FORGETTING the Digital to Analog conversion part, what is BEST Digital source?

[fas42]

45 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

ok, if there is no electrical connection (galv. isolation is used, such as opto-isolators) then what "coupling mechanisms" could exist, barring EMR ??

 

The simple mechanisms always at work in electrical circuits, irrespective of anything else, is that if there are two pieces of conducting material, say copper, in proximity, and one piece rapidly varies in voltage then the other will tend to have a voltage noise on it that matches the first - capacitive coupling. And if there are runs of conductive wire that run parallel and near to each other, and a current varies rapidly in one - alternating current, say - then a matching noise current could appear on the second - inductive coupling.

 

Note that distance is always an easy cure, and should be the first defense.

[Ralf11]

uh... thx - I had to calculate all that as a Soph. physics major - really a good way to make people shy away from vector fields...

 

but I said barring EMR ...

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

  You are an obvious exception, as the vast majority of people also want access to high resolution formats as sold by HDTracks etc. ( they also have some DSD offerings now too) there is likely to be very little market demand for what you are asking for, and if it was made available it would be likely to be relatively expensive due to lack of economy of scale.

 

many people upsample everything to DSD512.  If there wasn't a market for people that want DSD only, they wouldn't make one.  For me, i just want native DSD....for anything less, i will simply do optical out of my pc...but for most of my listening, i just play native dsd.

[beerandmusic]

5 hours ago, Albrecht said:

Hi,

Can you name 1 instance (with high performance audio) were technical advancements have brought the prices down?

This doesn't happen.

technical advancements will be made regardless...

 

time and competition brings prices down.

You can also think of it this way...new technology will also bring the old technology down.

 

It's a simple cycle...i think you read into what i wrote incorrectly...i never suggested that new technology will mean lower prices, but it certainly can and does in some circumstances where new technology requires cheaper products.....think those new $30 class D amps.  not saying they are better, but it is newer technology and cheaper to make...but that is not what i was talking about....all i was referring to is that time and competition drives down prices. 

 

Time x = product A =$500

Time x+1 = product A = $400 product B = $550

Time x+2 = product A = $300, product B= $400, product C=600

product B has newer technology then product A and is lower in price than it was at time x+2

 

This cycle will continue forever, so in essence prices are always coming down and technology is always improving.  Sometimes some products are great at discounts and may even be better than newer technology.

 

I know I am not really saying anything more than common sense...i think you just misunderstood something i said.

 

And to close, you can buy a $2K dac today that will beat a $10K dac of 10 years ago, no?  And if you don't think so, i am sure if you did some research, you could come up with some piece of audio that can be bought cheaper today and beat something of the past...or at least I would hope so.

 

 

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

many people upsample everything to DSD512.  If there wasn't a market for people that want DSD only, they wouldn't make one.  For me, i just want native DSD....for anything less, i will simply do optical out of my pc...but for most of my listening, i just play native dsd.

 In  other words you are prepared to settle for 2nd best with anything other than DSD with it's very small share of the overall market, and limited range of genres, when a decent LPCM DAC can almost certainly , at least with genuine 24/192 material,  equal or beat upsampled content to DSD ?

[fas42]

49 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

uh... thx - I had to calculate all that as a Soph. physics major - really a good way to make people shy away from vector fields...

 

but I said barring EMR ...

 

Well, the slight problem is that you specifically said, EMR ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

[beerandmusic]

8 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 In  other words you are prepared to settle for 2nd best with anything other than DSD with it's very small share of the overall market, and limited range of genres, when a decent LPCM DAC can almost certainly , at least with genuine 24/192 material,  equal or beat upsampled content to DSD ?

 

Who says it will be less or 2nd best...many people that upsample everything to DSD512 swear by it...and won't consider playing anything that is not upsampled to DSD512....

 

but for me personally, I don't care much about anything less than native dsd.

Yea, i have my terrabytes of rock, but I rarely listen to it anymore...and if i do, it doesn't really get much better than optical solution i already have....my serious listening anymore is mostly native DSD Jazz....and if i really wanted to, i suppose i could upsample it to DSD512 and be content like the other DSD listeners.

 

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

...many people that upsample everything to DSD512 swear by it...

 

Some members also report that material upsampled to DSD sounds a little too "smoothed over."

It may come down to personal taste ?

 

P.S. 

Posted September 19, 2017

I don't want to debate dacs, the conversion, or the analog out...I want to discuss the digital source input only.

