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

Well One Month In and DSD is a Total Bust for Me

98.177.158.165
Posted on October 14, 2016 at 10:22:04
Dynamite Ham
Audiophile

Posts: 232
Location: State of Confusion, U.S.A.
Joined: February 24, 2005
 This is not a troll, just my observations after a month or so of listening to DSD. My dac is an Eastern Electric Minimax Supreme with Sparko Labs op-amps. Software is HQ Player running on a six month old, fully loaded Macbook Air. All HQ player settings are optimal, in fact, I am running the exact same settings used in the Doug Shroeder review on Dagogo.com. The gentleman who set up the Mac used in Doug's review was kind enough to help me with the various settings for DSD and double DSD. Speakers are Magnepan 1.7s, USB cable is one meter Kimber, all system cables are Kimber Select. I have both tube and solid state amps/preamps that I've used with this setup and I'm confident I was getting the most out of both the EE dac and HQ software.

I have many, many years of experience listening to various dacs and players that do digital upsampling and in all cases I found them to be inferior to straight playback of 16/44 sources. IMO instruments sound like they are encased in plastic when upsampled and there is a certain "sameness" to recordings that are upsampled. And that's what I hear with DSD, a sameness to all recordings that is typical of upsampling. Also, I find that most recordings seem to be smaller in size when reproduced with DSD upsampling. On the plus side DSD recordings seem to present a full 360 degree view of the musicians or orchestra, although again quite a bit smaller that they would appear non-upsampled. The sound is also very smooth and detailed, but when I A/B it with the non-upsampled 16/44 recording I prefer the native version which IMO is more honest sounding.

I did download a dozen or so native DSD and double DSD recordings and found them to sound pretty much the same as non-DSD, perhaps this is endemic to the HQ Player software?

So to my ears, and my tastes, DSD is not worth the bother and IMO is inferior to native 16/44 digital playback. Probably not a popular opinion on a PC Audio forum but I call 'em like I see 'em. Tastes differ and YMMV. Enjoy the music.




 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Well One Month In and DSD is a Total Bust for Me, posted on October 14, 2016 at 13:06:35
milpai
Audiophile

Posts: 651
Location: Ohio
Joined: August 21, 2005
 You are sharing your experience here. If that is what it was on your system, then you should be happy with 16/44. I say, don't care what is popular on these forums on elsewhere. It is the music that matters and not the formats. So if you like 16/44, so be it. CD playback is wonderful and I enjoy mine thoroughly. I even enjoy BlueTooth audio on my system. No one is going to tell me what I should enjoy and what I should not. And like you said...enjoy your music!

 

RE: Well One Month In and DSD is a Total Bust for Me, posted on October 14, 2016 at 13:42:53
2con
Audiophile

Posts: 77
Location: lombardia
Joined: February 12, 2003
I totally agree with you ;sometimes i even prefer Mp3 files .

If you want more go analogue.

The loss of dinamic in upsampled files is like pouring water into wine

 

RE: Well One Month In and DSD is a Total Bust for Me, posted on October 14, 2016 at 15:48:49
Archimago
Audiophile

Posts: 821
Joined: January 18, 2002
 Although each DAC can be different in sound between PCM and DSD, I don't think most people who have tried A/B testing would say that DSD was ever a massive upgrade. There are fanboys for everything of course. In fact, I think those of us who do conversions between SACD to PCM appreciate that the process is essentially transparent with good software these days...

Given how many DSD/SACD albums are basically upsampled PCM sources of standard resolution (see my link below), one has to be vigilant to check if the recording originated as DSD to begin with.
-------
Archimago's Musings: A 'more objective' audiophile blog.

 

RE: Well One Month In and DSD is a Total Bust for Me, posted on October 14, 2016 at 16:21:21
PAR
 Yes, I am generally in agreement. I have been able to convert 16/44.1 (and other formats) to DSD probably for longer than most inmates (since around 2001). Although initially impressed with it, the negative aspects became apparent as time went by.

However good native DSD recordings (including analogue transfers directly to DSD) can sound terrific. Nevertheless the quality of the original master trumps all.



 

RE: Well One Month In and DSD is a Total Bust for Me, posted on October 14, 2016 at 21:09:22
Duster
Manufacturer

Posts: 17117
Location: Pacific Northwest
Joined: August 25, 2002
 Your evaluation is not too far from mine. My computer audio application is based on native 16/44 digital playback via S/PDIF digital optical output distributed into separate jitter reduction devices which then convert the signal to an S/PDIF digital coaxial or an AES/EBU digital cable interface into the DACs of two separate audio systems.

Do you find DSD to sound more analytical or hi-fi-ish rather than that of a more musical presentation, especially in terms of PRAT (various dynamic aspects) via 16/44 digital playback? I find that aspect regarding upsampling, since the benefit seems to be based on a perceived enhancement of detail vs. a more visceral experience a.k.a boogie factor. It's not too far off-topic than what vinyl hold-outs say about digital fans of doing with their audiophile-based listening sessions.

 

DSD Player or No?, posted on October 14, 2016 at 22:02:52
jedrider
Audiophile

Posts: 15168
Location: No. California
Joined: December 26, 2003
 The DSD players seem to be all the rage lately, for instance, if we take as an example PS Audio. Is this because of some inherent benefit from DSD or because this is just the latest iteration of DAC technology?

I PRESUME THESE DSD players handle PCM transparently and do DSD as an alternate data stream or do they convert to DSD in order to convert the signal to analog? I'm a little confused about all this.

 

One month, posted on October 14, 2016 at 23:20:54
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 and one dac using one system with different preamps is not enough in forming an opinion.

SACD and DSD playback are perhaps more dac dependent than you think. The bandwidth of the output filter, which, in your case is limited by valves, is also very important.

I playback with a high frequency tolerant system at 70kHz filter bandwidth and this sounds a lot better than at 50kHz.

The set up of the computer software is also very important.

I actually get as satisfying an experience with a high quality universal player with custom dsd to pcm conversion as using my computer dsd playback system. There is also much less to configure for a reliable setup.

Give it 6 months with different dacs and software. Try not using DoP or ASIO and stream DSD at384k using KS. You may be surprised.

One final comment about far eastern usb devices; they don't all have the latest or best usb driver.

 

My thoughts, posted on October 15, 2016 at 01:38:25
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 15703
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
 We NOS lovers represent a kind of die-hard "corner solution" in the digital world. This makes it tough to communicate with DSD (and beyond) lovers.

So, I agree with you. We just have to keep loving the world we are in and let it go at that, despite the well-meaning and often technically astute intentions and advice from others who don't understand paganism.

 

Some people are more sensitive to the noise of DSD playback, posted on October 15, 2016 at 07:58:23
rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com
Audiophile

Posts: 3040
Location: Atlanta
Joined: December 15, 2003
 than others.

I think it comes down to that.

That high frequency response DSD promises comes with a price.

Funny with all of that extraneous stuff that one can perceive more extension at the top. I am of the opinion that most of what is being called detail is actually noise.

Something I learned many decades ago when I got to hear the HILL Plasmatronics loudspeaker at an audio show. The main event was the tweeter, the rest of the system was hopelessly outclassed by that driver.

What was interesting at first listen one thought the speaker was dull. After some time had passed you realized you were hearing the range with less mechanical junk than you had ever experienced. Substitute mechanical noises for digital noises - they are somewhat analogous.

We are so used to them that we can tend to think they are correct. Especially if we do not get out enough to hear the real thing. And if some is good more has to better. Right?

 

RE: DSD Player or No?, posted on October 15, 2016 at 08:40:43
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46307
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 It's not clear to me if you're talking about DSD DACs or DSD players. I think you're talking about DACs but calling them "Players".

Some DACs convert PCM to DSD internally then out to analog. The PS Audio DirectStream and DirectStream Jr. do this. Most DACs do not do this.

Some Player applications on your computer can take PCM music files and convert them to DSD in realtime while playing . HQPlayer is one such application.


 

Welcome to the world of audio homeopathy,, posted on October 15, 2016 at 16:23:26
Jaundiced Ear
 where ever more vanishingly dilute differences can still have fabulous, trans-formative effects.

At least if you're a true believer.

I say enjoy your music collection and prioritize getting music you enjoy rather than worrying about the container it comes in.

JE

 

RE: Totally valid for you , posted on October 15, 2016 at 17:04:34
Jeff Starr
Audiophile

Posts: 1574
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Joined: March 4, 2000
 I don't think we can make anything from this post, other than that using that dac with that software DSD doesn't sound all that good.

