problems or not?

 

Probably those, and bunch more. I have more DSP things in scope that for example DAVE doesn't do. Such as running digital room correction and X-over filters, also for DSD content and such.

 

Personally I am MUCH MORE interested in the highest possible transparency and accuracy possible than making a 500 dollar dac sound like a 5000 dollar one.

 

Since HQPlayer doesn't make any compromises (unlike for example Chord Hugo which seems to have compromises in the DSP), you can run no-compromises upsampling even with $500 DAC, or $5000 DAC. I think that is much more interesting. Of course the analog sections and such don't get replaced by doing this and thus you may still have some compromises with the $500 DAC.

 

Think it from this point of view; what if you would leave out all digital processing from DAVE and leave only the actual conversion and analog sections. All digital filters, modulators and processing could be left to player software running on a computer. Then it could leave out FPGA altogether and be implemented with just the Atmel chip that deals with USB interface. That way it could be much cheaper DAC with at least the same or possibly better technical performance!

 

I have very simple taste: only the very best is good enough.

 

Nice to know money is not an issue for you, but many other people have limited budgets.

 

Chord already have the Hugo and Mojo which are both very good indeed at showing a lot of the many times more expensive conventional "off the shelf chip" DAC competition the door provided one uses suitable source material.

 

I have Mojo and it can be improved with external upsampling. If it would have a direct mode bypassing all DSP processing it would be even better.

[Miska]

Mola-Mola does 1 bit 100MHz conversion on a SHARC DSP, so 1 bit 22.5792 MHz (DSD512) shouldn't be that difficult.

 

 

Yes... Since that one is still compromised in the DSP chain, it would be nice to get cheaper variant of the same DAC with the "PCB1" removed and replaced with simple DSD-only input capable of DSD512/DSD1024/DSD2048.

[juanitox]

am i the only one one earth using HQPlayer reading straight 16/44k PCM files with no oversampling or dithering and find it very good ( ok i have a R2R pcm dac ) . or am i really missing something with all the DSD stuff ?

[pipis2010]

am i the only one one earth using HQPlayer reading straight 16/44k PCM files with no oversampling or dithering and find it very good ( ok i have a R2R pcm dac ) . or am i really missing something with all the DSD stuff ?

 

I think it's really a personal taste. You should try DSD and see for yourself.

 

Personally, at this moment, I don't use HQPlayer, but Daphile, but I do upsample everything to DSD256 with an ifi nano DSD. If the music sounds sooooo bloody good (at least to my ears and with my mid-fi equipment), I can only imagine what the combo of HQPlayer and a better DSD DAC will do in the future!!!

Food for thought...