Do I need DSD?

[bmoura]

Many of us have found that the best analog tape transfers to digital are in DSD....

 

Agreed. Analog to DSD Transfers on Super HiRez and Native DSD, among other DSD Download sites, are in many cases quite excellent. Definitely worth seeking out for your music collection!

[mordante]

Just so you have an idea. Last albums I listened were:

 

Opeth - Blackwater Park

Paradise Lost - The Plague Within

Neurosis The Eye of Every Storm

Swans - To be Kind

Simon ang Garfunkel - Sounds of Silence

Solitude Aeturnus - Adagio

Solstafir - Ota

 

Not much of these available in hi res PCM or DSD I'd presume. But that is my problem.

 

My most resent aquisitions.

 

[Paul R]

Just so you have an idea. Last albums I listened were:

 

Opeth - Blackwater Park

Paradise Lost - The Plague Within

Neurosis The Eye of Every Storm

Swans - To be Kind

Simon ang Garfunkel - Sounds of Silence

Solitude Aeturnus - Adagio

Solstafir - Ota

 

Not much of these available in hi res PCM or DSD I'd presume. But that is my problem.

 

Use A+ or JRMC to playback _Sounds of Silence_ in DSD128. You won't believe it is the same album, or that it could possibly be so old, or that it could possibly sound so much more captivating.

 

At least, that is what happened to me when I did that. YMMV.

 

-Paul

[徐中銳]

The other fact, explained and expressed by others here is the vast majority (+99%) of all A/D and D/A conversions are front and rear ended by Sigma-Delta Modulators in one form or another. It's safe to say that in any music you can purchase recorded or transferred to "digital" in the last 10-15 years started with a DSD like signal conversion, and was converted to PCM later in the recording process.

 

And I agree with you, DSD is excellent!

 

Well then, DSD akin to Earth being round ?

So what if there are listeners practising platygeism—because what they sense is pleasantly, reassuringly flat and...

[sedest]

Just so you have an idea. Last albums I listened were:

 

Opeth - Blackwater Park

Paradise Lost - The Plague Within

Neurosis The Eye of Every Storm

Swans - To be Kind

Simon ang Garfunkel - Sounds of Silence

Solitude Aeturnus - Adagio

Solstafir - Ota

 

Not much of these available in hi res PCM or DSD I'd presume. But that is my problem.

 

Yeah! I understand and share your frustration. My taste and music collection digs deep, primarily, on styles like shoegaze, dream pop, indie, experimental, noise, post-rock and so many obscure stuff with poor or none DSD / high resolution PCM support.

 

But, I also collect and enjoy lots of classical, jazz, classic rock and audiophile/demonstration stuff. For these boundaries, I usually seek for the best format available.

[徐中銳]

In other words, in fact, DSD's Sigma-Delta Modulator chips are almost everywhere.

 

It's manufacturers' business to maximise how DSD is applied in replay. And consumers' practice of understanding how to choose and use...

 

Recalling Hiro :

As Ken Ishiwata said:

 

‘DSD can by-pass certain processing within those [delta-sigma] D-to-A converter chips, so you …. get a less processed signal with DSD compared to PCM, which of course will influence the sound quality.’

 

https://andreweverard.com/2013/09/24/review-marantz-na-11s1-a-very-good-thing-worth-the-very-long-wait/

 

Interestingly, as the article reports, "Ishiwata is also an advocate of upconverting existing CD-quality files to the DSD format in the computer, and then playing them back through a DSD DAC such as the NA-11S1."

 

As you've probably heard, his upcoming reference SA10 SACD player/DAC [internally] upconverts [everything] to DSD 11.2MHz...

 

Well' date=' does one [i']DAC[/i] model sound different to another ? Under what conditions ?

[craighartley]

Use A+ or JRMC to playback _Sounds of Silence_ in DSD128. You won't believe it is the same album, or that it could possibly be so old, or that it could possibly sound so much more captivating.

 

At least, that is what happened to me when I did that. YMMV.

 

-Paul

 

Especially if you use the 24/192 download...

[Hazard]

http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/101771/The_Police-Outlandos_dAmour-SHM_Single_Layer_SACDs

 

One nice example...

Also a little known band called the Rolling Stones [emoji1]

 

Sent from my SM-G900I using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Paul R]

Especially if you use the 24/192 download...

 

I have the CD and original vinyl myself. A 24/192k needle drop I made sounds great, but the CD transcoded to DSD128 sounds even better.

