Computer, CD transport or Network Player?

[musicbuff]

I'll have to check into my computer's specs, but how much power will I need? My current DAC only upsamples to 24/192 (through JRiver and HQPlayer) and it does a beautiful job. After more research, I'm looking into replacing it with possibly a T+A 8 DSD DAC (only if DSD increases the SQ). And as I mentioned earlier, streaming is not for me. I just want to play my ripped CD's and purchased hiRes files.

[musicbuff]

Here's my computer specs:

i5 4460 CPU @ 3.20 GHz

Quad core 64 bit

8 GB RAM

1 TB

Windows 10 Home edition

Will my computer handle 512 DSD through Signalyst HQ Player settings?

[CuteStudio]

Essentially for me there is no difference between a CD player, a stand-alone PC or a networked system.

At the end of the day the difference between PCM and DSD is far greater, all of the above have the same basic task:

To get digital music data presented to a DAC in a timely manner.

 

The CD does it with a 1x spinning disk and minimal electronics as befits a 30 year old format, the PC reads the data from the hard disk so has a leap of usability to 'jukebox' status and the streaming is merely where the PC/device loads the digital data into memory from.

 

Our bottleneck is the old 16/44.1 format, so we dither it to stretch the detail (at least for non transients) and up/over sample it so it can be realistically filtered, so in some ways it can be considered a semi-lossless format.

We also have the loudness war to contend with (Our biggest quality variable - which I have a suspicion the origins relate to the 16bit format sounding better as it gets louder) and the option to open up the route from digital data -> to -> DAC with further processing such as room EQ, declipping, levelling, upsampling and a wise expansion to 24bit to allow all of that to work well. 

 

I regard in order of importance:

1. Quality of source material
2. Format (PCM24 preferred, DSD avoided - can't be processed)
3. Processing (Repair, Upsampling, EQ etc)
4. Timing
5. DAC

 None of which depend on the method used to arrive as the digital data at step 1

 

Here the famous Lynn Olson discussed bit depths and sample rates in Part1

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue65/dac.htm

 

And Part 2

http://positive-feedback.com/Issue66/dsd.htm

 

Very informative and chimes with my own findings exactly.

 

Another link to DSD and the issues with that is here:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/sacd-fundamentally-flawed.26075/page-3

[Teresa]

On 6/29/2017 at 4:34 AM, firedog said:

 

The only meta analysis I found in a search was one showing that hi-res is distinguishable from Redbook.....

 

 

And again, as far as the Meyer-Moran study the Boston Audio Society  confirmed they used SACD's based on upsampled Redbook. AFAIR, few or none of their SACDs were sourced from a high res master. They were all either sourced from tape, or from non-high res digital recordings.

A  quick search found this, from the BAA, listing the SACDs used in the test. Just with a little knowledge and a glance, you can tell that many of these predate digital recording, hi-res recording, or both:

 

Patricia Barber – Nightclub (Mobile Fidelity UDSACD 2004)
Chesky: Various -- An Introduction to SACD (SACD204)
Chesky: Various -- Super Audio Collection & Professional Test Disc (CHDVD 171)
Stephen Hartke: Tituli/Cathedral in the Thrashing Rain; Hilliard Ensemble/Crockett (ECM New Series 1861, cat. no. 476 1155, SACD)
Bach Concertos: Perahia et al; Sony SACD
Mozart Piano Concertos: Perahia, Sony SACD
Kimber Kable: Purity, an Inspirational Collection SACD T Minus 5 Vocal Band, no cat. #
Tony Overwater: Op SACD (Turtle Records TRSA 0008)
McCoy Tyner Illuminati SACD (Telarc 63599)
Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon SACD (Capitol/EMI 82136)
Steely Dan, Gaucho, Geffen SACD
Alan Parsons, I, Robot DVD-A (Chesky CHDD 2003)
BSO, Saint-Saens, Organ Symphony SACD (RCA 82876-61387-2 RE1)
Carlos Heredia, Gypsy Flamenco SACD (Chesky SACD266)
Shakespeare in Song, Phoenix Bach Choir, Bruffy, SACD (Chandos CHSA 5031)
Livingston Taylor, Ink SACD (Chesky SACD253)
The Persuasions, The Persuasions Sing the Beatles, SACD (Chesky SACD244)
Steely Dan, Two Against Nature, DVD-A (24,96) Giant Records 9 24719-9
McCoy Tyner with Stanley Clark and Al Foster, Telarc SACD 3488

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm

 

So basically, M&M confirmed that listeners can't differentiate between playback  of a  Redbook/analog source played back as a CD, and that same  source converted/upsampled to hi-res, and then played back as analog from an SACD player. But of course, with proper conversion and playback there is no reason to think they would hear a difference. 

 

If you want to know the recording provenance of each one, it's now time for you to put in the effort.

You are correct most of these are analog recordings and 16/44.1kHz digital recordings from the major labels, which are not known for natural realistic sound, usually just the opposite.

 

The reason for SACD is two-fold: higher resolution and/or discreet multichannel. Multichannel sound was the reason many 16/44.1 masters were released on SACD.

 

However, there are also recordings from audiophile labels, some high resolution, some not.

 

Patricia Barber – Nightclub (Mobile Fidelity UDSACD 2004)
Nightclub was recorded on the Sony 3348, a 32-track (16/48) digital tape recorder, and mixed down to 2-track, half-inch analog tape with Dolby SR. Not high resolution in my opinion.

 

Most of the selections on the two Chesky samplers are from 24/96kHz PCM, however some are from analog.

 

Carlos Heredia, Gypsy Flamenco SACD (Chesky SACD266) is a 24/96 PCM recording.

 

Livingston Taylor, Ink SACD (Chesky SACD253) is a 24/96 PCM recording.

 

The Persuasions, The Persuasions Sing the Beatles, SACD (Chesky SACD244) is a 24/96 PCM recording.

 

Tony Overwater: Op SACD (Turtle Records TRSA 0008) is a 24/192 PCM recording.

 

McCoy Tyner Illuminations Telarc SACD SACD-63599 is a PURE DSD recording.

 

McCoy Tyner with Stanley Clark and Al Foster, Telarc SACD-63488 is a PURE DSD recording.

 

So as you can see there are 2 DSD recordings, 1 from 24/192 PCM and 3 from 24/96 PCM, plus parts of the 2 Chesky samplers that are from 24/96 PCM, for a total of almost 8 real high resolution recordings out of 20.

 

Many people here claim to hate the music on audiophile recordings so I wonder how many testers selected the Chesky, Turtle and Telarc recordings for the test.

 

Personally I prefer audiophile recordings, but even on my favorite audiophile labels I like at most 10% of the music from their releases. I feel most people selected the more popular artists from the major labels which depending on the date recorded were from old analog or 16/44.1 PCM.

[musicbuff]

Took the plunge and got the T+A DAC 8 DSD. With my present computer I can only upsample to DSD256, but there is an audible SQ improvement over 192/24.  I've read the DAC 8 can be directly connected to power amps or connected through a preamp. I've opted for direct connection. Through my preamp music sounds a bit skeletonized and the bass, a bit flabby. So to market my preamp will go. Plus one less power cord & set of cables taking up space is a positive thing. Thanks for all the input toward making this decision. I'm lovin' DSD through HQ Player (1st choice) and JRiver 22 (2nd choice).