A novel way to massively improve the SQ of computer audio streaming

[Chopin75]

On 6/25/2019 at 9:14 AM, seeteeyou said:

Speaking of Playback Designs MPS-5, there's a shootout among AQCD / Crystal CD / DSD64fs / high quality CD-R (Green Tune CD-R = $7.99 a piece and then $1.85 for MAM-A 24Kt. Gold) for audio mastering

 

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/crystal-disc-us-1600-was-played-with-genesis-speaker.11773/page-16#post-219732

 

Basically CD transports could only sound as good as the quality of the media themselves, IMHO pressed CDs are supposed to be nothing to write home about due to the cost constraint.

 

 

 

Of course it would be fun to add tX-USBultra between Pioneer BDR-S12J-X and music server, then play one of those media for audio mastering while comparing that to stuff like Hi-Res downloads on an Optane or a RAM drive etc.

Limited by 16 bit is the main issue. While CD sound may have a certain analogue feel that is great considering it is 16 bit my Computer audio is now beating the CD player (of course 24/96 has its advantage). Nonetheless the CD sound has a certain characteristics different from computer, its lower resolution compensated by some more organic quality (but it really depends on the CD pressing and recording qualities!)  

[sandyk]

Re the link given in  post  14474 : https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/crystal-disc-us-1600-was-played-with-genesis-speaker.11773/page-16#post-219732

 

Note the 1st paragraph of post 331. I have been reporting that here for 10 years now.

[afrancois]

12 hours ago, Chopin75 said:

Limited by 16 bit is the main issue. While CD sound may have a certain analogue feel that is great considering it is 16 bit my Computer audio is now beating the CD player (of course 24/96 has its advantage). Nonetheless the CD sound has a certain characteristics different from computer, its lower resolution compensated by some more organic quality (but it really depends on the CD pressing and recording qualities!)  

Reality is that 90% of the music I listen to is in 16bit,. Streaming doesn't change this. This will probably also be the case for many others. The so called high resolution variants are more than often compressed. I will always choose 16bit over compression.

[numlog]

Hi res PCM remasters can be very hit or miss, some really bad, some decent, and a lot of the good ones are just sourced from SACD making them redundant.

[Chopin75]

On 6/24/2019 at 10:59 AM, austinpop said:

Again folks... while the PSU design detail discussion is interesting, it’s OT for this thread.

 

i marked a couple of posts OT just as a gentle reminder.

Maybe someone else can start a new thread for PSU ? I do find the topic useful

[austinpop]

2 hours ago, Chopin75 said:

Maybe someone else can start a new thread for PSU ? I do find the topic useful

 

Please do. Go for it!

[seeteeyou]

Here it is

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/56670-more-power-to-you-ac⚡dc-forever/

[BigAlMc]

14 minutes ago, seeteeyou said:

Here it is

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/56670-more-power-to-you-ac⚡dc-forever/

 

So the PSU is the biggest single factor but we're not allowed to discuss it here? 🤔

 

 

[austinpop]

4 hours ago, BigAlMc said:

 

So the PSU is the biggest single factor but we're not allowed to discuss it here? 🤔

 

 

 

To clarify: listening experiences with PSUs are very much on topic.

 

The OT reference was to posts like #14523...

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

To clarify: listening experiences with PSUs are very much on topic.

 

The OT reference was to posts like #14523...

 Rajiv

 Are you moonlighting as a Clairvoyant these days ?   

[Chopin75]

Ok I have created a new thread for PSU alone.

How do I get you guys to talk there. is there a way to invite people to talk there ?

 

 

[numlog]

You can already be sure Ralf11 and his friends will have plenty of ''helpful'' input.

[luisma]

Listening tonight and doing changes to my system. Got tired of following pragmatic rules set by myself like DSD only not pcm, server and NAA back to back with ethernet, AL and euphony only nothing else, why try new things if this is what works right?. These are the boundaries I enclosed myself to without realizing that I moved from another house, I replaced my speakers recently, and more than that I have grown following and learning from this community. 

