Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Return to Computer Audio Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Page: [ 1 ] [ 2 ]

Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here..

184.95.55.18

Posted on February 26, 2014 at 18:44:27
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
In response to the the article entitled:

To DSD or Not to DSD, That Is The Question: PS Audio PerfectWave DirectStream DAC v Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC Reference Series:

"Michael,

It would be relevant if DAC chips made today actually did native DSD. Since I think 2001 the TI/BB DSD1700 was the last true DSD chip made and it was only capable of DSD1 speeds.

Today all chip makers including ESS (used here) convert DSD inside the chip so that their digital filters and output stage works. These DAC chips made by ESS, TI/BB, AKM and Wolfson are all optimized for PCM output.

But in the end with any solution, the proof is in the pudding and how good it tastes. Maybe PS Audio's equipment sounds better this way? got me, everyone should try the Kool Aid before buying it.

Thanks,
Gordon"

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 26, 2014 at 21:48:13
John Swenson
Audiophile

Posts: 2422
Location: No. California
Joined: October 13, 2002
It's just what it says. All DAC chips that say the take DSD actually use a multilevel output stage fed by a DSM. They somehow convert the DSD signal (two level format) into something they can feed through that output stage and do some form of digital filtering on it to cut down on the ultrasonic noise.

Different companies do this in very different ways which can give rise to significantly different sound from different chips when playing DSD.

Personally I think TIs way of doing this is quite elegant, they implement an analog FIR filter which is very clever. Whether it sounds better than others, who knows.

The "true DSD" gordon is talking about is to take the DSD stream and directly put it into a two level output (two levels as in all the way on or all the way off, nothing in between) and then follow it with an analog filter. NO DAC chips do this.

John S.

 

RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 27, 2014 at 02:53:07
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
MSB Technology plays DSD with their Ladder DAC in this way:

"There are some confusing terms being used. DoP is completely native and unprocessed DSD 'packed' into a PCM bit stream with 8 bits of 'ID Header' that must be stripped out before playback. A native DSD stream would have no header. That is essentially the only difference between the two. Once inside the MSB DAC, the ID Header is stripped away and a 'pure' DSD stream is again present. From there the DSD 1bit 2.8 MHz (DSD64x) and DSD 1bit 5.6 MHz (DSD128x) is mapped to our 1.4 MHz 24bit Ladder DAC with no analog filtering. It is as pure a playback as you can get as we do not suffer from all the Delta Sigma artifacts. The proof will be in the listening."

Just another way DSD files are processed.

 

Function vs. Mechananism, posted on February 27, 2014 at 06:57:39
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
There seems to be some confusion in this discussion between function and mechanism. The function being performed is converting a particular format (1 bit PCM at a sampling rate of 2822.4 kHz) into an analog waveform. The mechanisms being discussed include putting a low pass filter on the output of a flip flop vs. upsampling to a higher resolution format, doing some digital interpolation and then using a multi-bit DAC to convert to analog (e.g. 8 bits at 45158.4 kHz in one possible SABRE chip implementation).

Do not fall for the Sony DSD marketing hype: "DSD good, PCM bad". When converting to a higher resolution format information need not be lost, if the implementation is good. In the case of Sony's original DSD pseudo technical marketing BS, the assumption was made that DSD was higher resolution than 44/16, but this is a debatable fact. While it is not debatable that 2822.4 is better than 44.1, it is not clear that 1 is somehow better than 16. (The best anyone has yet come up with is that 1 is as good as 6, see Thorsten's various posts on this subject.)


At the time one bit audio converters were introduced the practical costs of implementing 16 bits accurately were high, not suitable for cheap consumer equipment. Ten years later, all this had changed, with the advent of ultra low cost MOS transistors and the introduction of "dynamic element matching", as used in discrete DAC designs such as the dCs Ring DAC and now in modern multi-bit DACs such as the SABRE chip family. (There are other physical methods of constructing high quality multi-bit devices, also practical with improvements in semiconductor manufacturing over the last 20 years.)

All physical mechanisms have defects. The choice of which sounds better must be a subjective judgment. However, in making this judgement, it is wise to avoid the influence of marketing BS.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 27, 2014 at 07:21:19
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
Thank you John, that was helpful.

 

RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 27, 2014 at 07:23:29
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
Ver interesting, thanks. I have yet to hear MSB DACs.

 

RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 27, 2014 at 07:35:09
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
Concerning the new PS Audio DAC, on the surface, it doesn't appear to be much different than what Playback Designs has been doing for some time now. An FPGA with everything converted to DSD 128.

 

RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 27, 2014 at 07:38:21
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
I was under the impression Ayre does the same. But I am not 100% sure.

I downloaded Charles Hansen's DSD and PCM needle drops done with their ADC and stunned at how much more pleasing the DSD files were.

 

RE: Function vs. Mechananism, posted on February 27, 2014 at 08:01:53
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
Globbly Goop

What you call a function can also be regarded as a mechanism.

Your 'treatise' has no real significance or meaning. You don't even try to understand DSD and just throws accusations at Sony marketing. Yet you have chosen to use DSD128 it as your main listening tool.

Well, it is the technical differences between DSD and PCM that counts, and one aspect of significance that people hear is the better transient response (and presumably what you are hearing). That is, if your overburdened PC processing and Room EQ are not responsible for altering or masking some of the intrinsic sonic qualities of PCM v DSD.

 

RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 27, 2014 at 08:04:02
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
Ayre is using an ESS Sabre with their own custom minimum phase filter on an FPGA. They are not converting everything to DSD.

My Bricasti M1 evaluation demonstrated to me that the minimum phase filters sound better than the linear phase filters; at least with the Bricasti.

 

RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 27, 2014 at 08:17:12
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
In regards to Ayre I was not implying they output everything to DSD. More a question of their handling of native DSD.

The M1 is another highly regarded DAC I have not heard. Lucky you!

What are your current personal references, excluding review samples?

 

RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 27, 2014 at 10:12:41
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
I own the Wavelength Crimson / Denominator with Silver Transformers and the MSB Technology Analog DAC with Analog Power Base.

 

RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 27, 2014 at 10:26:01
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
Thanks Merc. Look forward to more reviews.

I am curious about one thing..have you driven your ayre monos directly with a digital source, with no preamp?

 

RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 27, 2014 at 10:38:22
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
Yes. In fact, I will be reporting in depth on this in my review of the Empirical Audio Overdrive SE USB DAC and Final Drive transformer/buffer.