[TubeLover]

Just listen to native DSD recordings at NativeDSD and Blue Coast, and then drop your know it all attitude for a few minutes...then tell me those recordings aren't higher quality than the vast majority of non-DSD recordings you know of.

 

+1 some amazing recordings to be found there

 

I recently added a standalone DSD DAC (PS Audio) to my system because I think it's important to have DSD capability, and my primary DAC doesn't.

 

JC

[craighartley]

I have the CD and original vinyl myself. A 24/192k needle drop I made sounds great, but the CD transcoded to DSD128 sounds even better.

 

I meant 'especially if you transcode from the 24/192'. I'm sure the CD transcoded to DSD sounds great. So does the 24/192 transcoded to DSD512...

[firedog]

I think DSD is not interesting at all. The reason I think this has nothing to do with the format itself. But more to do with the hardware/software needed.

 

As far as I know many streamers like Bluesound, Sonos etc do no support DSD. The most Avid supports of DSD use a software to resample PCM to DSD, while that maybe sounds great. I presume most people prefer ready to use streamers, which are no able to resample. Finally the amount of DSD music available is neglectable.

 

So if most audiophiles are unable to resample PCM to DSD and if there is almost no DSD content available. Then I ask you what is the point of DSD?

 

Try finding non-classical/jazz/blues music in DSD. Most music is only available in 16/44.1 (ignoring analogue formats)

 

Different strokes for different folks. I'm using a high powered server and upsampling everything (including Tidal) to DSD before it goes to my streamer. The streamer doesn't have to resample, it just has to be able to pass the DSD to the DAC.

 

What is the point? To me it's the best SQ I get. The original format of the music file doesn't matter - I'm listening how it sounds best to me in my setup. In any case, DSD is clearly an audiophile format. The fact most people aren't setup to deal with it or that most streamers don't play it back is irrelevant.

[Rexp]

Use A+ or JRMC to playback _Sounds of Silence_ in DSD128. You won't believe it is the same album, or that it could possibly be so old, or that it could possibly sound so much more captivating.

 

At least, that is what happened to me when I did that. YMMV.

 

-Paul

You're right, I don't believe it!

[Jud]

You're right, I don't believe it!

 

I was incredibly impressed with the 24/192 "Parsley, Sage...." Producer Roy Halee always had a great reputation - now I know why.

[Paul R]

I meant 'especially if you transcode from the 24/192'. I'm sure the CD transcoded to DSD sounds great. So does the 24/192 transcoded to DSD512...

 

(grin) The vagaries of online written communications. I need to work on trying out DSD512.

[Blackstone]

Sounds of Silence is available in 192KHz and it is fabulous. No need for upsampling.

[craighartley]

Sounds of Silence is available in 192KHz and it is fabulous. No need for upsampling.

 

How do you define need? Sounds of Silence is available in MP3 and probably most people would tell you it sounds fabulous. So why do you 'need' (choose) to listen to it at 192? Probably the same reason I choose to transcode/upsample the PCM 24/192 to DSD512: it sounds sufficiently better via my DAC to justify it for me.

 

But are you really listening to it at 24/192? Or is your DAC doing its own conversion to DSD? In any case that will be true for most people buying the download, and they might find they prefer HQPlayer's (or another program's) processing to the processing in their DAC.

[Blackstone]

How do you define need? Sounds of Silence is available in MP3 and probably most people would tell you it sounds fabulous. So why do you 'need' (choose) to listen to it at 192? Probably the same reason I choose to transcode/upsample the PCM 24/192 to DSD512: it sounds sufficiently better via my DAC to justify it for me.

 

But are you really listening to it at 24/192? Or is your DAC doing its own conversion to DSD? In any case that will be true for most people buying the download, and they might find they prefer HQPlayer's (or another program's) processing to the processing in their DAC.

 

Here is how I define "need" precisely. When the source material sounds harsh or unpleasant at high volume levels ("fatigue") then there is a need to do something about it. Barring that, there is no need, in my opinion, to do anything. The Simon and Garfunkel HD material I have heard (especially parsley sage) exhibit none of the hardness or fatiguing sound of the older redbook versions. I therefore do not see a need to tamper with them. It is just an observation. I don't need to listen at 192KHz, that is the native resolution of the files I have, so why not. I won't comment further until I have spent more time with HQ Player. Do you think it is worth experimenting with if your DAC only goes to DSD128 or do you need to go up to DSD512 to get the perceived benefit? My DAC is Ayre and right now they only support DSD128? Curious.