 

Something have been bothering me lately, cpu frequencies and PC system complexity. How come this can create SQ detriment so noticeable (oh God, Roy Eldridge 1:57 into Bossa Nova just heard him like "hmmm" never heard that detail before). 

 

Anyways I switched from DSD256 over to PCM384 and I'm hearing better detail and I remembered like a year ago the debate about pcm and dsd that most people swore by pcm, and putting A and B together in my system pcm takes 15 percent of cpu whether dsd 256 takes 80 percent or so. It makes sense right? Well to be honest my DAC I believe goes into the R2R ladder with pcm content so yeah not exactly apples to apples, have to check that. 

 

Then I replaced my AL NAA by and old Allo Bridge which I updated just today, improvement as well over the i3 NAA , could it be the simpler Allo ARM generating less noise? I mean I have this stereotype of Allo like entry level NAA device (another pregamatism) 

 

And all this brought back memories of euphony stylus with no upsampling sounding amazingly good, how dare you Luis to question DSD, upsampling and complex CPU computers right? 

 

Definitely cpu and noise it is very very VERY critical, and you must be like "tell us something we don't know" or "have you been following this lately?" I know, it is just now I'm linking pcm with noise, cpu usage, simpler algorhytms and such. I guess I'm slow to put things together 

 

Could it be we complicate things too much trying to get to a better state when simplicity might be the key? 

Back to listening now 

 

 

 

[Chopin75]

18 minutes ago, luisma said:

Listening tonight and doing changes to my system. Got tired of following pragmatic rules set by myself like DSD only not pcm, server and NAA back to back with ethernet, AL and euphony only nothing else, why try new things if this is what works right?. These are the boundaries I enclosed myself to without realizing that I moved from another house, I replaced my speakers recently, and more than that I have grown following and learning from this community. 

 

Something have been bothering me lately, cpu frequencies and PC system complexity. How come this can create SQ detriment so noticeable (oh God, Roy Eldridge 1:57 into Bossa Nova just heard him like "hmmm" never heard that detail before). 

 

Anyways I switched from DSD256 over to PCM384 and I'm hearing better detail and I remembered like a year ago the debate about pcm and dsd that most people swore by pcm, and putting A and B together in my system pcm takes 15 percent of cpu whether dsd 256 takes 80 percent or so. It makes sense right? Well to be honest my DAC I believe goes into the R2R ladder with pcm content so yeah not exactly apples to apples, have to check that. 

 

Then I replaced my AL NAA by and old Allo Bridge which I updated just today, improvement as well over the i3 NAA , could it be the simpler Allo ARM generating less noise? I mean I have this stereotype of Allo like entry level NAA device (another pregamatism) 

 

And all this brought back memories of euphony stylus with no upsampling sounding amazingly good, how dare you Luis to question DSD, upsampling and complex CPU computers right? 

 

Definitely cpu and noise it is very very VERY critical, and you must be like "tell us something we don't know" or "have you been following this lately?" I know, it is just now I'm linking pcm with noise, cpu usage, simpler algorhytms and such. I guess I'm slow to put things together 

 

Could it be we complicate things too much trying to get to a better state when simplicity might be the key? 

Back to listening now 

 

 

 

The DSD is overall more musical format in my opinion. The PCM can sound more detailed and analytical esp with the higher res like 24/353(DXD). I am not sure if I really want all the details all the time. It feels as if your head is at the microphone listening to the details of every instrument and breath of musicians etc. Also one can hear the grain/digitalis of the recording more clearly. Surely the DSD is more analogue, that is despite comparing it with PCM played on R2R DAC which I have. The R2R DAC really makes PCM sound much better and more analogue, and really really close to DSD, (I may not be able to tell the difference if blinded). I am not comparing between PCM and resampled to DSD or vice versa. That is pointless. The original format should be played whenever possible, despite its flaws. E.g. an analogue vinyl recording is still best played on vinyl (though DSD tape transfer comes really close or perhaps may be preferable). People say DSD can sound so analogue that one cannot tell it from vinyl though I would not go that far. DSD surely has adequate clarity and detail that I won't miss PCM. PCM is flawed as a musical recording format from the start. But it can be edited easily and DSD you can't really do much editing. It was used initially as digital storage of the analogue tapes, a perfect digital copy. 

