Upsampling to anything other than your DAC's internal conversion rate

[YashN]

the limit being the JLSounds USB board supporting native (non-DoP) DSD256 on Linux.

 

I get what you're saying but beware of confusing native streaming with native DSD.

 

For example, my iFi DAC still does native DSD on Mac, despite the streaming method to its interface being DoP.

 

In other words, "native" doesn't equate to "non DOP".

[YashN]

This is going to be a very unpopular statement around here. Let me quailfy it by saying that my NAD M51 DAC does not do DSD. However, it upsamples all PCM input to 844kHz PWM.

 

If the size of each segment (width) is 1 level, it equates to PDM which is the nature of DSD

[YashN]

I know member TedB who is connected to NativeDSD, etc. considers native DSD to include DoP so I am never sure how to say this.

 

In my case, I am not using DoP.

 

 

I know it's not often people take the time to make the distinction. I use it this way:

 

native streaming vs DoP streaming (that's until the USB interface).

 

native DSD DAC or non-native DSD DAC (DAC-level).

[YashN]

What do you classify as native vs. non-native DSD DACs?

 

Native: the D/A is done on the DSD content without intermediate processing in PCM domain

 

Further down the rabbit hole with yet another distinction or rather terminology (direct) by people who know far more than me (Jesus, Miska): The Nativity of Native DSD:

 

So, for those reasons I'd like to define two terms in the DAC world: Native DSD processing and its smaller subset, Native Direct DSD processing (aka Direct). In both cases the DSD signal is not converted to PCM and is therefore native. In the case of Direct the signal is not even processed digitally beyond being handled as a one bit signal. In my world both of these technologies have a good chance of producing beautiful DSD playback, given good power supplies and analog stages.

 

 

Examples of non-direct Native processing are when a DAC uses a SABRE 90XX chipset. The DSD signal is digitally processed, usually to 6 or 8 bits [This treatment of DSD is called "multi-bit," and is not at all the same as PCM. – Editor], but remains DSD and is treated with DSD filters (to remove noise shaping artifacts) and then sent to the analog side. One could argue that FPGA processing like PS Audio's Directstream, where one bit DSD is converted to 30 bit, 30Mhz, then processed "down" to DSD128, is another example of non-direct Native DSD processing. Meitner's upsampling to DSD128 falls in this category for me, too.

 

 

Examples of Direct Native DSD processing is when any of the TI/Burr Brown chipsets like 1792, 1793 and 1795 that support DSD processing are used in a DAC. They may also do PCM processing, but have a direct conversion process for DSD. Strangely, they may be labeled PCM1793 or DSD1793, and the only difference is the pin setups.

 

[YashN]

Can we feed a non-native DSD DAC with a DSD stream?

DAC chip is PCM1794.

 

No, won't work with that chip. That's a PCM DAC chip, which is confusing the matter even further (please don't call a PCM DAC Chip a non-native DSD DAC chip).

 

With this one you can: http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/dsd1793.pdf

 

So, if you want to listen to DSD with that chip, you will have to pre-convert the DSD to PCM before sending it to the DAC, for instance real-time with Audirvana+ or HQ Player.

[YashN]

Thanks.

So if I understand correctly there are DSD-able chips and those which do PCM only.

 

and those who do both...

 

... and there's chip-less DSD as well

[YashN]

But I do want to bring this back to the central point about DAC knowledge. How do we know what the magic sample rate is for each DAC that minimizes the DAC's internal proceeding?

 

You'll have to have a versatile DAC, something like HQ Player and then listen carefully.

 

On the theoretical side, you could look for a DAC in which a particular mode defeats a filter internally or something like that. Or if you can have a look at the DAC Chip datasheet and the DAC schematics, that can provide more clues.

 

On the other hand, there's always also a subjective element involved as well.

 

So, you have to try out the combinations, and to reduce that number, perhaps ask other members what they prefer and start from there.

 

Finding your system's sweet-spot is inherently a pursuit of an audiophile IMO.

 

That includes the discussion above, but can also extend to other components. For instance, getting my SET Tube amp built was quite a revelation (8W Tubes sounding better than 85W SS??!!), but I still have to find the proper sweet spot, as currently I am using the SET with a set of speakers which are not highly efficient and that's supposed to be where the magic is.

[YashN]

Which commercial DACs besides the Teac 501 can have filtering and possibly the ASRC turned off?

 

I know my iFi iDSD Nano has the digital filter turned off when fed DXD (analogue filter is still there).

 

So, in that particular case, one would compare with A+ or HQ Player whether a Redbook file plays better sent as is, or else up-sampled to a multiple of 44.1KHz, up to DXD and compare these for a potential sweet-spot for this DAC and Redbook with the player.

[YashN]

Actually' date=' nearly all [i']finished DAC products[/i] for sale are superfluous to your preference of upconverting to DSD256 ? In the sense that you'd rather have no further processing, just a low-pass filter ?

If so, what good are finished DAC products ? What audience, for what purposes are they marketed towards ?

 

The better questions are:

 

- Are commercial DACs optimised for the D/A process, or as optimal as they could be, given today's home technology availability?

 

- If not, can I build a DAC at home for such a purpose?

 

Having tested HQ Player, using A+ usually and liking high-rate DSD, I wish DACs were optimised solely for that D/A, and that manufacturers stop adding tons of 'features' and processing there, affecting the D/A process.