 

RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 27, 2014 at 10:43:55
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
VERY, VERY interesting. Empirical is a bit different in that Steve uses a transformer based volume control I believe.

I know longer use an active preamp.

How about a source with a digital volume control or different type of analog implementation. Doesn't the MSB have a built in volume control "preamp" function.

I am eagerly awaiting your findings!!

 

RE: Function vs. Mechananism, posted on February 27, 2014 at 10:49:50
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
Tony:

Your OBJECTIVE take on these technical claims...feel free to be subjective second. This is a widely distributed press release from PS Audio:

"Boulder, CO: February 27, 2014– PS Audio, manufacturer of fine audio equipment for over 40 years, is proud to introduce the revolutionary new DirectStream DAC.DirectStream is the result of lead designer Ted Smith’s decade-long obsession with DSD, the first in a field of one: a DAC so radical that it will show how most other DACs on the market are…well, broken. How so?The back-story: In 1981, music was reproduced exclusively on analog-based turntables and tape decks. Although there are inherent limitations in their media, records and tape have benefitted from a century of development. Despite the very listenable music coming through those grooves, the audio world wanted more: greater dynamic range, lower noise, extended frequency response.No wonder that when, in 1982, Sony and Philips announced they had achieved “Perfect Sound Forever”, music lovers around the world waited in eager anticipation of analog’s promise finally fulfilled.The launch of the PCM-based Compact Disc would set in motion a 30-year war amongst Audiophiles, decimate the analog format, cover up subtle musical details for decades and turn the music and audio industries upside down –and not necessarily in a good way.
It might not have ever been a problem if Sony and Philips had waited another decade, and passed over the classic PCM delivery system. It turns out the processing of the CD and its higher-resolution siblings is fundamentally flawed, and has been from the beginning.

Most modern DACs are broken: music’s details have been more faithfully recorded than we ever suspected, and the cover-up of those recorded details has been with us for more than 30 years. Happily, the missing musical information is still buried deep within our audio libraries—waiting to be revealed.

The problem is the PCM decoding process itself: whether a classic ladder-DAC or more modern multi-bit Sigma-Delta type, PCM processors universally mask some of the subtle cues in music, and no amount of upgrading, expenditure, tweaking or improvement can fix this fundamentally-flawed system.

In order to extract everything hidden in PCM recordings, a completely new processing method is needed.

An end to the 30-year PCM cover-up: PS Audio is proud to end the cover-up, and finally, with the revolutionary DirectStream DAC, reveal all the missing information buried within PCM-based digital recordings.

Put DSD into DirectStream, you get DSD. Put PCM into DirectStream, you get—DSD.

DirectStream converts all digital inputs, including PCM, to pure 1-bit DSD, in an elegantly-simple path. In the process, the PCM feed becomes more linear, less edgy, and never-before-heard musical details are released from all digital audio recordings. Billions of CDs and high-resolution downloads worldwide will gain new life, and be saved from obsolescence — and recycling bins or landfills.

Its secret is in its simplicity: Take a look at this comparison diagram (click to enlarge): on the top is a block diagram of one of the best PCM-based processors in the world, the ESS Sabre DAC. Look at that cluttered, circuitous path—then look at the pure simplicity of the DirectStream. The PCM processor’s tendency to mask music’s subtle details is largely due to its complex needs, multiple clocks, power supplies and limitations inherent in ICs.

It’s not enough to just convert PCM to DSD: Converting PCM to DSD can be an easy exercise using any number of computer software programs or IC solutions. Converting PCM to DSD properly, and in such a way as to reveal missing details in the music, is a serious technical challenge.

DirectStream utilizes 66-bit fixed-point FIR filters, eliminates headroom issues common to PCM, flattens noise response in the 20-100kHz region, uses coefficients optimized for best sound rather than faster processing speed and optimizes hardware-specific operations not possible in software.

Method: Unlike other processors available today, DirectStream unifies all inputs (PCM or DSD) at 10 x DSD, then uses a true single-bit double-rate DSD core engine. True DSD core engines (compared to the standard multibit Sigma-Delta converters followed by random lower quality multibit converters) offer advantages in simplicity, linearity, and in analog-like overload characteristics that avoid PCM’s “hard clipping” potential and a PCM processor’s propensity to mask subtle details.

Construction: Instead of being based upon a packaged PCM-based DAC chip, with all of its inherent compromises and limitations, DirectStream utilizes an FPGA (Field-Programmable Gate Array). An FPGA is capable of dissipating large amounts of heat, enabling intensive levels of signal-processing that are impossible to achieve with an off-the-shelf chip.

Further information of lead designer Ted Smith’s seven-year journey leading to DirectStream, as well as complete details of DirectStream’s design and features, download the DirectStream White Paper. Videos of Ted’s discussions of his design process as well as the entire Gus Skinas interview can be found here.

PS Audio’s DirectStream is a totally new approach to processing digital signals. By means of its radical architecture and construction, it is able to offer state-of-the-art digital performance and previously masked musical details from all formats, at an affordable price. DirectStream will change viewpoints regarding ultimate sound-quality while simultaneously offering greater value than any contender for state-of-the-art.

PS Audio’s DirectStream isn’t just another new DAC. It’s a whole new process for decoding digital audio."

 

RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 27, 2014 at 10:50:19
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
Yes. my Analog DAC has an analog volume control.

 

RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 27, 2014 at 10:51:23
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
And how does it compare going straight into the amps, as opposed to the Ayre preamp..if you have done such a comparison.

 

RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 27, 2014 at 11:08:55
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
Sorry man, that's for the review :)

 

RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 27, 2014 at 11:10:52
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
Darn it! :)

Well if I see an Ayre preamp in Audiogon that will be a give away...:)

 

Interesting about different perceptions, posted on February 27, 2014 at 11:16:16
Beetlemania
Audiophile

Posts: 1217
Location: Utah
Joined: November 1, 2003
>>>stunned at how much more pleasing the DSD files were

I had the opposite reaction. In previous DSD v PCM trials, I thought they sounded more similar than different. But with the Ayre test files, I clearly preferred the PCM.

Interesting how our gear and personal preferences can lead to such different results.

 

RE: Interesting about different perceptions, posted on February 27, 2014 at 11:19:47
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
Wow. Interesting. For me it was not even close.

 

RE: Function vs. Mechananism, posted on February 27, 2014 at 11:32:41
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
I will comment on it, but first I will need a link to a web page that includes the diagrams and more details than the text, so that we can all be "on the same page".




Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 27, 2014 at 11:45:14
Thorsten
Manufacturer

Posts: 4209
Location: Somewhere nice on planet dirt
Joined: September 25, 1999
Hi,

I will have a more extended expose (with pretty pictures) coming up on some famous audio website soon. Until then, the simple skinny:

Most modern DAC's are "hybrids". Meaning they are a mixture of PCM and Delta Sigma (which is nowadays marketed as DSD).

So they cannot accept directly either a PCM or DSD datastream, either has to be processed in a certain fashion. This can never be lossless...

Most modern DAC's in fact convert DSD first into PCM, apply standard digital processing to it (including digital volume control) and then convert back to hybrid "Multibit Delta Sigma". Some (Wolfson Micro) are very open about this, most though do try their best to hide it.

Where Gordon is wrong is on the fact that no "pure DSD DAC's exist". Some exist, but they are generally not the latests and greatest that everyone is talking about and wants to put into their DAC's to claim the latest and greatest.

Thor

At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

 

RE: Function vs. Mechananism, posted on February 27, 2014 at 12:02:37
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
This sounds like what dCS did (and still does) over a decade ago. It is something that some questionable theorists regards as marketing xxx.

I have the dCS972 and 954 which reproduces dsd via 3 BNC 75R cable , one of which is the clock.

 

It's never marketing hype when something sounds better -t, posted on February 27, 2014 at 12:15:14
Sordidman
Audiophile

Posts: 13665
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001
.


"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

 

RE: Function vs. Mechananism, posted on February 27, 2014 at 12:25:49
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
Hi Tony, the diagram is a available in the link in the OP post in the thread, above.

 

RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 27, 2014 at 12:31:08
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
Expose'? Sounds intriguing.

Thanks for this additional info, it further clarifies things.

 

RE: Function vs. Mechananism, posted on February 27, 2014 at 12:33:03
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
I guess the story is that the technology that dCS has been using and which was unaffordable for the vast majority is now going to be available on a wider scale.

 

RE: Function vs. Mechananism, posted on February 27, 2014 at 12:58:13
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Before I make any comments I need first hand experience. So if it is about the product, I will need to see and hear it or read reviews written by people whom I trust. (Since you asked for OBJECTIVE comments these would need to include objective measurements.) If it is about the sales claims, and that's what it appears to be here, then before I make an objective comment, I will have to have first hand experience (e.g. a copy) of the marketing literature, that is to say a primary source.

Sorry, I'm a bit of a stickler about such matters. I was taught as a kid, "If you can't say something positive, don't say anything at all." I am not willing to make negative comments about a product or company based on second hand information.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Function vs. Mechananism, posted on February 27, 2014 at 13:19:20
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
Yes, except that they are making it as though they have reinvented the wheel.

This just encourages ignorant posters from frothing about BS marketing.

 

RE: Function vs. Mechananism, posted on February 27, 2014 at 13:47:20
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
"I am not willing to make negative comments about a product or company based on second hand information. "

I though one of the rules here is negative comments must only be made with zero information. Thankfully you are the exception Tony! :)

 

"negative comments must only be made with zero information" - that's Rule #2., posted on February 27, 2014 at 14:18:27
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
In case you're not aware, the Rule #1 around here is:

Negative comments MUST BE MADE.

 

After reading the Audiostream QB-9 DSD review, posted on February 27, 2014 at 14:30:37
Beetlemania
Audiophile

Posts: 1217
Location: Utah
Joined: November 1, 2003
it makes me wonder if the Ayre has sub-optimal DSD playback or if no one else does PCM as well as Ayre . . .

Until I hear otherwise, my conclusion is that DSD is much ado about nothing.

 

RE: After reading the Audiostream QB-9 DSD review, posted on February 27, 2014 at 17:26:12
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
The DSD "revolution" is much a do about nothing, with a paltry number of titles, and probably
not too many more coming to light.

DSD on the other hand, IS is the real deal. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the ship has sailed.
Sony introduced it back in 1998 and they blew their chance.

Again, I respect your finding, but for me their was no comparison. The PCM sounded dry and flat.

 

RE: Function vs. Mechananism, posted on February 27, 2014 at 17:28:34
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
I was simply curious about your impressions about their technical claims and if theoretically they could be on to something. Of course I do not expect you to make any comments about how the product might sound.

 

RE: After reading the Audiostream QB-9 DSD review, posted on February 27, 2014 at 17:51:59
Beetlemania
Audiophile

Posts: 1217
Location: Utah
Joined: November 1, 2003
>>>The PCM sounded dry and flat

The DSD sounded good but, in direct comparison to the PCM, a bit soft and muted. The PCM was a somewhat more dynamic and seemed to have more texture (rivaling vinyl in that regard). I could happily live with the DSD but clearly preferred the PCM.

I certainly agree re: DSD title availability. ALL of my DSD titles are freebies. The very few DSD titles I'd be interested in buying I already own as 24 bit PCM.

 

Marketing BS, posted on February 27, 2014 at 18:50:20
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
It looks like marketing BS, it reads like marketing BS, and it smells like marketing BS. Based on this one press release, PS Audio has been added to my personal "do not buy list" by reason of lack of marketing ethics. I wouldn't buy this product if it sounded great and was sold at a low price.

"It turns out the processing of the CD and its higher-­‐resolution siblings is fundamentally flawed, and has been from the beginning."

There is no fundamental fault in PCM encoding of digital audio. The original format lacked an adequate sampling rate and marginal bit depth. Higher resolution versions have, proportionally, fewer of these defects. In respect of certain artifacts, PCM formats at speeds up to 352.8 kHz still suffer from limited sampling rates, but DSD formats suffer in a different way from limitations of the 1 bit format, which in certain respects is not even as good as 44/16 audio. I would observe that the encoding of analog audio into digital format is part and process of the digital audio system, and if the format and encoding were really "fundamentally flawed" then it would not be possible to extract good sound. PS Audio has not described any new "magic", just an old way of creating audio out of a digital device (which goes back to the 1960's).

"Most modern DACs are fundamentally broken: Music’s details have been more faithfully recorded than we ever suspected, and the cover-­‐up of those recorded details has been with us for more than 30 years. Happily, the missing musical information is still buried deep within our audio libraries—waiting to be revealed."

I suppose marketing liars write this stuff because there are enough audiophools with overflowing wallets wishing to gain ego satisfaction by emptying them.

"Liberation from a chip and complexity"

I am not going to dignify the block diagrams with any analysis, other than to make the observation that they are an "apples to oranges" comparison, and not a particularly skillful one at that. (In the past I have written my share of technical marketing literature.)