From MY LISTENING EXPERIENCE, even DSD that has been heavily edited by converting to PCM (an essential process for editing) it sounds worse.   Regardless of format, minimal editing is best, and is the reason why older digital and analogue recordings can sound really great as there were limited editing (in case of analogue era, entire tracks recorded without editing, it was easier just to do the entire song or piece than cutting and pasting a tape!)

NOT OT, because I think it is important to understand the nature of formats when one use test files to test our music servers.

Also regards CPU, yah, DSD requires more CPU as I can see from my Euphony and I remember that DSD is noticeably improved a lot once my CPU was upgraded form duo core to 8 core !  It becomes effortless.  The more efficient Euphony OS also helps DSD playback compared with Audirvana on my old 2 core Macbook. 

So yes, the format does matter when it comes to playing the music files on the server. 

For lovers of low res or PCM not > 24/96, one may not need  high power CPU at all....(even with upsampling I think) 

[Chopin75]

12 hours ago, numlog said:

Hi res PCM remasters can be very hit or miss, some really bad, some decent, and a lot of the good ones are just sourced from SACD making them redundant.

Actually majority of SACDs are made from PCM recordings then converted to DSD.

Only a few companies record in native DSD without conversion to PCM (except for post production editing)

e.g.

Pentatone

Channel Classic

Challenge Classic

 

However I think PCM remastered from DSD is not as bad as PCM ---> DSD, though DXD --> DSD is pretty damn good as the resolutions are very close to each other. 

Remember all recordings are at one point DSD 1 bit. as they are all recorded via signal delta A/D converters so all are recorded as DSD 1 bit but then either stay as DSD or immediately converted to PCM inside the A/D converter. 

 

 

 

[Chopin75]

13 hours ago, afrancois said:

Reality is that 90% of the music I listen to is in 16bit,. Streaming doesn't change this. This will probably also be the case for many others. The so called high resolution variants are more than often compressed. I will always choose 16bit over compression.

Compressed? not sure what you mean? If a recording is made 20 or 24 bit originally there should be no compression. 

Recordings are made in 20 bit by 2000s (actually started in late 1990s) The 20 bit recording are available only in 16 or24 bit but not in original 20 bit for some reason. The CD format cannot hold more than 16 bit data so that is why we were stuck in 16 bit world for almost 20 yrs before Hi-Res downloads become widely available. 

[Chopin75]

Hopefully not OT,

 

has anyone compared their servers with something like this:

 

https://aurender.com/w20

 

the ultimate overpriced music server ? (actuallyI don't know the price)

 

They have implementation that we already apply - some sort of battery charge/recharge supercap-like PS.

OCXO clocks 

USB audio bridge

 

But they stick the HDD right into the box!! 

They Ecache the music into the SSD, similar to me eCache mine into the Euphony SSD (though I would then take out the HDD) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[numlog]

PCM to DSD is mostly inferior in terms of accuracy and transparency to native PCM (I still think DSD conv. sounds more organic) even when I know my 9038Q2M DAC sounds significantly better with native DSD vs PCM (including hi res) . IME PCM upsampling also comes with negatives effects along with the positives, even with players that pre-upsample before playback OR listening to pre-upsampled files (HQPPro).

Some of us believe it could be that ''noise'' gets stored in the data.

I think 44.1kHz also lacks the required data to accurately reproduce the original recording that no amount of processing can change.

Remaining ''bit-perfect'' is an appealing concept with practical benefits too.

