Consensus about upsampling to 512 DSD

[kumakuma]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, there is a teachable method - the specific is to use a 'bad' recording to highlight the symptoms - and every time I mention this step, everyone does an ostrich - you know, lead, horse, water, drink ...

 

Diagnosis is defined as "the art or act of identifying a disease from its signs and symptoms".

 

As far as I can tell, your posts provide no useful information on how to go from the symptoms to the underlying malady nor do they provide any methods of treatment other than futz with the equipment until it makes "bad" recordings sound good.

 

If you were a doctor, you'd have lost your license years ago.

[fas42]

25 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Diagnosis is defined as "the art or act of identifying a disease from its signs and symptoms".

 

As far as I can tell, your posts provide no useful information on how to go from the symptoms to the underlying malady nor do they provide any methods of treatment other than futz with the equipment until it makes "bad" recordings sound good.

 

If you were a doctor, you'd have lost your license years ago.

 

OK, making progress, perhaps ... ?

 

Let's assume you have, finally, identified a clear symptom of bad behaviour - experience is obviously now going to be a key factor for heading in the right direction for selecting the right treatment; that's, umm, why they have this concept of apprencticeship; why a medical graduate can't set up shop immediately after he finishes his courses.

 

But audio is not that hard - you have a symptom, you then start doing experiments, benign simple tests to check whether some of the things people have mentioned make a difference; you're a detective now, aiming to get closer and closer to the core problem.

 

Two simple examples: key ones from when I started all those decades ago. I had a simple combo, CDP, power amp, speakers - and like everyone else I was plugging and unplugging cables in my fiddling ... hey, why does it sound better straight after I plug in the cable? Hmmm, is the contact going off, when it just sits there, untouched for a long period of time - long story short, I did experiment after experiment, and determined that the only valid solution, back then, was to hardwire - it was the logical conclusion.

 

The other symptom was that I lost treble quality, beyond a certain volume; this was obviously a power amp issue, the speakers were miles from being stressed. Because I'm an EE I suspected a power supply deficiency, and being a DIY person I fiddled with that through several stages until I was happy with the performance. People who aren't DIY, research for amps that don't have this problem, from reviews, etc; and test a demo unit to make sure no such weakness exists.

 

Most gear has a variety of issues; visual inspection and experience guides one in many cases - it's not trivial to "set this down".

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 hours ago, jabbr said:

@Audiophile Neuroscience do me a favor and lets try and get your current DSD512 capable DAC to its best performance, I use HQPlayer, but other folks like A+3 -- I'm trialing A+3 now that it does streaming... in the process of trying to get my RPi3B+ recognized so I can stream to "mpd". To use volume control, you need one of these packages that does native realtime upsampling.

 

Thanks. I was planning on trialing both HQPlayer and XXXHighEnd. When I googled the latter I got a lot of porn sites so got distracted (just kidding @PeterSt).I'm not sure if XXXHighEnd does "native realtime upsampling" but suffice to say upsampling is not the only reason for me to explore other players.

 

I note my DSD512 DSD capable DAC also offers PCM upsampling to 210 kHz. Is it just me or does that sound like an unusual number.It does subjectively change the sound for the better but varies a bit with the recording.

[fas42]

8 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Yeah, I experienced zero attenuation using HQP with my desktop system a couple of times - no fun. Speakers survived, but I wouldn’t want to try it too often.

 

I did not have the “never go above” setting on.

 

Chap up the road had pretty expensive drivers, extremely solid subwoofers - and when I first listened was running at ludicrously low volumes. He was very twitchy about going to reasonable volumes, and it took a lot of coaxing to get him to up the levels, so that the rig could start to breathe - not going beyond 2nd gear when driving a Ferrari is not my idea of fun, this is supposed to be an enjoyable hobby!

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

The most 'radical' aspect was that it became impossible to locate the speaker drivers aurally, even with one's ear only inches from the working surface - this is what it makes trivially easy to assess how close one is to this quality; it's an 'objective' measure.

 

So you measure the accuracy of a system in inches? How many inches is yours? 

 

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Until "measurements with proper tools" are available, rather than just a thought bubble, then 'subjective' assessment will be required. 'Training' oneself to hear distortion and interference artifacts in the replay adds enormously to one's ability to assess - the downside of this is that it becomes impossible to listen to conventional reproduction for pleasure, because all the deficiencies are now far too obvious.