[beerandmusic]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Some members also report that material upsampled to DSD sounds a little too "smoothed over."

 

Yea, i dunno and have no opinion...i never do it myself...i prefer native dsd...but the logic in my brain would tell me that it would sound more analog, rounded, less bright, less harsh, less fatiguing (so smoothed over, may be one way to put it), but my guess is that i would prefer it to low resolution, but again, i have no opinion...i know i prefer native dsd to hardware upsampled via an nt503....e.g. if i have native DSD64, and try it upsampled by the dac, i didn't care for it...but don't ask me why...it didn't sound "smoothed", it was hard to tell any difference, but my gut  and brain just told me i liked native better.

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

Yea, i dunno and have no opinion...i never do it myself...i prefer native dsd...but the logic in my brain would tell me that it would sound more analog, rounded, less bright, less harsh, less fatiguing (so smoothed over, may be one way to put it), but my guess is that i would prefer it to low resolution, but again, i have no opinion...i know i prefer native dsd to hardware upsampled via an nt503....e.g. if i have native DSD64, and try it upsampled by the dac, i didn't care for it...

 

 More analogue sounding ?

 You are talking about poorly implemented digital.  Well implemented digital is not harsh sounding or fatiguing !

Apparently, most Phasure NOS DAC owners no longer even feel the need for high res formats.

 

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 More analogue sounding ?

 You are talking about poorly implemented digital.  Well implemented digital is not harsh sounding or fatiguing !

Apparently, most Phasure NOS DAC owners no longer even feel the need for high res formats.

 

 

All music is fatiguing to me after time (grin), and some music is fatiguing after the first note....  But I do believe analog is less fatiguing vs digital over time...jmo....why do you think they call it "warm".   Not really worth arguing about, that debate will be forever.  I usually stop listening for some reason besides fatigue anyway (grin).

[tailspn]

12 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 More analogue sounding ?

 

 

Absolutely. Any DSD recording not converted to PCM in its post production process is less degraded from the original A/D conversion. That's because all professionally used A/D converters are front ended with Sigma-Delta modulators producing a 1 bit or multi bit DSD like bit stream(s). Any conversion to PCM requires decimation filtering which has a more or less audible effect on the original content. Many listeners prefer the sharper sounding result of PCM conversions, but that does not mean the resulting sound is closer to the original. It's not.

[Speedskater]

16 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

The simple mechanisms always at work in electrical circuits, irrespective of anything else, is that if there are two pieces of conducting material, say copper, in proximity, and one piece rapidly varies in voltage then the other will tend to have a voltage noise on it that matches the first - capacitive coupling. And if there are runs of conductive wire that run parallel and near to each other, and a current varies rapidly in one - alternating current, say - then a matching noise current could appear on the second - inductive coupling.

Note that distance is always an easy cure, and should be the first defense.

Talk about over simplification!

Some of the things that we need to know:

a] Frequency

b] Receiver impedance at that frequency

c] Capacitance

d] Inductance

and receiver circuit layout

 

[sandyk]

5 hours ago, tailspn said:

 

Absolutely. Any DSD recording not converted to PCM in its post production process is less degraded from the original A/D conversion. That's because all professionally used A/D converters are front ended with Sigma-Delta modulators producing a 1 bit or multi bit DSD like bit stream(s). Any conversion to PCM requires decimation filtering which has a more or less audible effect on the original content. Many listeners prefer the sharper sounding result of PCM conversions, but that does not mean the resulting sound is closer to the original. It's not.

 

I wasn't talking about DSD original recordings .I was talking about original PCM recordings that have been upsampled to DSD.

IMO, Format Conversions can not improve on the original, however they may result in an improvement on playback with some DACs. Even a conversion from .wav to .flac and back again will result in some minor audible degradation.

My understanding is that even Cookie Marenco's Blue Coast DSD recordings are first processed using PCM.

 

[fas42]

6 hours ago, Speedskater said:

Talk about over simplification!

Some of the things that we need to know:

a] Frequency

b] Receiver impedance at that frequency

c] Capacitance

d] Inductance

and receiver circuit layout

 

 

The question was, "what "coupling mechanisms" could exist" - all the rest that you mention are the parameters fed into equations to tell one how strong the coupling is; there is always coupling, physics tells you it must happen. Once accepted, then determine what the levels are, how susceptible the circuit is to the interference levels, and whether it's possibly audible - follow the chain ...