IMO, it does not require knowledge of mathematics, signals and systems and electrical engineering to recognize this marketing BS. Any air-breather who can read the English language should have a suitable BS detector. In fairness to PS audio, by the way, I would say that they are in the middle of the road among "high end" companies when it comes to this level of marketing BS. It's beyond me why people waste their time with this pseudo-technical BS, when all they have to do is to listen to components to tell if they are any good or not. (But then, most of the audiophiles that I've met aren't so good at listening either, especially the ones with an "objective" focus, but that's another story.)


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: After reading the Audiostream QB-9 DSD review, posted on February 27, 2014 at 19:24:18
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
DSD sounds good in purist recording productions where it is used only one generation deep. In its present form, it is technically unsuited for complex studio production processes, although this problem might be solved by going to higher resolution DSD, e.g. DSD512 or possibly DSD256. This comes from the necessity to use extensive noise shaping close to the audio band to get any dynamic range out of the 1 bit format. As good as one generation DSD can sound, going to multiple generations of DSD processing is a distinct step down. (The same problem happens with PCM where multiple generations of noise-shaping are involved, but noise shaping isn't needed for studio processing at 24 bits and is best avoided.) It is possible to clearly hear the processing limitations of DSD on one of the Channel Classics albums, where all the tracks except the last one were made in pure DSD, but where the last track had to be remixed, so that what you are hearing for this one track is a third generation version: DSD64, DXD (352.8/32 PCM), DSD64.

I expect to see a continuing low volume of purist recordings of acoustic music be issued as downloads in DSD format. I would be very surprised if this format caught on for mass market musical genres. Supporting both DSD and PCM formats adds little to the hardware cost of an audiophile DAC, so it seems likely that many if not most future high quality DACs will support DSD.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

You're late to the party - PS Audio is doing this kind of marketing for years., posted on February 27, 2014 at 20:13:16
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
Adding it to your personal "do not buy list" doesn't sound particularly meaningful, either. If it sounds good - it sounds good, regardless of marketing.

PS Audio products are NOT very good values at anywhere close to their MSRP - but, thankfully, they never sell for anywhere close to it. At "street" prices, and especially used, they are usually not bad at all.

 

RE: You're late to the party - PS Audio is doing this kind of marketing for years., posted on February 27, 2014 at 20:53:51
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
There are lots of products that "sound good". And others that sound almost as good. There is no need to associate with companies or people who are dishonest and unethical.

There are personal and social reasons why it is desirable to seek out the company of good people and avoid the company of bad people. Sometimes one does not have a choice, but when it comes to purchasing audio equipment no one is forcing a decision.







Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Marketing BS, posted on February 27, 2014 at 21:56:31
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
Tony,

Do you remember when Ted was designing this critter (or it's forerunner at least)? He was, as I recall, doing S/W engineering during the day, designing a totally digital "DAC" using FPGA's at night and moderating Hi-Res Audio on AA in his spare time. I found him a very sharp, helpful guy who was a major fan of SACD's.

That's all from memory but you can review the archives. I think he was fixing to retire, fed up with moderating and getting a lot of interest from 'philes in his DAC at about the same time.

Well, it looks like he decided what to do and teamed up with a reputable manufacturer to make it happen. That seems like a wonderful thing to me. As far as marketing fluff goes, just take it with a grain of salt like everyone else does. I did consumer products for a spell and marketing viewed things, well, differently than we did. Way differently. But they had a good viewpoint for their objectives and so did we (IMHO) and I believe that the customer benefited from both.

Sure, sometimes hype goes too far and sometimes designs are marginal or too expensive. But on the whole... After all, we're merely human.

Regards, Rick

 

RE: After reading the Audiostream QB-9 DSD review, posted on February 27, 2014 at 23:36:40
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
You had chosen to base your finding on one converter whose vendor actually didn't fall for the merits of DSD replay over PCM. There are a number here who still post against DSD having merit, and have yet chosen to produce DSD dacs. Worst still, one uses one name in his criticisms of dsd in one forum; yet designs a dsd dac that is advertised as 'ground breaking' in another. This is the direct result of market pressure against designer conviction.

I don't trust anything that some of these guys claim and it is interesting how audio magazines have changed stance over dsd v pcm over the years.

The way for you to decide properly is to listen to a number of dsd capable dacs prior to drawing a conclusion. The ways in which software and hardware are set up also strongly influence what is heard.

I know for a fact, for example, that the Theyscon usb 2 driver sounds significanly different from version 1.6 to 2.5 in Windows. Does the OSX driver also differ from one OSX version to the next? We know that M2Tech devices , for example, won't work with the latest OS.

 

RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 28, 2014 at 01:43:49
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
having read the PS Audio white paper, Gordon's comments do not apply as no commercial dac chips are used.

Its seems to me that the claims are credible in terms of the framework, although individual claims like cable independence are not likely to be valid.

With my dCS 972/954 system, using FPGAs and in house codes, the SQ is as cable dependent and clock cable dependent as anything else.

I'll need to play with one first before giving them $6000.

 

negative comments must only be made with, posted on February 28, 2014 at 01:45:54
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
wrong information by some inmates

 

Ted, posted on February 28, 2014 at 06:12:30
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
I agree. But some here will object on conviction-driven grounds.

 

RE: Marketing BS, posted on February 28, 2014 at 06:45:48
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Ted Smith was a nice enough guy, but was definitely a DSD bigot. Too bad he hooked up with a bunch of shyster marketing guys. (I would personally never go into the high end consumer audio business, because the market place is too corrupt for my taste.)

I have no idea how his DAC sounds. The version that he talked about on AA had some limitations as to its S/N ratio, but that was some time ago. The real question, is how his modulator sounds. Getting good sound out of a delta-sigma modulator, especially a 1 bit modulator, involves a large measure of "black magic". In addition, there are likely to be artifacts that show up on musical transients that are invisible under the usual measurement agenda that is suited to ladder DACs, and possibly even lockups and stability issues. It would be possible to measure the noise floor and how it changes as a function of test signals to gain some insight on the quality of the modulator. You may recall the RMAF video where the design engineer of the SABRE chips discussed the question of "unmeasurable" artifacts and how subjective audiophiles that could hear these convinced them that they existed. This is with a 10 bit DAC to start with, so the artifacts are 60 dB further down. The significance is that only some listeners initially heard artifacts, while others did not. It seems quite likely that the SABRE chip modulator still has artifacts that some people hear that others can not. (Perhaps that is why the Mytek sounds significantly better to me when running on DSD rather than PCM with the conversion to DSD128 being done by HQPlayer in my computer with a better modulator using the greater horsepower available by burning 25% of an Intel core.)