[k6davis]

I think it's a shame that there seems to be such a closed-mindedness to regarding DSD among some audiophiles. Some people seem determined to play their music in its "native" format when their "PCM" DAC in reality (likely) does no such thing.

 

I find these conversations about the lack of music available in DSD and whether or not the available DSD recordings had PCM stages to miss the point by a mile. There is never going to be a preponderance of music released in the DSD format. As PS Audio (in their development of the Directstream DAC) and others have noted, a great deal of the benefit of DSD lies in its use as a playback format, regardless of how the music was recorded or digitally encoded.

 

Like many of you, I've invested a great deal of time, energy and a considerable amount of money into my audio system. I can say without a doubt that two of the most significant sonic advances I've made during that journey are DSD Upsampling (at first with JRiver, but now with the superior HQPlayer upsampling all content to DSD256 - my DAC's limit) and separating the DSD Upsampling server/computer from the DAC via some form of NAA (I've tried several but I've landed on the HQPlayer NAA Daemon software, which is free).

 

What I find most interesting is that neither of these approaches are expensive - particularly by the standards of this hobby - yet, for me, they yield dramatic benefits. I urge everyone to try upsampling their content to DSD and some form of NAA. I would not be without either.

[fragoulisnaval]

First of all, we should all try to reproduce the 16/44.1 correctly which is 90% of the music. After that, all will be easier to cope with...

[Jud]

Here is how I define "need" precisely. When the source material sounds harsh or unpleasant at high volume levels ("fatigue") then there is a need to do something about it. Barring that, there is no need, in my opinion, to do anything. The Simon and Garfunkel HD material I have heard (especially parsley sage) exhibit none of the hardness or fatiguing sound of the older redbook versions. I therefore do not see a need to tamper with them. It is just an observation. I don't need to listen at 192KHz, that is the native resolution of the files I have, so why not. I won't comment further until I have spent more time with HQ Player. Do you think it is worth experimenting with if your DAC only goes to DSD128 or do you need to go up to DSD512 to get the perceived benefit? My DAC is Ayre and right now they only support DSD128? Curious.

 

Both HQPlayer (Windows, Linux, OS X) and Audirvana Plus (OS X) have free trials and both will upsample to whatever your DAC will accept, so you can try 'em both for free if you like and see whether you think you hear a difference with your system.

[k6davis]

First of all, we should all try to reproduce the 16/44.1 correctly which is 90% of the music. After that, all will be easier to cope with...

Most DAC manufacturers have concluded that the best way to "reproduce the 16/44.1 correctly" is to convert it to SDM/DSD in their DACs.

[Paul R]

First of all, we should all try to reproduce the 16/44.1 correctly which is 90% of the music. After that, all will be easier to cope with...

 

Outside of a NOS DAC, you are, as others have pointed out, already up sampling to 8x or so in your DAC. Then it is essentially converted to DSD for playback. We then choose or adapt "downstream" gear to compensate for any flaws in the process. Preamps, Amps, Cables, and speakers, as well as room sound, equalization, and a whole plethora of other things.

 

I have to admit, it makes so much more sense to do the up sampling or transcoding in your computer, and then feed the DAC what it wants in the first place. At least at that point, you really do have control over what you are feeding the DAC, and also, one finds that a lot of very expensive DACs are now rivaled by a lot of not so expensive DACs.

 

This is all a pretty certain way to ruffle audiophile's feathers, but facts is facts. Bits are bits too, but sometimes, the same bits sound better than at other times.

[esldude]

Outside of a NOS DAC, you are, as others have pointed out, already up sampling to 8x or so in your DAC. Then it is essentially converted to DSD for playback. We then choose or adapt "downstream" gear to compensate for any flaws in the process. Preamps, Amps, Cables, and speakers, as well as room sound, equalization, and a whole plethora of other things.

 

I have to admit, it makes so much more sense to do the up sampling or transcoding in your computer, and then feed the DAC what it wants in the first place. At least at that point, you really do have control over what you are feeding the DAC, and also, one finds that a lot of very expensive DACs are now rivaled by a lot of not so expensive DACs.

 

This is all a pretty certain way to ruffle audiophile's feathers, but facts is facts. Bits are bits too, but sometimes, the same bits sound better than at other times.

So can someone record the output of a DAC playing plain redbook and then playing up sampled in software redbook so we can point out what the differences are?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[mac_and_dac]

'm using a high powered server and upsampling everything (including Tidal) to DSD before it goes to my streamer.

 

What s/w are you using for the Tidal upsampling to DSD?