 

I still believe the powerful PC have benefits for bit-perfect playback, when I switched from 6600K to Ryzen 1700 my preferences was for native PCM playback (but files are pre-upsampled before playback regardless) and the improvements were still clear as anything. Further more upsampled or converted data remained inferior.

 

 

54 minutes ago, Chopin75 said:

Actually majority of SACDs are made from PCM recordings then converted to DSD.

Only a few companies record in native DSD without conversion to PCM (except for post production editing)

Im talking about official releases, converting the hi res SACDs versions which are usually mastered very well and tastefully (far more important than resolution imo) is a quicker, easier and probably less costly option compared to remastering the originals.

DSD also has its advantages when it comes to the DAC, so there is not much desire to look for original PCM remasters that match or exceed the DSD version from SACD.

I remember reading some SACDs were taken directly from master tapes but doubtful if thats true, it is possible If only some basic remastering/restoration was needed that could be done with purely analogue means.

[Chopin75]

19 minutes ago, numlog said:

PCM to DSD is mostly inferior in terms of accuracy and transparency to native PCM (I still think DSD conv. sounds more organic) even when I know my 9038Q2M DAC sounds significantly better with native DSD vs PCM (including hi res) . IME PCM upsampling also comes with negatives effects along with the positives, even with players that pre-upsample before playback OR listening to pre-upsampled files (HQPPro).

Some of us believe it could be that ''noise'' gets stored in the data.

I think 44.1kHz also lacks the required data to accurately reproduce the original recording that no amount of processing can change.

Remaining ''bit-perfect'' is an appealing concept with practical benefits too.

 

I still believe the powerful PC have benefits for bit-perfect playback, when I switched from 6600K to Ryzen 1700 my preferences was for native PCM playback (but files are pre-upsampled before playback regardless) and the improvements were still clear as anything. Further more upsampled or converted data remained inferior.

 

 

Im talking about official releases, converting the hi res SACDs versions which are usually mastered very well and tastefully (far more important than resolution imo) is a quicker, easier and probably less costly option compared to remastering the originals.

DSD also has its advantages when it comes to the DAC, so there is not much desire to look for original PCM remasters that match or exceed the DSD version from SACD.

I remember reading some SACDs were taken directly from master tapes but doubtful if thats true, it is possible If only some basic remastering/restoration was needed that could be done with purely analogue means.

OH yes, if you do use SD DACs as most are, the DSD do sound better than PCM overall. It is probably only worth doing original PCM recordings if you use a R2R Ladder DAC like I have. 

[numlog]

Just now, Chopin75 said:

OH yes, if you do use SD DACs as most are, the DSD do sound better than PCM overall. It is probably only worth doing original PCM recordings if you use a R2R Ladder DAC like I have. 

 

Have you ever done any comparison with native DSD recordings (on DS DAC?) and native PCM with R2R DAC?

Probably never a fair comparison as you pointed out DSD cant be edited, so it will always be the ''purer'' option but with a very limited selection.

[taipan254]

7 hours ago, Chopin75 said:

OH yes, if you do use SD DACs as most are, the DSD do sound better than PCM overall. It is probably only worth doing original PCM recordings if you use a R2R Ladder DAC like I have. 

 

I find the type of DAC used determines whether upsampling is beneficial as well. For instance, my Chord 2qute sounds much better with native PCM than upsampled PCM or DSD. 

[Chopin75]

7 hours ago, numlog said:

 

Have you ever done any comparison with native DSD recordings (on DS DAC?) and native PCM with R2R DAC?

Probably never a fair comparison as you pointed out DSD cant be edited, so it will always be the ''purer'' option but with a very limited selection.