For contrast, I have linked the marketing white paper for my Mytek DAC. You can see that this is a proper engineering description of the design approach and the product, with no absurd marketing claims. But then, Mytek sells to the pro audio marketplace, a bunch of customers who know how to listen, understand the technology, and who aren't going to throw away their profits on expensive looking front panels with ego satisfaction and WAF. I purchased the Mytek after reading this literature, reading some listening reports, and talking to the designer on the phone. I am quite satisfied with the sound I get in my system, but there was quite a bit of setup and experimentation to get to this place.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Marketing BS, posted on February 28, 2014 at 07:09:23
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
While I would not use quite the strong language you use..after reading this over multiple times, I lean towards your view that much of it is salesy hype.

PS Audio, as Carcass pointed out has been doing this for years. Paul McGowan, their esteemed leader, is a bit of a carnival barker and often throws out opinions as facts. Of course, he is right sometimes.

I also took issue with his views on PCM. But your post is far more comprehensive and informed, so no need to repeat.

When a company proclaims, "trust us, we reinvented the wheel", I am skeptical.

Of course, the proof will be in the listening.

 

RE: After reading the Audiostream QB-9 DSD review, posted on February 28, 2014 at 07:15:25
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
I have read many technical explanations similar to yours. In the end my ears tell me DSD is what I call "Digital Tape". It subjectively to me sounds analog like without the noise.

As far as DSD being used in modern pop music production, that is a non starter. For purist recordings, as you say, it is perfect.

However, my personal interest in it is the archiving of classic analog master tapes.

To me DSD is the ultimate digital container, based on listening. And that if it is done correctly, no PCM stages.

 

RE: Marketing BS, posted on February 28, 2014 at 07:25:19
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
Tony, here is the problem, and it is a problem.

I agree MyTek uses transparent marketing to sell their product. But the product is in no way intended for anything but pro use. The fact that it ended up consumer households was due to a concerted effort to capitalize on the DSD craze.

First, it runs WAY too hot. I have owned over a dozen DACs and have never had one that is a space heater. I tried to use on my desk and it shut down my MAC multiple times when it reached dangerous operating temperatures.

Second, the usable range of the analog and digital volume control is limited.

Third, the DAC sounds just ok. Every other DAC I have in the house is far more pleasing, musical, and enjoyable.

Lastly, the chassis is cheap, and it rattles.

So have your marketing purity, but all the purity in the world won't fix a technically good product that is flawed on a practical level.

 

RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 28, 2014 at 07:41:36
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
You are a man of means. Buy one and use the PS Audio 30 return policy.

 

RE: Marketing BS, posted on February 28, 2014 at 07:48:24
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
"When a company proclaims, "trust us, we reinvented the wheel", I am skeptical."

Hey, what matters is how the wheel rolls. A guy who used to work in my group said that many engineers tended to "reinvent the flat tire.". :-)


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Can someone explain Gordon Rankin's vague response here.., posted on February 28, 2014 at 07:53:39
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
Can't as I am not in US.

In any case. I normally want to hear the thing first.

 

RE: After reading the Audiostream QB-9 DSD review, posted on February 28, 2014 at 07:58:15
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
The only issue with archival use of DSD is that many "master tapes" are not the final production version and may have to be further processed prior to release. (Not true for the best recordings, but likely to be true for a suitable number.)

If the tapes are in serious need of immediate archiving then I would consider doing so in several formats, e.g. highest resolution PCM format available as well as highest resolution DSD format. At present, based on the files that were posted by BruceB, it seems to me that the best sound at DSD64 is to be found with the Grimm, but the newer Horus may be better when running at DSD128. From what I've heard, I would be comfortable archiving at DSD256, since I believe that the point of diminishing returns relative to magnetic tape will have been reached, even when the tapes are wide tracks running at 30 IPS. If you've priced out magnetic recording tape and digital storage you will see that even these high bit rates represent amazingly inexpensive storage, after allowing for the necessity of keeping at least three separate copies at physically separated locations.

I have found that 88/24 is adequate for archiving cassette tapes, just to put things in perspective. A simple minded metric that would be correct to the first order would be digital bits per square inch of tape.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

"unethical" in a corrupt capitalist society? Audio?, posted on February 28, 2014 at 08:14:14
Sordidman
Audiophile

Posts: 13665
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001
Not even close to other industries......

Ever see a beer commercial?

Sorry, but holding PS Audio to a different standard than others is ridiculous. PS Audio is far more ethical and accurate than BOSE or Dell.....


"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

 

RE: After reading the Audiostream QB-9 DSD review, posted on February 28, 2014 at 08:29:42
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
It is not that complicated as far as archiving and mastering analog.

Assuming you have a high quality analog master...

You can use one of the few DSD workstations, which is quite an investment and do all your work there, or do it as Mobile Fidelity does...all the EQ, editing, and compression, if needed, in the analog domain, then capture to DSD. No PCM stage required.

Very few have invested in Sonoma or Pyramix.

Agree with you on cassettes..I just mastered a cassette at 88.2 and it was virtually indistinguishable from live playback.

 

RE: Marketing BS, posted on February 28, 2014 at 08:31:05
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
"so the artifacts are 60 dB further down"

I'm not convinced that amplitude ratios cut it as a useful metric for temporal problems. My vague understanding of how our hearing works is that we have essentially separate separate sensing and processing for transients. Just because the critter in the jungle is small doesn't mean that it lacks sharp teeth or venom.

"Mytek sells to the pro audio marketplace, a bunch of customers who know how to listen, understand the technology, and who aren't going to throw away their profits on expensive looking front panels with ego satisfaction"

By George I think you've got it.

Successful companies understand their customer's needs, wants and values. We have both spent many an hour enjoying AA and one would have to be totally silly not recognize that to many posters "high-end" means expensive and ostentatious. To others it means high-performance and if it's cheap that's even better. To others it's the best sound you can find that fits your budget.

The really cool thing is how much performance you can get these days with every configuration and price point. If only such had been the case in my youth...

Rick

 

You mean, commercial for some run of the mill American beer, also known as..., posted on February 28, 2014 at 08:39:43
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
... urine, mixed with vomit in various proportions?

Something like "Do you know who brewed YOUR beer?", as in one of them -or, who excreted it, to be exact?

 

Exactly my point. If PS Audio PWD MK-II sounds much better..., posted on February 28, 2014 at 08:49:36
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
... at the street price comparable (slightly higher) than Mytek - then what do we got? Nicely written white papers versus "marketing BS", as Tony puts it - who gives a shit?

 

RE: Marketing BS, posted on February 28, 2014 at 09:30:43
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
I run my Mytek 24/7. It is warm to the touch. As I recall, a Kill-A-Watt showed that it was consuming about 20 watts. The unit sits on a wooden desk, with nothing below it or above it. Unlike other electronic equipment, this unit has not caused any discoloration of the desktop. My room temperature is about 72 degrees F. The amplifiers in my Focal powered monitors run much hotter, indeed the heat sinks are too hot to touch for more than about 10 seconds. (This comes from the 100 watt class AB amplifier that is running the tweeter.) None of this particularly concerns me.

I haven't noticed any vibration problems, because my speakers are isolated physically from the desk, especially the sub woofer that sits on the floor. The general appearance of the Mytek is in keeping with the appearance of my Focal monitors, etc... Not something that has WAF, but then, sadly, my wife of 43 years passed away four years ago.

I will try running some sweep tones to see if I can provoke audible vibration of the Mytek. Some other appliances, including a lamp, can be made to vibrate at high SPLs. I can hear some vibration by drumming my fingers on the cover plate of the Mytek, perhaps because I didn't tighten down the screws after opening the unit up to change the output level jumpers.

I agree that the Mytek is not suitable for non-technical audiophiles.




Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Marketing BS, posted on February 28, 2014 at 09:56:28
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007

Agree that amplitude ratios are not all there is. But all things being equal, if two distortions are identical and one is -60 dB lower in amplitude against the same signal then it is reasonable to believe that it will be harder to perceive. Of course, all things are not equal, in this case a 1 bit modulator is a substantially more difficult design to get right than a multibit modulator, because the design space is more constrained (e.g. lack of headroom compared to quantization distortion).

I cut my teeth as a teenager tweaking a poor sounding Dynaco 35 watt monoblock. On the test bench into a resistive load it had poor square wave response (ringing) although it measured OK in other respects. My uncle and I tweaked the components in the feedback loop, observing how each of them affected the waveform and eventually got a good looking waveform on the scope into a resistive load. Later when we connected it to the Tannoy the plates started to glow red. This was my introduction to stability, feedback, poles and zeros, etc... Eventually we got stable response into the speaker, good square wave response in the lab and good sound in the living room (for the day, this was in the late 1950's). My Uncle had a Capehart changer that would play and flip 78's. This was a Rube Goldberg machine of the highest order and was wonderful to watch when it was in good adjustment. When it was out of adjustment pieces of broken 78's would fly across the room.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Awesome! -t, posted on February 28, 2014 at 10:07:55
Sordidman
Audiophile

Posts: 13665
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001
.


"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

 

Ridiculous: People either like the sound or they do not, posted on February 28, 2014 at 10:10:47
Sordidman
Audiophile

Posts: 13665
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001
It doesn't mean that the product isn't easy, or difficult to use.

IME, Audiophiles eventually do, - and will, - buy the products that sound good and have synergy with the rest of their system. AND, - is at commensurate price point. "Easy to use" is down the list....


"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

 

So was the first iteration of the BenchMark DAC, posted on February 28, 2014 at 10:13:21
Sordidman
Audiophile

Posts: 13665
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001
It took experience to realize that this (at that time) feature rich piece of gear marketing to the pro audio crowd, - kinda sucked.




"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

 

RE: Ridiculous: People either like the sound or they do not, posted on February 28, 2014 at 10:25:17
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
The Mytek is easy to use. You just hook it up and it plays. However, out of the box this way it is unlikely to sound especially good and there is unlikely to be much system synergy. If one has the necessary skills and experience to understand what is going on, especially listening skills, one can get to a good result pretty quickly, otherwise one is wandering around in the dark without a light looking for one's car keys.

There are two bad aspects of the Mytek, both of which I can live with. The first is that there is no muting of the power on and power off "thump". This is not a problem with my powered speakers which are protected against this thump, which is merely annoying, but this could be a problem with other equipment. The second is the absurdly long (500 hour) break in period that it takes for this unit to sound its best. I suspect that many people have discarded the unit before finishing the break-in process. There were a number of driver and firmware issues in the past as well, but these seem to have been fixed by firmware and driver revisions.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Exactly my point. If PS Audio PWD MK-II sounds much better..., posted on February 28, 2014 at 10:27:45
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
If one chooses to make one's choices according to what one perceives as one's personal short-term benefit, then one is working towards a world where others will behave similarly. (It is simply irrational to assume that one is somehow different and privileged, i.e. "chosen".) The end result of this attitude is the shitty world we live in, a world that is described by Sartre's phrase: "L'enfer, c'est les autres".


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: So was the first iteration of the BenchMark DAC, posted on February 28, 2014 at 10:37:20
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
One could tell that the original Benchmark DAC sucked from looking at the block diagram and the use of the 110 kHz ASRC conversion. This alone guaranteed that the unit was going to kinda suck.

The problem was Benchmark's philosophy of designing to specifications so that their product sells by measuring well. The problem is that the common measurements evolved to capture the limitations of existing technology and hence are generally useless in capturing new distortions caused by defects of new technology. Thus, a new piece of gear sounds great for a while, until the listener learns to hear its defects and the "pea in the mattress" effect begins. For me, the test is not how good a component or system sounds initially, it's one's reaction to it after living with it for months or years.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Marketing BS, posted on February 28, 2014 at 10:39:34
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
Would that I had had your uncle...

Not that I didn't have some great ones but none were of a very technical bend.

Left more or less to my own devices I did SE things like 6SN7's feeding 6V6's, or 6L6's or something else of a beam power nature. Trouble was I couldn't afford (or at least didn't know where to find) very good plate-VC transformers. Maybe I was just ahead of my time...

I've not seen a 78 flipper, at least not a domestic version, some of the jukeboxes were fun and regular changers were bad enough, with 6+ records stacked on the spindle trying to hear a complete movement the hole life was about four plays then the whole heavy MaryAnn would come down on the tonearm destroying the needle, the stack and the playing record.

Digital good...

Rick

 

Nope: we couldn't tell that from it's design., posted on February 28, 2014 at 11:12:36
Sordidman
Audiophile

Posts: 13665
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001
It wasn't designed as an USB DAC with new technology. I was designed as a piece of pro gear, which has different goals than the presentation of a complete recorded "experience" in someone's (unique listening) room.

It's "discovery" and "selling point" was it's versatility as a headphone amp, low price point, and revealing details.

Audiophiles quickly re-learned the lesson that Pro gear is bad gear for the home environment. (Read, pro gear is designed to elucidate extreme details, totally flat, as point of assisting the engineer in looking for flaws).

The Benchmark was never designed to be a part of the gestalt of home audio system. It was not a "musical" product.

Talk about hype, (and for you), being unethical. Notice how they changed their marketing when John Marks got audiophiles interested in the product?






"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

 

RE: Nope: we couldn't tell that from it's design., posted on February 28, 2014 at 11:21:15
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Yeah, Benchmark is another company that is on my personal "don't buy" list.

BTW, I don't buy the idea that pro gear is supposed to sound brutally ugly. It should when playing brutally ugly recordings, but then why would anyone want to make a brutally ugly recording? (If the engineers believe that ugly is accurate then there is no hope that they will ever produce a great recording.) Of course, some music is written to be deliberately and brutally ugly, and that's the point. If the listener understands the music they will appreciate that this is how it's supposed to sound.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Nope: we couldn't tell that from it's design., posted on February 28, 2014 at 11:30:43
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
Guys,

I never liked the early Benchmark DAC, but I found the DAC2 HGC was a decent sounding DAC for the money.

 

RE: So was the first iteration of the BenchMark DAC, posted on February 28, 2014 at 11:37:11
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
"The problem is that the common measurements evolved to capture the limitations of existing technology and hence are generally useless in capturing new distortions caused by defects of new technology."

Exactly!

And perhaps inevitably. Once you understand the problem you can usually fix or improve it which may inadvertently create another set of problems or simply reveal extant problems that were being masked. Hopefully the result is an improvement albeit imperfect.

Rick

 

"music is written to be deliberately and brutally ugly" - speaking of which...., posted on February 28, 2014 at 11:40:33
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
Give this a listen - as loud as you can stand, for as long as you can stand (I figure under a minute). French Black/Death metal perverts, Svart Crown.

 

RE: So was the first iteration of the BenchMark DAC, posted on February 28, 2014 at 11:41:18
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
''The problem is that the common measurements evolved to capture the limitations of existing technology and hence are generally useless in capturing new distortions caused by defects of new technology''

This is the kind of statement that has no real meaning but which sounds good. If you really want to add knowledge, then you need to stop making statements that sound right to some folks but which actually says nothing..

 

RE: "music is written to be deliberately and brutally ugly" - speaking of which...., posted on February 28, 2014 at 12:00:38
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
Very melodic and soothing. Thank You.

 

I can imagine that EVERY company would be on your list -t, posted on February 28, 2014 at 12:14:00
Sordidman
Audiophile

Posts: 13665
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001
.


"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"

 

RE: So was the first iteration of the BenchMark DAC, posted on February 28, 2014 at 12:22:53
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Sorry to say, Fred, I had specific examples in mind and these are documented and are well known by people who understand audio engineering and have followed its development over the years.

If I were you, I would pay careful attention before posting, lest you fall prey to a "trick" question that is at least partially crafted to troll out people's ignorance.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: "music is written to be deliberately and brutally ugly" - speaking of which...., posted on February 28, 2014 at 15:20:38
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
I will have to wait a few days until my neighbors are out of town so I can listen properly. Thanks.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

So, posted on February 28, 2014 at 22:22:32
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
who was he who just posted that he does not post negative comments with no information?.

If you make a point, you should substantiate it when asked, especially since you frequently post requests for information that are designed to facilitate negative replies.

 

RE: "unethical" in a corrupt capitalist society? Audio?, posted on March 1, 2014 at 22:06:13
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
Yes, it is just prejudicial BS.

 

I remember, posted on March 1, 2014 at 22:07:51
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
New Yorhers adding salt to the beer with a European sounding name to add 'bite'.

 

RE: Exactly my point. If PS Audio PWD MK-II sounds much better..., posted on March 2, 2014 at 08:57:08
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
The Mytek contains Bull also. The one that tops em all is iFi.

 

A little insight, posted on March 3, 2014 at 14:00:33
Gordon Rankin
Manufacturer

Posts: 2928
Joined: June 9, 2000
Guys,

Yes the PS audio piece has no dac chips.

Ok were to start without making things more confusing. Why did DSD fail? The Sonoma workstations were pushed on all recording studios shortly after the CD patent license was gone. Why well Philips and Sony were loosing a ton of free cash there were getting from companies making CD players so they needed something new. The engineers had a new DAC idea. The idea behind a dsd output stage is very simple in terms of how it works and it would be easy to replicate in a FPGA and even some more modern embedded CPU's. The problem though was the input side. Sure you could record DSD and you could output DSD but what about in between??? Well there is the real problem. You can't do math with DSD samples. You can't add them together you can't add reverb, or EQ or anything. Most songs are compiled from many tracks so you could not even add these tracks together. So the Sonoma workstations would convert everything to PCM internally do EQ, sum tracks, add reverb whatever then convert back to DSD for output. When people found out it became a sham and that is what killed SACD. Well that and the people would buy the music and not be able to play it back.

So the thought here is this. When you have say a fixed output like DSD2 then what happens when you input say a DSD1 track? You can't upsample this as that requires math and remember you can do math with DSD samples.

I am totally confused with the statement that everything is sent in at 10x DSD. As someone who programs and has written tons of DSP code I can say that digital math is never 10x anything. Everything in digital audio is a factor of 2. So 2x, 4x, 8x, 16x == Ok, 10x not ok. just like the idea that upsampling 2x, 4x, 8x or 16x sounds better than upsamling say 44.1 to 192. That is poor math as it just doesn't work as well as 44.1 to 176.4

Or why have a DSD output stage when you have 99.9999% of your music PCM?

Thanks,
Gordon
J. Gordon Rankin

 

RE: A little insight, posted on March 3, 2014 at 14:22:21
Ted Smith
Manufacturer

Posts: 10297
Location: Seattle
Joined: December 29, 2000
Howdy

Any integer upsampling ratio is as good as any other. Some filters are easier to design or implement with a specific power of two or a small upsampling ratio, but there are plenty of filters to choose from and computational efficiency is of secondary importance to me compared to how things sound.

10 x DSD rate is 147 x 192000 and 160 x 176400. It is in some sense the simplest number to use.