[fas42]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

IMO, Format Conversions can not improve on the original, however they may result in an improvement on playback with some DACs. Even a conversion from .wav to .flac and back again will result in some minor audible degradation.

 

I question that one, Alex. FLAC is lossless, the bits in the the two WAVs will be identical if the processing was done correctly - if there is an apparent difference, then there is some side effect because the containing file differs in a fashion that the playback mechanism is sensitive to.

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I question that one, Alex. FLAC is lossless, the bits in the the two WAVs will be identical if the processing was done correctly - if there is an apparent difference, then there is some side effect because the containing file differs in a fashion that the playback mechanism is sensitive to.

 

Quote

.......The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist. - Cookie Marenco

 

 That has been my experience too, and occasionally I also use a conversion from.wav to .flac and back again.to further highlight the differences on the comparison .wav files that I provided for evaluation.

This subject was also covered in depth in The Absolute Sound 220 and 221 by Dr. Charles Zellig and his co author.

 While trying to find a copy of these I found the attached (below) which may be of interest to some members.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0716/Why_Do_WAV_And_FLAC_Files_Sound_Different.htm

https://bridgeaudio.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/the-absolute-sound-guide-to-affordable-high-end-audio.pdf

[kumakuma]

21 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 

 That has been my experience too, and occasionally I also use a conversion from.wav to .flac and back again.to further highlight the differences on the comparison .wav files that I provided for evaluation.

This subject was also covered in depth in The Absolute Sound 220 and 221 by Dr. Charles Zellig and his co author.

 While trying to find a copy of these I found the attached (below) which may be of interest to some members.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0716/Why_Do_WAV_And_FLAC_Files_Sound_Different.htm

https://bridgeaudio.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/the-absolute-sound-guide-to-affordable-high-end-audio.pdf

 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-zeilig-63635316/

[sandyk]

57 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-zeilig-63635316/

 

 So ? This forum has quite a few members who are Scientists from  other disciplines, Medical Specialists etc.

Actually, somebody like him is far more likely to be able to afford way better than average gear, which often lends itself to more in depth investigations in the Audio area.

 

 BTW, I have also worked with Dr. Zellig in an investigation in  this area, where he also confirmed my findings under non sighted conditions .(HFC Forum)  

 

Extract from HFC Forum.

"....Recently, I sent Dr. Zellig and Chris, who is a friend from Spain,(also a C.A. member) uploads of a 24/96 .flac file from HDTracks that had been converted to a .wav file again, and the same track extracted from my DVD-A. The track was "Diana Krall-Temptation". I had to remove the Header information in the extracted .wav file to make it playable with both cPlay and also my Oppo 103.
After the Header information was removed using Sound Forge 9 , both versions had the same .md5 checksums.
Although Dr. Zellig and my friend Chris both heard clear differences, they preferred the .flac derived version, which was not how I found them before Zipping, TX and Unzipping again.
The DVD-A version was better focussed with a greater depth of image, and her voice sounding cleaner at this end."

 

[ferenc]

On 2018. 01. 10. at 6:26 AM, Ralf11 said:

I want better optical than TOSlink

 

Actually some 20 or more years ago Theta had an optical ST fiber connection between their transport and DAC.

Some 17-18 years ago Accuphase was using RJ45 connectors between their DC100/DP101 SACD transport/DAC combo. 

[ferenc]

19 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

I wasn't talking about DSD original recordings .I was talking about original PCM recordings that have been upsampled to DSD.

IMO, Format Conversions can not improve on the original, however they may result in an improvement on playback with some DACs. Even a conversion from .wav to .flac and back again will result in some minor audible degradation.

My understanding is that even Cookie Marenco's Blue Coast DSD recordings are first processed using PCM.

 

 

I have a Merging Hapi with the Premium D/A board which does DSD256 at home for a few days (thx for the local distributor). I have made several live (with Royer stereo mic) and reel-to-reel DSD128 recording with the RME ADI2 Pro A/D//D/A and Korg MR series in the past few years.

 

Merging Hapi sounds extremely nice with those DSD recordings. I have converted some of the recordings 384 kHz/24 bit aka DXD PCM, and played them back through Hqplayer upconverted to the Hapi at DSD256. There was very minimal difference between the original DSD and the down - the - upconverted playback (in my system) directly played back through Hapi to my Presonus R65 and Quested S6R nearfield studio monitors.

 

I think it suggests that Hqplayer algorithms are really nice and the Hapi with the Premium D/A board is extremely capable converter. 