My take, from my very limited experience is using a software converter that is not the player's reason to be, to convert formats is not going to give the best results. Someone mentioned PS Audio's Directstream dacs which convert all digital input to DSD, the Jr sells for $4k,to do it right. So how can we expect a player, like the JRiver I use to convert formats perfectly for under a hundred dollars.

The more I listen to different formats the less I am sure of any one of them being superior to the others. It really does start with the recording or the transfer of the analog masters to digital. I have heard really good DSD and disappointing DSD. And the same can be said about 16/44 to 24/192.

While it's nice that the Ham took the time to share his experience with one dac and one converter, it really should not influence anyone, for that you need to listen to a lot of different dacs with a lot of different media and it might still come down to personal preference.



 

Yup, You've got that right ......................................, posted on October 15, 2016 at 17:05:51
Cut-Throat
Audiophile

Posts: 18286
Location: Minneapolis - St.Paul Area
Joined: September 2, 2000
Contributor
  Since: May 16, 2021
 If you've got to 'Strain to discern a difference' then you've got to ask yourself.

1.) Is it Different ?
2.) Is it Better ?
3.) Is it worse ?
4.) Is it worth it ?
5.) Does it matter ?

At some point you should probably be investing in fine drinking wine.



 

RE: Totally valid for you , posted on October 15, 2016 at 17:09:03
Kal Rubinson
Reviewer

Posts: 12436
Location: New York
Joined: June 5, 2002
 "So how can we expect a player, like the JRiver I use to convert formats perfectly for under a hundred dollars." I do. It runs on thousands of dollars worth of hardware. How much would the PSAudio firmware sell for as an app?

 

RE: Totally valid for you , posted on October 15, 2016 at 17:22:53
Jeff Starr
Audiophile

Posts: 1574
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Joined: March 4, 2000
 Don't know, but in my system I prefer the native resolution to it converted to DSD.

What are trying to tell me? Is it the laptop and dac I use that make those conversions, sound not as good as the native format.

Maybe I should have said it takes the proper hardware for the, in their case firmware function to sound it's best?

Are you using JRiver to convert to DSD? Or to a higher PCM? I really haven't done much with going up with PCM, as I never liked what I heard with DSD conversions.

 

Nope., posted on October 15, 2016 at 19:58:56
Kal Rubinson
Reviewer

Posts: 12436
Location: New York
Joined: June 5, 2002
 I'm with you. I have fiddled with upsamling but, with h JRiver or HQPlayer it does not do much for me. More often than not, I down sample HD so I can use DiracLive.

 

RE: Well One Month In and DSD is a Total Bust for Me, posted on October 15, 2016 at 21:12:18
Thorsten
Manufacturer

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

While I have my own views on DSD, they do not even enter here.

I would recommend you read a small note on different formats (PCM vs. DSD) and playback systems (including format conversion) that I wrote as part of an interview on Audiostream.com:

http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-thorsten-loesch-amrifi-audiostream-addendum-pcm-vs-dsd

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?

 

An excellent summary, posted on October 15, 2016 at 21:56:36
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 I would also add that differences heard between DSD and PCM are also the result of software control settings and filter algorithms and types.

 

With regard to your signature line, posted on October 15, 2016 at 22:44:32
Jaundiced Ear
 Just how loudly can a healthy young man shout?

I would guess somewhere between 85 and 90 decibels.

The loudest stadiums in the NFL have been measured at about 130 to 135 decibels.

Opposing teams playing in these stadiums use a so called "silent count." That is because they fully expect the healthy young players on their team to be unable to hear their quarterback shouting at the top of his lungs when his voice is -45 to -50dB down in the noise.

As a practical matter, that means professional football teams fully expect that their players cannot hear -45dB into a sound signal.

You can try this out yourself by using the test tracks in Audio Diffmaker. From my experience, it is difficult to hear which of the tracks has the brass band mixed into the boys' choir. (But not always!) However, once you use the software to extract the difference, the brass band becomes obvious.

Strangely enough, no one in this asylum seems to be willing to simply listen to these tracks and report back on what they hear. Indeed, there seems to be a correlation between those who claim that nothing or next to nothing results in a huge change in audio enjoyment and those who reject the audio diffmaker challenge.

I'll leave the reader to their own conclusion.

I will also leave it to the reader to wonder why we should worry about differences -90dB or more down while no one in this asylum is willing to come on board to show us they can hear differences -50 or -60dB down by taking the Audio Diffmaker challenge.

They will always fling up some sort of flimsy excuse when all we are asking is to listen to two tracks of a choir singing Brahm's lullaby. One track has had added to it a brass band playing a John Sousa march. Can you tell which is which? I'll bet you can not. I'll also bet the "golden ears" here can not either. That's why they won't even listen to the tracks.

Remember this when the golden ears tell you that you should worry about differences that are more the -70dB down.

JE

 

.Acoutically, posted on October 15, 2016 at 22:56:13
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 human hearing has a dynamic range of up to 130 dB.

Football players and diff maker have no basis in determining the Physics of Acoustics.

 

with all respect, posted on October 15, 2016 at 23:25:49
Jaundiced Ear
 Could you elaborate on your position?

I am asserting that when NFL teams go into a stadium that can have sound levels of 130dB or more (in fact probably less than that, but I am thinking of the Seahawks and their "twelfth man"), those teams need to use a "silent count" because their players cannot hear their quarterback shouting at the top of his voice from more than a few feet away.

This is a fact. Can you tell me how my claim is incorrect?

I am also claiming that the Audio Diffmaker site, linked below, offers "challenge" tracks that have "noise," that is brass bands playing Sousa marches, at more than -50dB down when compared to the original tracks of a chorus singing Brahm's lulaby. I assert that a reasonable listener, playing back the tracks at a reasonable level, will not be able to tell the difference between the two tracks.

Can you tell me how my claim is incorrect?

I am also saying that an inability to hear -50dB into one acoustic environment is comparable to an inability to hear -50dB into a different acoustic environment. Could you please explain why this assertion is wrong?

While we are at it, how about you take the challenge and tell us which tracks have the brass band mixed into them. Or do you want to join the list of the blowhards who claim supernatural hearing while being unable to demonstrate it?

JE

 

Just Google Dynamic Range Human Hearing, posted on October 16, 2016 at 01:20:52
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 Noise masking is altogether something else and complex.

 

RE: Nope., posted on October 16, 2016 at 13:18:36
ahendler
Audiophile

Posts: 5151
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Joined: January 24, 2003
 Kal,
Is Diraclive that room correction system? Can't you use it no matter what the sampling frequency is? Just a short explanation would be helpful
Alan

 

Yes., posted on October 16, 2016 at 15:32:20
Kal Rubinson
Reviewer

Posts: 12436
Location: New York
Joined: June 5, 2002
 DiracLive is my preferred EQ system. It will handle PCM only and only up to 24/192 at the present time.

 

RE: Yes., posted on October 16, 2016 at 15:35:11
ahendler
Audiophile

Posts: 5151
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Joined: January 24, 2003
 Thanks
Alan

 

There are theoretical and practical limits to human hearing, posted on October 16, 2016 at 19:40:44
Jaundiced Ear
 Earlier you said:

"human hearing has a dynamic range of up to 130 dB.

Football players and diff maker have no basis in determining the Physics of Acoustics."

I am not saying that my examples "determine the Physics of Acoustics." I am saying that they demonstrate practical, real, every day limitations of the human ear.

In the presence of a continuous 130dB signal, it is demonstrably impossible for even young, healthy, twenty somethings to distinguish shouted human voices from more than 3 meters away. In the absence of that background noise, those same ears could likely hear the same shouted voice more than 50 meters away.

Likewise, in the presence of a continuous musical signal, it will be difficult for individuals with normal hearing to perceive even a brass band playing a Sousa march, so long as it is far enough down in the mix. If you don't believe me, try the audio diffmaker listener challenge. In my opinion, this tends to undercut claims that random noises even farther down in the mix than the brass band will be audible to individuals with normal hearing.

Could there be exceptions to my claims? Quite possibly. Every bell-curve has freaks out at the extreme edges. However, for the vast majority of listeners, they are going to be constrained by normal human limitations and for them I think I am right. To bolster this claim, may I observe that I've yet to find a single inmate who is able to show that they can beat the Audio diffmaker challenge.

Even if one inmate does demonstrate this ability, it does not mean that any other inmates, or other non-inmates can. Again, my claims are not about theoretical limits which only apply to theoretical inmates, but are about practical claims which apply to average inmates.