-Ted

 

RE: A little insight, posted on March 3, 2014 at 15:28:00
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
I am not anywhere near equipped to comment on your technical analysis, but two points:

First, I am not sure what you meant when you say people were confused what to play SACDs on. I don't think there was any confusion. There is more confusion as to what to with 96 Khz and 192 Khz downloads today.

Secondly, DSD is an excellent tool for archiving classic analog recordings,
You can do ALL your eq, reverb, and mastering and capture to DSD last as Mobile Fidelity does.

It won't be long before potential customers bypass your DAC for being "uncompetitive" and you decide stamp them "DSD Ready" to be buzz word approved.

 

RE: A little insight-seems to me Gordon, posted on March 4, 2014 at 06:25:30
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
that you and a few others are simply ideologically opposed to DSD, from quoting well flogged history to saying that one can't have 10x sampling? I note that one 'technical' guy who trashed dsd in one forum, praised his dsd design to high heaven in the marketing literature and elsewhere.

Or is it that you reprogrammed usb chip can't do dsd?

 

RE: A little insight-seems to me Gordon, posted on March 4, 2014 at 21:55:33
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
It won't be long before you see a Wavelength "DSD Ready" DAC.

Mr. Rankin bad mouthed Ethernet for years then introduced a streamer, with his own "stream length" code. If you cant't beat 'me join 'me.

He was part of that consortium that pledged support for the DoP DSD over USB standard....so I don't get the negative stance on DSD.

 

RE: A little insight-seems to me Gordon=I don't know, posted on March 4, 2014 at 22:16:30
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
what the new Ayre uses.

It is interesting that the original strategy to banish spdif with only usb capable machines has not materialised. Competition from multi input machines with Amanero, Rigisystems and XMOS usb chipsets has presumably meant that the Wavelength chip will have to be programmed with DOP support.

 

RE: A little insight-seems to me Gordon=I don't know, posted on March 5, 2014 at 07:26:57
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Problem with USB audio is that the majority of the PC world is enslaved to M$ which never delivered the necessary drivers. Async USB is a technically superior architecture, but without the O/S drivers, products are stuck with complex drivers, which are absurdly overly complex because of the design-by-committee baroque aspects of USB. SPDIF is technically inferior, but it is simple to implement when done to a mid-fi standard.




Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: A little insight-seems to me Gordon=I don't know, posted on March 5, 2014 at 07:55:47
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
If SPDIF is technically so inferior, why is is indistinguishable from USB? And yes, it is, with few exceptions.

 

RE: A little insight-seems to me Gordon=I don't know, posted on March 5, 2014 at 07:58:28
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
Yes, the effort to kill off multi input DACs has failed, and would have been to the benefit of very few, and to the detriment of many.

 

RE: A little insight-seems to me Gordon=I don't know, posted on March 5, 2014 at 08:46:20
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
If you look at the spdif circuits in high end players, they can be complex and the interface can sound very good. An example is the spdif from the Sony SCD1/777ES. The high end Pioneer players of old also has sophisticated outputs. All these players have outputs fed from relockers, unlike circuits that simply take outputs from a standard CS transmitter chip or equivalent.

With the Mytek DSD, the spdif input can sound as good as the usb input, although different in terms of voicing.

 

RE: A little insight-seems to me Gordon=I don't know, posted on March 5, 2014 at 10:44:10
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
"If SPDIF is technically so inferior, why is is indistinguishable from USB? And yes, it is, with few exceptions."

Speak for yourself. While you're at it you can join the likes of E. Brad Meyer who was on record as claiming that all CD players sound the same, etc...

As Fred said, the SPDIF input on the Mytek does not sound the same as the USB input. However, I'm not going to say that the SPDIF is better or worse, as I never attempted to tweak the SPDIF input, just took the stock juli@ breakout cable, connected it to an ancient RCA cable (pre digital) and connected that to the SPDIF input of the Mytek and verified that the music played. There are various ways the Mytek can be configured to deal with SPDIF jitter, and I didn't bother experimenting. I was just trying to test all the functions while the unit was still under warranty.

Among other reasons for using USB is that it allows double speed DSD. Using SPDIF only single speed DSD is possible with DoP. When playing PCM through the Mytek the best sound that I get involves using HQPlayer and converting to DSD128, but this only works when I use the PC in dedicated mode. Converting to DSD128 smooths out the PCM, presumably because HQPlayer uses better upsampling filters than the SABRE chip. Converting to DSD64 also smooths out the PCM, but it adds a bit of euphonic glaze that doesn't sound quite right to my ears.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: A little insight-seems to me Gordon=I don't know, posted on March 5, 2014 at 10:48:41
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
What does the MyTek have to do with any argument concerning SPDIF and USB?

I know the differences, I know the benefits on paper. But in practical use, very few benefit, especially with Redbook material. Many argue that any benefit derived from the DAC being the master is nullified by the garbage the computer or source device contaminates the USB path with.

 

RE: A little insight-seems to me Gordon=I don't know, posted on March 5, 2014 at 11:02:16
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
What?

You were the one who wrote that USB and SPDIF were indistinguishable. I wrote that this contradicted my personal experience, which happened to involve the use of a Mytek DAC.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: A little insight-seems to me Gordon=I don't know, posted on March 5, 2014 at 11:07:15
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
Yes, YOUR personal experience on ONE "professional" DAC whose designer fully admits that the Firewire input is his favorite. What professional setting uses SPDIF?

 

Actually, posted on March 5, 2014 at 13:18:45
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
his version of the Mytek is the consumer version; I have the 'mastering' version with sdif.

 

RE: Actually, posted on March 5, 2014 at 14:58:16
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
Ah, yes. The sdif input serves another purpose.

 

RE: After reading the Audiostream QB-9 DSD review, posted on March 5, 2014 at 23:33:54
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
Maybe be it's your limited 'free' dsd files, especially the very ordinary sounding Ayre test ones which are not even level matched.

Spend a little money, download a genuine dsd recording, and try again. Make sure you use a proper dsd asio driver, and set up your player carefully. Then listen. Don't use asio4all.

 

RE: Actually, posted on March 6, 2014 at 16:37:40
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
And you use the SDIF input for, what?

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Actually-I am, posted on March 7, 2014 at 04:14:18
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
listening to it now, fed from a modified XMOS usb to spdif converter fed with very high quality power supply.

Sounds better than the Mytek usb, with usb output fed from an iFi USB Power as well.

 

Page: [ 1 ] [ 2 ]

Page processed in 0.049 seconds.