 

Objective measurements of accuracy of sound reproduction have been available for many years. There's frequency response, jitter, THD, linearity, IMD, crosstalk, etc., etc.

[elcorso]

12 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Objective measurements of accuracy of sound reproduction have been available for many years. There's frequency response, jitter, THD, linearity, IMD, crosstalk, etc., etc.

 

Please forget objective measurements... the taste of each one is what is most important, because what would happen if it survives all the measures but you don't like what you hear?

 

Roch

[elcorso]

On 6/30/2018 at 12:28 PM, Ralf11 said:

I am quite sure it ain't the volume controls...

 

Hmmm... the volume control could be the most important and expensive part in a Preamp... If that were not the case, why are there several members who are inclined to the volume from the DAC?

 

Roch

[pkane2001]

10 minutes ago, elcorso said:

 

Please forget objective measurements... the taste of each one is what is most important, because what would happen if it survives all the measures but you don't like what you hear?

 

Roch

 

If you don't like objectively accurate sound reproduction, then get a system that distorts the sound adding euphonic goodness. But please don't claim that this is somehow more accurate.

[fas42]

39 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Objective measurements of accuracy of sound reproduction have been available for many years. There's frequency response, jitter, THD, linearity, IMD, crosstalk, etc., etc.

 

Which is why many in the audio game are on an endless conveyor belt chasing optimum sound - I worry about none of those parameters; because I haven't found any of them particularly relevant to the SQ I'm interested in. What measured parameter clearly specifies that a poorly implemented power supply is at fault; which one characterises the distortion artifacts from poor contact integrity?

 

Many of the crucial misbehaviours are dependent on all sorts of external circumstances: who measures how robust the rig is to electrical interference factors; what the differences are in the output waveform when various levels of vibation are impacting ... these are all things which no-one is interested in providing numbers for - but they're critical, IME.

 

In the absence of worthwhile investigation into these factors, the best solution for enthusiastic chasers of good sound is to do their own experiments, refining of a rig, until it delivers a high order of quality.

[elcorso]

13 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

If you don't like objectively accurate sound reproduction, then get a system that distorts the sound adding euphonic goodness. But please don't claim that this is somehow more accurate.

 

Oh yes, I like accurate sound reproduction, but to my own ears (not another person ears), not to please whatever white papers and books standards says.  My ear / brain system is the only 'tool' I have to communicate with music.  And yes I like 'euphonic goodness' from tubes.  I just like to add I don't want to modify my DNA ?

 

Roch

[fas42]

15 minutes ago, elcorso said:

 

Hmmm... the volume control could be the most important and expensive part in a Preamp... If that were not the case, why are there several members who are inclined to the volume from the DAC?

 

Roch

 

Yes. If I was given an ambitious preamp to check out, virtually the first thing I would do would be to carefully listen for artifacts from this part. If it was detectable as degrading the SQ, then I wouldn't waste my time 'fixing' anything else until I had a clear alternative for adjusting the levels - it would be a waste of time, because the sound would always be too damaged.

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Which is why many in the audio game are on an endless conveyor belt chasing optimum sound - I worry about none of those parameters; because I haven't found any of them particularly relevant to the SQ I'm interested in.

 

That's where we differ, Frank. I've used objective measures and evaluation to build my system. I've not been on any conveyor belt for about 20 years -- I've built my dream system back then and I've enjoyed it immensely, with no need to tweak. Didn't change a thing until the last couple of years, when I decided to move to a PC-based system. In the process, I've also added headphones, but I'm nearing the point where I'm totally happy with it. Maybe for another 20 years.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

25 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

That's where we differ, Frank.

 

may I just say its hard to measure just how many ways some of us differ with Frank ?

 

Quote

I've used objective measures and evaluation to build my system. I've not been on any conveyor belt for about 20 years -- I've built my dream system back then and I've enjoyed it immensely, with no need to tweak. Didn't change a thing until the last couple of years, when I decided to move to a PC-based system. In the process, I've also added headphones, but I'm nearing the point where I'm totally happy with it. Maybe for another 20 years.

 

That's great (sincerely) but don't forget, using objective audio measures or not, you are just as prone to expectation/confirmation bias in what you hear as the next guy (unless that guy is Frank, then all bets off !?)

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

That's great (sincerely) but don't forget you are just as prone to expectation/confirmation bias as the next guy (unless that guy is Frank, then all bets off !?)

 

But of course. I'm under no illusion that I subjectively prefer better measuring equipment, and that's a bias. But the 'better measuring' part, at least, is objective.

 

 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

That's where we differ, Frank. I've used objective measures and evaluation to build my system. I've not been on any conveyor belt for about 20 years -- I've built my dream system back then and I've enjoyed it immensely, with no need to tweak. Didn't change a thing until the last couple of years, when I decided to move to a PC-based system. In the process, I've also added headphones, but I'm nearing the point where I'm totally happy with it. Maybe for another 20 years.

 

Note I didn't say all, when speaking of the conveyor belt ... ?

 

If you're happy with what you're getting, then there's nothing more to say. My interest is in how far one can push audio reproduction, in terms of an "ultimate" experience - and what are the minimum standards required of the hardware to do that.

[audiventory]

9 hours ago, jabbr said:

Could you confirm under which circumstances the 20kHz filter or 100kHz filter are applied.

 

Suppose I have an SACD ISO and which to extract/convert to DSF, is there a filter applied?

 

Settings

 

The filter is selected manually.

 

a) In Settings > General > Filter mode list is present:

1. Optimized (cut ultrasound above 20 kHz)

2. Non-optimized (traditional for PCM || DSF, DFF band is about 20...27 kHz depend on input/output sample rate)

3. Non-optimized Wide (traditional for PCM || ISO, DSF, DFF band is about 20...100 kHz depend on input/output sample rate)

 

In optimized mode you can select minimal phase filter (up to current version).

 

b) When input and output sample rates are similar (example: ISO to DSD64) bit-perfect mode is there.

 

To activate bit-perfect mode it is need in Settings > General > to check "Don't make DSP..." switch.

 

 

 

Applications

 

1. If there is audible noise at playback, Optimized mode is recommended (including minimal phase option by subjective preference).

 

2. If there is no noise, any other mode may be checked for the best available subjective or measured sound quality (including minimal phase option)

Read details: https://samplerateconverter.com/content/how-improve-sound-quality

 

3. If there are no clicks and audible noise at playback of DSF files, extracted from ISO, bit-perfect mode may be applied: https://samplerateconverter.com/iso-converter/convert-iso-dsf-wav-flac-aiff#bit-perfect-iso-conversion

 

4. If there are clicks at playback of DSF files, extracted from ISO, one of click suppressing technologies with DSP is used.
Read details https://samplerateconverter.com/iso-converter/convert-iso-dsf-wav-flac-aiff

Warning: some clicks may be fixed via manual editing of audio stuff only:

https://samplerateconverter.com/educational/dsd-dsf-dff-editor

 

5. If there are audible noise at playback of DSF files, extracted from ISO, Optimized mode is recommended.

 

 

Resume

 

In general case, I recommend to use Optimized mode with linear filter (default settings).

But also I recommend to check sound in all other modes for each used audio system.

[PeterSt]

5 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Thanks. I was planning on trialing both HQPlayer and XXXHighEnd. When I googled the latter I got a lot of porn sites so got distracted (just kidding @PeterSt).

 

You are correct - I just tried it myself. Small problem on your side : one X too many. It's XXHighEnd. Now suddenly it's all about music without porn. 

 

Quote

I'm not sure if XXXHighEnd does "native realtime upsampling" but suffice to say upsampling is not the only reason for me to explore other players.

 

I didn't follow the thread but maybe someone explain to me what "native realtime" upsampling is.

XXHighEnd applies realtime upsampling up to 16x PCM and if you notice the cpu usage of that then you really know how to look for it. 

No DSD in there (and I suppose the implied question was related to that).

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

36 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

You are correct - I just tried it myself. Small problem on your side : one X too many. It's XXHighEnd. Now suddenly it's all about music without porn. 

 

Peter, may I humbly suggest adding the extra X. It makes the google search far more entertaining ?

 

 

 

36 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I didn't follow the thread but maybe someone explain to me what "native realtime" upsampling is.

XXHighEnd applies realtime upsampling up to 16x PCM and if you notice the cpu usage of that then you really know how to look for it. 

No DSD in there (and I suppose the implied question was related to that).

 

 

Ok Thanks. Yes it is about upsampling to 512 DSD. Is there a reason why XXHighEnd doesn't offer DSD upsampling?

[PeterSt]

8 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Is there a reason why XXHighEnd doesn't offer DSD upsampling?

 

David, let's say that I never got round to being able to test it for its merits as I never was able to create a DSD DAC to my likings (although I worked on it for a couple of years). So mind you, XXHighEnd is supposed to be about the very best SQ in an at least for me complete controlled environment. This would not be a third-party DAC.

So call me crazy, but the DSD DAC I ever back (8 years ?) bought for it, is unopened in its box.

The USB DSD1024 USB Interface I obtained a year ago ... unopened.

 

An honest answer could also be : there is far too much other stuff which can use improvement, to go a direction I don't like much in the first place. But also :

 

I developed a complete codec for DSD + PCM1024 (yes) without the out of band noise exhibits which can only run on (my) dedicated hardware. And the hardware thus never came about. So it is hard for me to go back to the normal DSD schemes.

 

Then, back in the days I kind of decided that DSD wouldn't be it, especially because of the lack of native material (for my genres). I'll admit that this is different from upsampling to "DSD" (rate), which is from later times. So yes, I created the upsampler, but still have no DAC I'd like to work with. No wait, I have (AK based - own design) but I never put that together (with mentioned interface).

 

OK, lack of time ? 

[Miska]

7 hours ago, elcorso said:

Please forget objective measurements... the taste of each one is what is most important, because what would happen if it survives all the measures but you don't like what you hear?

 

Then it is no go. Also if it "sounds good" but measures badly.

 

I want things to measure and sound good, at the same time. Without the other it is no-go.

 

[Miska]

15 hours ago, audiventory said:

As I said before:

• either fear of filters;
• or lower maximal signal/noise ratio || more probable audible intermodulations || more probable broken stability.

In my opinion, last 2 things are more practically available for perception, than ringing.

 

If we allow to lose N dB, we can allow non-filtered DSD processing to avoid of broken stability.

 

But no one of people who was tried wide band 100 kHz, was stumbled with audible intermodulation (additional noise).

 

When 100 kHz band is applied there is possibility to makes lesser steep filter.

But if we want to maximally keep all information below 100 kHz, there is need steep filter again. Steep filter need to avoid more degradation of dynamic range due DSD noise.

 

In the end all depends on your DSP algorithms. And for sure there's no need for steep filter, there's just no point in using such with DSD unless you are decimating. This is natural designed-in property of DSD in first place.

 

I don't mind you using what ever you like. I do what I consider best and I make a lot of objective measurements of audio gear output to verify how things really work in real life instead of assuming something. And I don't measure things with just one piece of hardware, but with quite a bunch of different hardware.

 

[Jud]

13 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Thanks. I was planning on trialing both HQPlayer and XXXHighEnd. When I googled the latter I got a lot of porn sites so got distracted (just kidding @PeterSt).I'm not sure if XXXHighEnd does "native realtime upsampling" but suffice to say upsampling is not the only reason for me to explore other players.

 

I note my DSD512 DSD capable DAC also offers PCM upsampling to 210 kHz. Is it just me or does that sound like an unusual number.It does subjectively change the sound for the better but varies a bit with the recording.

 

It means your DAC uses ASRC (asynchronous sample rate conversion) to reduce jitter. This method is AFAICT not thought to be as effective as the similarly named but different asynchronous USB input.

[elcorso]

8 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Then it is no go. Also if it "sounds good" but measures badly.

 

I want things to measure and sound good, at the same time. Without the other it is no-go.

 

 

Dear Jussi, 

 

I know that I more than exaggerated ... All my gear shows very good measure.

 

My point is, it has always been and will be that the measures have to be accompanied by listening tests.

 

I have listened to equipment with very good measures but not approved by my ear / brain system.

 

I guess your algorithms / filters and those from A+ aren't only to match listening gear (DAC included of course) and computer power, but also to please each listener taste.

 

 

Best,

 

Roch

[Miska]

5 hours ago, elcorso said:

My point is, it has always been and will be that the measures have to be accompanied by listening tests.

 

I have listened to equipment with very good measures but not approved by my ear / brain system.

 

Yes, that's what I said. But the stuff is equally bad if either of the two fails.

 

5 hours ago, elcorso said:

I guess your algorithms / filters and those from A+ aren't only to match listening gear (DAC included of course) and computer power, but also to please each listener taste.

 

Sure, but the differences are also measurable... Both are needed, you cannot trust either one alone.

 

Measurements often explain the heard differences and vice versa you can often hear the measured differences. And from this combination you can also learn to know how some measured aspect sounds like which is also important.