 

Thing is, consumers love buying and getting boxes with tons of features, manufacturers play the number game among themselves.

 

I'd rather have a DAC which does native DSD512+ optimally and that's it. Then I'd use HQ P + NAA to send it the highest rate it can receive. Just that D/A in the purest and simplest way possible.

[YashN]

P.S. Of course, when using loudspeakers, important part is digital room correction. One of the reasons for me doing lot of the development, because I wanted to apply digital room correction also to DSD recordings without intermediate PCM decimation.

 

Why I think your technology is key for me for my future system is really also in the SDM processing (on top of the already fabulous filters and modulators and up-conversion + NAA), but I want to use it rather for an active SDM crossover prior to sending it to a MCH DSD DAC.

 

The Matrix SDM processing can do that, correct?

[YashN]

Well' date=' for people interested in your filters, [b']will they subjectively experience the same sound as you[/b] ?

 

Internal contradiction in that question.

 

This must be listened to, for yourself, not looked at on a picture.

 

There is a simplicity and purity in DSD and some well-implemented DACs can let this shine through more than others.

 

Not to say PCM DACs cannot sound great too. You may prefer one or the other. In a DAC which does both, one implementation may be better. There are some rare DACs which aim for the best implementations of both (Lukasz has that in one of his Lampizator DACs). PeterSt has a NOS PCM DAC which has a cult following too.

 

It appears you have missed many, many past posts from Miska, take some time and read through the threads regarding HQ Player and the NAA and more.

 

The gist of what he's been doing is to allow users not to be dependent on the constrained implementation in boxed DACs regarding filters and processing, as well as allowing us to have the DAC more isolated from the server (NAA).

 

In turn, using a server computer to host the modulators, filters and the processing algorithms allows us to benefit automatically from better computers, which is inevitable with time.

 

He was and is years ahead of everyone in the thinking, design and implementation of all this (IMO).

 

There is a reason some of the best setups demonstrated use HQ Player for up-conversion to very high-rates DSD into native DSD DACs. Perhaps Geoffrey or EuroDriver or someone else who heard this setup with the SGM server can elaborate further.

[YashN]

Well' date=' briefly, everyone who have read [i']many, many past posts from Miska[/i], he has just declared how music sounds to him—his setups don't mean anything to anybody else since [he's] the only one listening through those.

It's mostly true, purchasing Hi-Fi, we've often, always on-our-own :

 

Which is why you listen both to others and then listen for yourself...

[YashN]

In the CA context' date=' what does your [i']listen to others[/i] mean ?

 

To get a pre-filter for what could sound good...

[YashN]

As you've listed your Audio System' date=' how 'bout posting us a photo of it in your listening-room ? Let's see how your DSD comes through.[/font']

 

Check the Lampise your DSD thread, there are some pics there.

 

But you still don't get it: DSD should be listened to, and not looked at through pictures.

 

The current chain is Audirvana+ on MacOS -> USB -> Native DSD DAC -> Single-Ended Triode Tube Amp -> Totem Mites

[YashN]

That's how it should be.

 

Just take tips online what to hear yourself next.

 

That's it really. It is so evident I am wondering why we are letting ourselves be distracted by discussing this...

[YashN]

Check the Lampise your DSD thread, there are some pics there.

 

But you still don't get it: DSD should be listened to, and not looked at through pictures.

 

The current chain is Audirvana+ on MacOS -> USB -> Native DSD DAC -> Single-Ended Triode Tube Amp -> Totem Mites

 

Actually, I am going to put some more pics I took of my DIY SET Tube Amp that I took yesterday over there.

 

Miska, have you tried DSD256+ into a SET Tube Amp?

[YashN]

I don't have at SET tube amp, but I have a Prima Luna with my favorite selection of tubes. (2x Tungsol 12AX7, 2x JJ ECC802S, 4x SED EL34)

 

I read a lot of positive reports about the Prima Luna gear. It's a Push-Pull?

 

Try a SET one day for that mid-range like no other if you haven't already.

 

My SET Amp can also take in the EL34s. One day I'll try those. For now, it's KT88 by Electro-Harmonix, and they are sounding great to me.

[YashN]

Hilarious' date=' [i']tips[/i] being also defined as where the garbage are.

 

Perhaps you aren't sure about why we share what we share in a forum like this?

 

But more seriously, the continuous nagging of Miska here is uncalled for...

[YashN]

Actually, I am going to put some more pics I took of my DIY SET Tube Amp that I took yesterday over there.

 

Pics posted!

 

I still can't get the low-light pics as I would like them though.

[YashN]

Does that pass for humour? Not a lot of HIFI discussion there and a little personal. Nothing better to do?

 

Looked like ill-advised and mis-directed anger about something to me.

 

Always funny when you tell them to take the time and go read/study the posts, and they come back with a retort right after.

 

Like 'sure, you really took the time to read, didn't you.'

[YashN]

#114

 

Way to waste that thread.

 

You sure you're in the right forum?

 

There are Groups on FB where you can ogle at gear pics all day if that's your fancy.

[YashN]

And don't call me "Surly"

 

 

Are we done here?

[YashN]

PS It gets even better with DSD512.

 

Can't wait to hear it. For now I'm at native DSD256 into a SET Tube Amp and this sounds fantastic.

 

I thought there would be diminishing returns from 256 to 512 but so far, from the reports I read, people appear to be saying that the leap in SQ is quite obvious.