Are you an inmate interested in saving money? Take the Audio Diffmaker listeners' challenge linked below. You don't need to report back to this board or to anyone else. However, if you find it difficult to tell which track has the brass band mixed in, you may want to wonder why you should fling kilo bux at components simply based on the claims of people you've never met, and who have never actually demonstrated that they have better hearing than yours. And no, anecdotal claims about hearing imaginary differences are not a demonstration of anything other than self-delusion.

It may be a wrench to realize that you only have normally hearing instead of putative bat like hearing, but it will save you a small fortune other wise wasted on needless component upgrades that will be better spent on actual music.

Follow this link to get the Audio Diffmaker software:

http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm

Below, scroll down to find the challenge files.


JE

 

RE: Well One Month In and DSD is a Total Bust for Me, posted on October 17, 2016 at 09:34:53
blownsi
Audiophile

Posts: 14
Location: Ohio
Joined: January 29, 2006
 My impressions are similar to yours. I own two DSD dacs and prefer PCM over DSD even on the very same unit. I think this is a case where different doesn't always equal better. I'm guessing MQA will be similar.

 

RE: Well One Month In and DSD is a Total Bust for Me, posted on October 17, 2016 at 11:59:31
ahendler
Audiophile

Posts: 5151
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Joined: January 24, 2003
 "I'm guessing MQA will be similar."
Another well informed opinion. I assume you havn't heard MQA? If not, why comment?
Alan

 

The real noise improvement in DSD is in the bass and mids, posted on October 17, 2016 at 13:04:46
richardl
Audiophile

Posts: 3555
Joined: September 5, 2002
 It has rising treble noise up the spectrum. a bit asymptotic after 6k if I remember correctly.

 

RE: Well One Month In and DSD is a Total Bust for Me, posted on October 17, 2016 at 14:22:37
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46307
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
DSD wasn't a total bust for me but I didn't feel it was a significant improvement over 24/96 PCM for 99% of what I listen to.

Sure, if I sat there and dissected every note as some audiophools spend a lifetime doing, I could hear minor differences. That's not how I enjoy my music.

24/96 PCM is my personal 'sweet spot', and my larger collection of 16/44.1 PCM rips from CD are also excellent.



 

RE: There are theoretical and practical limits to human hearing, posted on October 20, 2016 at 04:14:49
Dave_K
In the presence of a continuous 130dB signal, it is demonstrably impossible for even young, healthy, twenty somethings to distinguish shouted human voices from more than 3 meters away. In the absence of that background noise, those same ears could likely hear the same shouted voice more than 50 meters away.


One factor in this is that you're pushing the ears to the pain threshold. In my case, my ears "clip" before even getting to the point of pain. Clipping is the best word I can think of to describe it, sound becomes extremely distorted like I've hit a hard limit. In very loud stadium crowd environments, and at some loud concerts, I have to wear earplugs to hear anything because otherwise my ears are being driven to the limit.

 

RE: Well One Month In and DSD is a Total Bust for Me, posted on October 20, 2016 at 07:16:29
blownsi
Audiophile

Posts: 14
Location: Ohio
Joined: January 29, 2006
 Thanks for making me feel welcome Alan.

 

RE: Well One Month In and DSD is a Total Bust for Me, posted on October 20, 2016 at 13:32:40
beautox
Manufacturer

Posts: 366
Location: New Plymouth
Joined: July 9, 2013
 The Eastern Electric Minimax Supreme uses ESS9018 (sabre32) chips, so it's not performing true 1-bit DSD conversion - the ESS9018 has a 6-bit DAC internally so DSD is converted to 6-bits. For that matter, so is PCM.

The folks who rave about DSD are normally using 1-bit DACs

 

RE: There are theoretical and practical limits to human hearing, posted on October 20, 2016 at 20:31:56
Jaundiced Ear
 I'm guessing that even with hearing protection, NFL players are routinely exposed to ear damaging sound levels.

I'll also assert that you need not set your playback levels to 130dB to experience audio masking. Simply take the Audio Diffmaker listening challenge I linked to before in this thread and see if you can discern the brass band hidden behind the boys' choir. So far I'm unaware of any inmate in this asylum who has even tried the challenge, much less beat it.

JE

 

Personally, I find DSD (and 24bit PCM for that matter), more "liquid" and "relaxed" than 16bit..., posted on October 20, 2016 at 22:21:15
jdaniel@jps.net
 if I'm being bilked out of a few extra bucks per download, oh well.

 

Page processed in 0.047 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]