 

I tried all sorts of USB converters ADCs, DACs, DDCs, etc, a Rednet 3, but Ravenna and Hapi is in a league on its own. In my system of course. 

 

If I want to compare Dante and Ravenna, I can say that Ravenna requires more horsepower from the PC, more sensitive on the software you use for playback and a bit more tricky if you want to use it with a switch, not directly connected to an Ethernet port, but it sounds practically perfect for me. More than any USB chain and more than Rednet 3 /combined with all sorts of DACs.  

 

 

I am using Hapi connected to my Macbook Pro through a Thunderbolt 3 dock. If you are looking for the ultimate PC interface consider Hapi with its Premium D/A board, it is a mighty fine concept and product even with its original cables, without any special and exotic cabling. I very much hope Ravenna (and Dante) will get some more attention in high-end audio. 

 

[tailspn]

Hi ferenc,

 

My Horus and Happi systems run under Masscore, so I'm not sure how much of my experience is supported by Pyramix Native. While both implementations of Pyramix and the hardware with Premium cards support 384KHz PCM, DXD is actually specifically 352.8KHz 24/32 only. That's only important in Pyramix world for there's specific attributes available in Mergings's DXD Project selection. With that you should be able to open a DXD Project and record in DSD, or mount your DSD files. When played out of the DXD Project with the Mixer you configure, those DSD files will convert on the fly to 352.8KHz PCM and play out as the PCM conversion. If you also open an additional Project; a DSD Project, you can mount the same DSD files. As a DSD project you won't be able to modify the levels, as you can in the DXD Project, but assuming you leave the DXD levels all at 0dB, the levels should match within several dB, with the DXD being louder.  You may have to fine tune the Mixer levels in the DXD Project to exactly match the levels between Projects. If you perform this with DSD256 selected as the bit rate, the differences between PCM (DXD 352.8KHz) are even more apparent.

 

The point of all this is you can switch between the DXD and DSD Projects (at least on a Masscore based system) within a second or so to compare their sonic qualities. Doing this with originally DSD256 recorded acoustic music, I experience an easily detected difference in spaciousness and instrument detail. It's so significant that early on I overcorrected microphone positioning on DSD256 recorded sessions monitored in DXD to achieve the detail and transparency already present when later played out in a DSD project.  Unlike Pyramix Native, Masscore supports DSD256 recording while simultaneously monitoring a mixed to stereo (headphones) mix in real time. Monitoring in a DSD Project allows only monitoring two mics/channels at one time. That's where I became aware of the deterioration of sound quality of PCM (352.8KHz) conversions from DSD256 bit streams.

 

If you have the opportunity while you have the hardware to make a recording, especially in DSD256. try it. You've got a very transparent and revealing recording and playback system there.

 

Tom

 

[ferenc]

1 hour ago, tailspn said:

....

If you have the opportunity while you have the hardware to make a recording, especially in DSD256. try it. You've got a very transparent and revealing recording and playback system there.

 

 

 

Hi Tom,

 

thanks for the explanation. I use Hapi as Core Audio device, with Roon and Hqplayer. The recordings I made were made on RME ADI 2 Pro and Korg MR1000, MR2000 earlier. I will not have time to make recordings while I have Hapi at home, but if I buy one I will buy an A/D card as well. My listening experience is limited by the nearfield position and the 2 way active studio monitors unfortunately but as I mentioned I could not hear any serious difference between the original DSD recordings and the double converted files. I definitely will try the same with some Hapi recording, when I have it next time. 

[Speedskater]

On 1/13/2018 at 5:56 PM, fas42 said:

 

The question was, "what "coupling mechanisms" could exist" - all the rest that you mention are the parameters fed into equations to tell one how strong the coupling is; there is always coupling, physics tells you it must happen. Once accepted, then determine what the levels are, how susceptible the circuit is to the interference levels, and whether it's possibly audible - follow the chain ...

And the quick answer for reasonable circuits is:

There will be trivial coupling.

[fas42]

25 minutes ago, Speedskater said:

And the quick answer for reasonable circuits is:

There will be trivial coupling.

 

Unfortunately, how does one measure "reasonable", and "trivial"? The hairy areas in audio, where people start to debate aggressively, is all around deciding what the numbers are, that correspond to inaudible for most people. My experiences are that the numbers given are not relevant, or not fine grained enough, they don't correlate with what people hear. So, I work to the point where further changes are inaudible - that's the only metric that counts, for myself.