MY DAC has 2 separate part, the R2R and the DSD part. So the DSD does not pass through R2R. As you may know DSD decoding is much more simple so it just is decoded to 1 but + filters. It does not use a DS chip. I have been listening to ESS DAC for a decade on Oppo and later Geekpulse, all using ESS 9018, not really a good chip so it is not that fair but I did remember DSD was more tolerable than PCM. After all the recordings are all made from same type of A/D chips. SO from memory, yah DS chip sucks for PCM but that was a 15 old chip.  So I think since my memory of my SD was not great, even DSD sounded worse than PCM on R2R but as I said that was old tech on cheap poorly implemented DACs. I will have a demo DAC for surround with 9028 chip and so can use that to compare later. I head the ESS 9038 is amazing for DSD! 

In some way DSD has an advantage over PCM in terms of effect of jitter. I can't figure out exactly, but it seems less affected by noise from PC or OS but more just by CPU (needs adequate juice!). 

[Chopin75]

40 minutes ago, taipan254 said:

 

I find the type of DAC used determines whether upsampling is beneficial as well. For instance, my Chord 2qute sounds much better with native PCM than upsampled PCM or DSD. 

Upsampling is tricky, depending on the software/OS as well. DSD vs PCM. And also the recording. There is usually some advantage if the recording is not that great, at least outweigh the side effect of loosing warmth and naturalness with upsampling. HQplayer is supposed to be great but it "veil" or smoothens the sound too much.

Direct upsampling from my DAC (which I can adjust) seems to work better but tends make everything sounds the same. 

I think a better DAC in general works in NOS mode. Also if your DAC already has upsampling as default then there is no point doing software upsampling. 

[bobfa]

11 hours ago, luisma said:

Listening tonight and doing changes to my system. Got tired of following pragmatic rules set by myself like DSD only not pcm, server and NAA back to back with ethernet, AL and euphony only nothing else, why try new things if this is what works right?. These are the boundaries I enclosed myself to without realizing that I moved from another house, I replaced my speakers recently, and more than that I have grown following and learning from this community. 

 

Something have been bothering me lately, cpu frequencies and PC system complexity. How come this can create SQ detriment so noticeable (oh God, Roy Eldridge 1:57 into Bossa Nova just heard him like "hmmm" never heard that detail before). 

 

Anyways I switched from DSD256 over to PCM384 and I'm hearing better detail and I remembered like a year ago the debate about pcm and dsd that most people swore by pcm, and putting A and B together in my system pcm takes 15 percent of cpu whether dsd 256 takes 80 percent or so. It makes sense right? Well to be honest my DAC I believe goes into the R2R ladder with pcm content so yeah not exactly apples to apples, have to check that. 

 

Then I replaced my AL NAA by and old Allo Bridge which I updated just today, improvement as well over the i3 NAA , could it be the simpler Allo ARM generating less noise? I mean I have this stereotype of Allo like entry level NAA device (another pregamatism) 

 

And all this brought back memories of euphony stylus with no upsampling sounding amazingly good, how dare you Luis to question DSD, upsampling and complex CPU computers right? 

 

Definitely cpu and noise it is very very VERY critical, and you must be like "tell us something we don't know" or "have you been following this lately?" I know, it is just now I'm linking pcm with noise, cpu usage, simpler algorhytms and such. I guess I'm slow to put things together 

 

Could it be we complicate things too much trying to get to a better state when simplicity might be the key? 

Back to listening now 

 

 

 

Luis,

 

I have never gotten upsampling to “work for me” I have not spent a lot of energy but it seemed to me to “muddy the waters”.  I have tested in my old system a Tidal stream, PCM 24/96 and DSD of the same album and the differences were rather subtle with me preferring the DSD.  I have not re-run that test with my new system.  I have not pushed to acquire high-Rez music but just music.  With Qobuz and Tidal I am acquiring less and less.  Now, I still have 7000 albums to listen to if the internet goes out; I will not be bored with that.  

 

I mostly listen to Redbook format music and I am happy.  I am currently running only a single Xeon box with Euphony and things are really good.  I hope to test some commercial servers this summer and I have one of the new Signature Rendu’s on the way.  I hope to avoid any expectation bias here.

 

For me simplifying the system is tantamount.  Finding a way to accomplish this has been hard with a lot of false starts.  As of this moment for me a single box system with Euphony OS running on it and playback with Roon to the StylusEP seems to be a good mix of simplicity and ease of use.  The sound quality of that system design is really really close to what I have been looking for.  Then a turntable for a couple hundred LPs and the Chromecast to HDMI audio extractor for accessing SoundCloud, YouTube scratches that itch.  

 

A lot less tweaking than a year ago.  Simpler system design, less power consumption, easier to use.  And some of the family members still yell at Alexa to play music on the can in the corner.  I am not done yet.  (By leaving the system in the right setting for the Chromecast input I can use the Google Assistant to send music to the main system)

 

We may be zeroing in on multiple solutions to get really great sounding music in our homes.  We will always find something new, and that is the fun of this part of the HOBBY.  

 

 

 

 

[luisma]

4 hours ago, bobfa said:

Luis,

 

I have never gotten upsampling to “work for me” I have not spent a lot of energy but it seemed to me to “muddy the waters”.  I have tested in my old system a Tidal stream, PCM 24/96 and DSD of the same album and the differences were rather subtle with me preferring the DSD.  I have not re-run that test with my new system.  I have not pushed to acquire high-Rez music but just music.  With Qobuz and Tidal I am acquiring less and less.  Now, I still have 7000 albums to listen to if the internet goes out; I will not be bored with that.  

 

I mostly listen to Redbook format music and I am happy.  I am currently running only a single Xeon box with Euphony and things are really good.  I hope to test some commercial servers this summer and I have one of the new Signature Rendu’s on the way.  I hope to avoid any expectation bias here.

 

For me simplifying the system is tantamount.  Finding a way to accomplish this has been hard with a lot of false starts.  As of this moment for me a single box system with Euphony OS running on it and playback with Roon to the StylusEP seems to be a good mix of simplicity and ease of use.  The sound quality of that system design is really really close to what I have been looking for.  Then a turntable for a couple hundred LPs and the Chromecast to HDMI audio extractor for accessing SoundCloud, YouTube scratches that itch.  

 

A lot less tweaking than a year ago.  Simpler system design, less power consumption, easier to use.  And some of the family members still yell at Alexa to play music on the can in the corner.  I am not done yet.  (By leaving the system in the right setting for the Chromecast input I can use the Google Assistant to send music to the main system)

 

We may be zeroing in on multiple solutions to get really great sounding music in our homes.  We will always find something new, and that is the fun of this part of the HOBBY.  

 

 

 

 

Thanks Bob, totally agree with you, simple things are wonderful. Upsampling worked for me on my SS amp which I sold more than 6 months ago and was replaced by OTL's mono's and I kept upsampling because why not? just when I decided to test Euphony which I could not upsample or play DSD because of limitations on my DAC (which Zelkjo very graciously is helping to get it added to Euphony's list of supported DACs), just then I realized the plain sound with no changes (like @Chopin75 was saying on his response to my post which by the way I have to read slow and carefully because there is a lot of info there I did not know before and valuable to me), the plain source with no changes sounded amazingly good. That made me go back and experiment and discard some of the "dogma" and I'm at that stage now. 

 

@Chopin75 mentioned something very interesting that PCM is more detailed and analytical and I think he is right on the money there, I am a neophyte in these matters and I'm learning all I can that's why I mentioned my learning from this community, so sometimes we may enjoy the details with "our ear right at the mic" and sometimes just the analog music feeling and I have to say we are so lucky (I was about to say blessed) that we are living in a time where we have so many choices for enjoyment and we can choose what to listen to and how.

 

My main thing with DSD was the glitchy Amanero Combo 384 board which with PCM when changes in bits, resolution etc. happened from track to track it started playing high SPL noise, an issue which made me always DSD upsample as it was completely stable there.

 

Thank you @bobfa and @Chopin75 for your comments.

 

Love to learn