Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: pretty much... posted by Jim Pearce on December 23, 2016 at 09:30:48
And that MAY be the case, after all.
Seems PSAudio is converting PCM to DSD in their Direct Stream DAC (10x DSD, whatever that comes out to) with good results. I prefer R to R ladder DACs with lots of PCM1704's working together but, if I was forced to trade my $2,000 Audio-GD Master 7 for the $6,000 PSAudio Direct Stream for even money, I would not be that angry. Yes, I've heard them side by side at a local audio meetup. Maybe the PSAudio is less 'veiled', maybe my DAC more relaxed, maybe the levels were not exactly the same? That close.
Also the folks using HQPlayer software like to take PCM and up-sample to ridiculous DSD resolution (DSD 256 or higher) and then use a DSD DAC to convert to analog. I can't play that game as I don't have a DSD DAC, but I am in no position to argue about the sound.
I have SACDs that folks could argue have NO REAL JUSTIFICATION to exist as SACDs other than to make the labels more money, but they sound pretty good,
Sometimes better than the original CD. A product of a good remastering job or?
Also new Marantz SA10, 4x DSD only.
They are staking their reps and profits on it.
All too much $ for me, and the trickle-down isn't really there.
The new GUSTARD DAC-X20U PRO 2*ES9028 does DSD 512 if you can figure out how to do it. Uses the new ESS Sabre ES-9028 chip, the ultimate in Delta Sigma DAC chip design with all kinds of filters, etc.
Early reports is that it sounds good, much better than the identical box/board with the older ES-9018 chip.
At less that $1K, who knows, even a cheap guy like me might end up with one?
My brother's Meridian 208 used the Phillips 3 - 256x 1 bit bitstream DAC - back in 1990. Still the best CD player I've heard in my system. Oddly enough it was developed by Phillips to go in cheap portable equipment.
"For comparison, imagine that you were assigned to fill a bucket with a known amount of water, using measuring cups varying in size from one ounce to 64 ounces. Even if you use care in filling the largest cup, it might contain 63.7 or 64.5 ounces instead of 64; you can't be sure that it contains exactly 64 times as much water as the smallest cup. But there is a way to obtain an exact result: use only the one-ounce cup, and transfer its contents to the bucket 64 times."
Best explanation of 1 bit processing yet!
Post a Followup:
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: