|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.233.207.162
In Reply to: "Native DSD"? How can you tell? posted by BobH on April 6, 2007 at 15:36:27:
...it traditionally costs a bit more to do it that way, so manufacturers that do often say things like "completely separate path for SACD decoding" or something to that effect. However some of the more recent DAC chips have been designed specifically to make this easy, so it may show up on more and more machines in the future.The only way to be sure used to be to buy a Sony....they always used direct DSD decoding. But I'm not sure about their latest, cheapest DVD-based machines. Certainly if you buy an ES machine from Sony, you get a direct mode.
Be aware, however, that to get the benefits of this on most machines you cannot use any kind of bass configuration or crossover...all five speakers must be used in direct or bypass mode. I think some of the latest chips do allow bass management in DSD, but I don't know specifically which machines do this.
Harry
Follow Ups:
Perhaps my question was moot. From this discussion it is not obvious that the conversion from 1 bit DSD to multi-bit PCM "hurts the sound" as I thought people were saying.So it doesn't matter whether DSD is converted to PCM?
If it does matter, specifically which players are better because they don't (besides some Sonys). How about Dennon or Yamaha or do you have to get up to Esoteric or Ayre or something > $15K?
What it means is that Sony tried to invent a new format because the patents were expiring on CD. That was a billion dollar a year revenue stream that they didn't want to see go away."DSD" has an advantage over Redbook CD in that it doesn't require "brickwall" filters, either on the record side or the playback side. This is why it generally sounds better than CD.
But it has a disadvantage in that it is completely unsuited for modern recording techniques. Something recorded in DSD is kind of like a "direct to disk" LP. Once you record it, you can't do any processing without turning into PCM. And *all* modern recordings do some kind of mixing, EQ, reverb, or *something*.
So for "DSD" to sound really good, it is really pretty much limited to really good transfers of really good sounding analog tapes. But you will never see a modern pop recording made with pure "DSD".
So Sony really painted themselves into a corner with this one.
As far as the hardware goes, the general consensus is that machines that convert to PCM don't make a really good SACD sound as good as a machine that doesn't convert to PCM.
But there are so many other factors that affect the sound quality of a player that I would not use that as the sole basis for choosing a player. There's no substitute for listening, preferably in your own system with discs that you know and love.
"As far as the hardware goes, the general consensus is that machines that convert to PCM don't make a really good SACD sound as good as a machine that doesn't convert to PCM."That is the consensus but I am not sure how much of it is based on comparative listening and how much is based on preconceptions. I know I have not listened to some of the high-dollar machines that convert DSD into PCM on my system, where I can make an objective evaluation.
There is little doubt, IMO, that SACD sound is far superior to 44/16 RBCD's, But high res is high res. On a theoritical basis, if the conversion from SACD to PCM occurs at a much higher resolution, say 192 Hz, should we still expect a reduction in sound quality? If so, why? Do the additional electronics required for the conversion automatically create a performance penalty or could the sound be enhanced in some way by the conversion?
I hope your rehabilitation is going well. I was in a pretty severe bike accident in 2004 (although not as severe as yours). I was in the hospital for nine days and it took me six months to completely recover. I will be setting off the alarms at airports with all the metal in my hip for years to come. But I am back riding. I hope your recovery goes as smoothly as mine.
< < On a theoretical basis, if the conversion from SACD to PCM occurs at a much higher resolution, say 192 kHz, should we still expect a reduction in sound quality? > >On a theoretical basis, no.
But in the real world, it seems to happen. When we were developing the C-5xe, we tried a few different algorithms to convert "DSD" to PCM. The best of them was *almost* as good as the straight "DSD", but not quite. I would guess that if we spent a lot of time working on it, we could come up with something that didn't degrade the "DSD" sound. But there wasn't really any point to do so. Plus the conversion utilized a huge amount of computing power from the FPGA we use.
< < I think some of the latest chips do allow bass management in DSD > >No. To do *anything* to the signal, it must first be converted to some form of PCM. You can then convert it back to so-called "DSD", but what would be the point of that?
...by using 4 bit or 8 bit DSD (which some will argue IS pcm, so you have some support). Point is, IIRC it is built into some of the newer "all-in-one" chips which don't require going out of dsd mode for bass managment. This same approach is used professionally in most recent version of the SACD workstations.
Harry
First of all "DSD" is a marketing term, and not a technical term. It was defined by the marketing gurus at Sony. And what they defined "DSD" as is one-bit digital audio at a sample rate of 64 Fs.Now you *cannot* do *anything* to this signal, even change the volume, without changing it to more than one bit. Then it is, by definition, no longer "DSD".
The marketing gurus from Sony painted themselves into a corner. They claimed all kinds of sonic miracles from "DSD" precisely *because* it was just one-bit.
But they can't have it both ways! If it is so wonderful because it is one-bit (as those who drink the Kool-Aid insist), then the very act of converting it to multi-bit (ie, PCM) must *by definition* destroy the wonderfulness of "DSD".
On the other hand, if converting "DSD" to PCM somehow does *not* destroy it's alleged sonic wonderfulness, then why bother with "DSD" at all? Why not just use PCM?
...one of the Wolfsens, as well as one of the Cirrus Logics. But I am not a technologist, so I could be mistaken....I am simply dealing from memory and hearsay.
Harry
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: