|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 20, 2023 8:53:46 GMT -5
...But, yes, supporting DSD over USB has proven to be more difficult than we thought... Other USB DACs, however, DO support DSD over USB. Emotiva's circuitry may be different enough to prevent DSD over USB? Might the upcoming Emotiva DAC support DSD over HDMI instead of USB? |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Feb 20, 2023 9:16:02 GMT -5
And at the risk of disturbing a metallic cylindrical vessel of non-arthropod invertebrates .... we loop back to the question of whether you can hear a difference between DSD over USB vs DSD over HDMI vs DSD that has been converted to PCM in your music player (i.e. JRiver, as I do) and played over USB or HDMI .... and whether DSD over USB can play gapless .... etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 20, 2023 10:39:01 GMT -5
I think I can answer at least some of those questions..,
My audio amigo uses a Black Ice Audio DAC with DSD over USB capabilities. It does play DSD files without gaps or dropouts. And the DSD files (of the same music) sound audibly better than the 16/44 CD versions .
That said, is the improvement due to the DSD file format or to different (and better) mastering? I can’t answer that question. But I will note that audio amigo had a 16/44 copy of the same music that he had remastered himself. The home remaster, despite being “only” 16/44, sounded the best of all.
I’ll tentatively conclude that the mastering is more important than the resolution. YMMV…
|
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Feb 20, 2023 11:14:00 GMT -5
I think I can answer at least some of those questions.., My audio amigo uses a Black Ice Audio DAC with DSD over USB capabilities. It does play DSD files without gaps or dropouts. And the DSD files (of the same music) sound audibly better than the 16/44 CD versions . That said, is the improvement due to the DSD file format or to different (and better) mastering? I can’t answer that question. But I will note that audio amigo had a 16/44 copy of the same music that he had remastered himself. The home remaster, despite being “only” 16/44, sounded the best of all. I’ll tentatively conclude that the mastering is more important than the resolution. YMMV… Mastering and/or source. There could be multiple versions of a mix and multiple masters and then the remasters could be from different sources. Provenance from source to delivery has to be the same except for the downsample in order to realistically compare. Have you heard of Mark Waldrep's survey and AES paper on this subject from a couple years ago? He made all the recordings himself as part of his AIX Records company so he had all the original 96/24 files. He created a set of 44.1/16 downsampled versions and level matched them and made them available for people to download and listen. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,256
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 20, 2023 15:01:10 GMT -5
There are still a few minor details that haven't been finalized on the new DAC yet - and I promise I will pass them on once they have been finalized. DSD itself is just a somewhat complicated and somewhat convoluted subject Support for DSD over USB requires: - that the USB interface hardware itself supports the option - that the firmware in the USB interface hardware support it - that the DAC chip itself supports it - that certain physical connections exist between the two There are also actually two different versions of DSD over USB: - DoP (which is the more common version) - "ASIO native DSD" (which is really just a different, and slightly more efficient, but far less widely supported, way of packet-encapsulating DSD) However, in both cases, once the DSD packets are "de-encapsulated and reconstructed", you should end up with a bit-perfect copy of the original DSD. And, again, at that point, you still need a DAC chip that supports DSD and connections to that DAC chip. Sending DSD over HDMI is actually part of the HDMI spec... But, in that case, first you have to actually be supporting an HDMI connection. Then you need a DAC that can actually decode the DSD audio once you have it. Incidentally... here's a link to Mark Waldrep's articles: www.realhd-audio.com/?p=3764And to the article he refers to: www.grimmaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/dsd_myth.pdf...But, yes, supporting DSD over USB has proven to be more difficult than we thought... Other USB DACs, however, DO support DSD over USB. Emotiva's circuitry may be different enough to prevent DSD over USB? Might the upcoming Emotiva DAC support DSD over HDMI instead of USB? |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 20, 2023 15:16:27 GMT -5
Indeed... And also bear in mind that the conversion between DSD and PCM is NOT mathematically bit-perfect in either direction. So, whenever you convert, in either direction, there is filtering involved, as well as other "configuration options", which may introduce audible differences. And that's in addition to the fact that one converter may simply do a better job than another at making the most accurate conversion possible. And, in addition to all THAT, many DACs handle DSD audio, and the filtering they use with it, differently than they handle PCM. All in all, there are a lot of reasons why the DSD and PCM versions of "the same song" may sound different, few of which actually involve "accuracy" or "audio quality". It's also worth mentioning something that hasn't been mentioned much lately: "Different isn't always better". And, finally, but also an interesting notion... If someone is going to deliver "a master for PCM" and "a master for DSD"... It's not unreasonable to suspect that they may have deliberately made the DSD version "sound different in a way they think will appeal to audiophiles"... (And your guess is probably about as good as mine exactly what that might mean.) I think I can answer at least some of those questions.., My audio amigo uses a Black Ice Audio DAC with DSD over USB capabilities. It does play DSD files without gaps or dropouts. And the DSD files (of the same music) sound audibly better than the 16/44 CD versions . That said, is the improvement due to the DSD file format or to different (and better) mastering? I can’t answer that question. But I will note that audio amigo had a 16/44 copy of the same music that he had remastered himself. The home remaster, despite being “only” 16/44, sounded the best of all. I’ll tentatively conclude that the mastering is more important than the resolution. YMMV… Mastering and/or source. There could be multiple versions of a mix and multiple masters and then the remasters could be from different sources. Provenance from source to delivery has to be the same except for the downsample in order to realistically compare. Have you heard of Mark Waldrep's survey and AES paper on this subject from a couple years ago? He made all the recordings himself as part of his AIX Records company so he had all the original 96/24 files. He created a set of 44.1/16 downsampled versions and level matched them and made them available for people to download and listen. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Feb 20, 2023 16:29:11 GMT -5
Indeed... And also bear in mind that the conversion between DSD and PCM is NOT mathematically bit-perfect in either direction. So, whenever you convert, in either direction, there is filtering involved, as well as other "configuration options", which may introduce audible differences. And that's in addition to the fact that one converter may simply do a better job than another at making the most accurate conversion possible. And, in addition to all THAT, many DACs handle DSD audio, and the filtering they use with it, differently than they handle PCM. All in all, there are a lot of reasons why the DSD and PCM versions of "the same song" may sound different, few of which actually involve "accuracy" or "audio quality". It's also worth mentioning something that hasn't been mentioned much lately: "Different isn't always better". And, finally, but also an interesting notion... If someone is going to deliver "a master for PCM" and "a master for DSD"... It's not unreasonable to suspect that they may have deliberately made the DSD version "sound different in a way they think will appeal to audiophiles"... (And your guess is probably about as good as mine exactly what that might mean.) Mastering and/or source. There could be multiple versions of a mix and multiple masters and then the remasters could be from different sources. Provenance from source to delivery has to be the same except for the downsample in order to realistically compare. Have you heard of Mark Waldrep's survey and AES paper on this subject from a couple years ago? He made all the recordings himself as part of his AIX Records company so he had all the original 96/24 files. He created a set of 44.1/16 downsampled versions and level matched them and made them available for people to download and listen. To the last point ... those guys who sell snake oil devices at the audio shows always seem to have a way of stopping and starting the music when they go to prove how great their device is. I asked a guy at CAF to not turn the music off and just switch off his device ... he became visibly flustered  In terms of preparation of samples I don't think you could do better than what Waldrep did. I had an interesting experience listening to them with my wife and a friend. I just wonder if anyone else on here has used those samples to listen to various devices. www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6197 |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 20, 2023 18:58:55 GMT -5
I think it might be interesting to know what your friend DID when he produced that copy "that he remastered himself at home".
To start with, rather than "compare a DSD version to a CD version", I would suggest actually performing the conversion yourself... Create a 16/44k version FROM the DSD file itself... THEN compare the two and see how significant the difference is... That way you'll have the mix and mastering from the DSD version - but at 16/44k PCM... Then see how the result sounds if you convert the DSD version to PCM - but at 24/96k...
Then compare the 16/44k PCM version that you created from the DSD version to the "regular CD version"...that to "the CD version"...
In fact, if it's a popular album, try a few different versions or remasters of the same CD... you might be surprised how different they sound...
(This is all stuff you can do with free software on a PC... and probably on an Apple computer too.)
Then, when you get bored with all that...
Download demo copies of something Like Adobe Audition and Izotope Ozone... And try some actual "remastering and remixing"... Try modules like Impact and Low-End Focus in Ozone Advanced... Or maybe some of the Dynamics Processing... that sort of does what the old dBx 3Bx and 4Bx did... but better...
There is a lot of fun stuff out there...
I think I can answer at least some of those questions.., My audio amigo uses a Black Ice Audio DAC with DSD over USB capabilities. It does play DSD files without gaps or dropouts. And the DSD files (of the same music) sound audibly better than the 16/44 CD versions . That said, is the improvement due to the DSD file format or to different (and better) mastering? I can’t answer that question. But I will note that audio amigo had a 16/44 copy of the same music that he had remastered himself. The home remaster, despite being “only” 16/44, sounded the best of all. I’ll tentatively conclude that the mastering is more important than the resolution. YMMV… |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 20, 2023 19:08:38 GMT -5
Not me, KeithL - I don't want anything to do with remastering or the hardware / software to do it. I leave that to those who are fascinated with such technology. I just want to listen! LOL |
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Feb 20, 2023 21:34:06 GMT -5
Personally don't think DSD or MQA is necessary in a DAC. Such a small percentage of the market for questionable real sonic benefit.
|
|
cawgijoe
Emo VIPs 
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra
Posts: 5,032
|
Post by cawgijoe on Feb 20, 2023 22:48:59 GMT -5
Personally don't think DSD or MQA is necessary in a DAC. Such a small percentage of the market for questionable real sonic benefit. The more stuff you have, the bigger the bragging rights! Kidding….for those who really need or want, it would be a necessity. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 21, 2023 11:33:07 GMT -5
I've got to sort of split the difference with you there... Once you make the choice to "just listen"... you're handing ALL of the control over to someone else... and putting yourself at the mercy of all of THEIR choices. On the one hand I very rarely "remaster" anything... as in "spend a lot of time fixing it so it sounds good"... The only exceptions I've made are a few rare cases where the only available copy of a particular album had obvious problems which I could actually fix... I have one or two older albums where the actual "transfer to CD" was done pretty poorly and can be improved rather easily. At them moment I also have exactly one favorite album that is only available on vinyl where the digital transfer needed some restoration. HOWEVER...I do see a distinction between "remastering" and "controlling what's going on"... And that specifically becomes an issue when we get into discussions like comparisons between file formats... And, more specifically, when it comes to these endless discussions about "how DSD and PCM compare"... In this context my point is this: Assuming that you've actually taken a DSD file, converted it directly to PCM, and found that you don't think the PCM version sounds as good.... How do you know that the difference you're hearing isn't simply due to the particular program or settings you used to convert your file? (And, of course, if you use something like an Oppo to "output DSD as PCM", that conversion is simply being done by the software in the Oppo's firmware.) The point is, at least in this specific situation, you cannot avoid "software differences" and "differences due to options and settings"... And, since we are dealing with digital files, some of those variations are quite easy to control. And, to be quite blunt, if it does turn out to be that simple... Then it's hardly a big deal to use whatever software and settings you prefer to convert your DSD files to PCM... At which point you have choices to make... (there is no "null choice" of "just convert it"... either you make the choice or someone makes it for you ) (This isn't true for physical SACD discs... but it is true for DSD files.) Not me, KeithL - I don't want anything to do with remastering or the hardware / software to do it. I leave that to those who are fascinated with such technology. I just want to listen! LOL |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 21, 2023 11:46:27 GMT -5
That is also my personal opinion... My impression of the MQA files I've heard is distinctly mixed... and about on a par with other "remasters"... Some I've heard sounded slightly better... some slightly worse... and a lot about the same... Also, to be quite blunt, the only place I know of that actually offers wide support for MQA is Tidal. And, for one thing, I still do not find that Tidal has the best selection of the music I want to listen to... And, from what I've been reading recently, Tidal also has some issues with not having non-MQA versions of albums available... (In the cases where you would actually specifically prefer to listen to a certain non-MQA version of a certain album). And, at the moment, I don't have any SACD discs that I listen to. And, while I definitely have some DSD versions of albums I prefer, I find that a properly converted PCM version of those albums sounds equally good to me. And, in the context of "just playing music", standardizing on PCM and FLAC has certainly made my life at home a lot simpler. (I play with lots of file formats.... but I only keep PCM files on my server... almost always in FLAC format.) Personally don't think DSD or MQA is necessary in a DAC. Such a small percentage of the market for questionable real sonic benefit. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
Member is Online
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 21, 2023 11:57:27 GMT -5
I'm going to drop an interesting analogy here... just for fun... I would like to compare a PCM DAC to a stereo turntable... Back in the 1970's I had a lot of vinyl albums... And, back then, a significant number of those albums were in SQ-4 four channel format... And, even though I didn't have any, many of my friends also owned albums in CD-4 four channel format... Yet I've noticed very few complaints that "modern systems can't play SQ-4 vinyl"... And no complaints that modern cartridges cannot play CD-4 albums and modern equipment can't decode them... (SQ-4 albums required a special decoder but used an ordinary cartridge and preamp; CD-4 albums required a special cartridge, a special preamp, and a special decoder.) As you say, both DSD and MQA are very small parts of the market (and, to be quite fair, that seems unlikely to change at this point). So, to me, a DAC that only supports PCM is very much like a turntable that can "only" play stereo albums... (It will provide what most of the market actually wants and needs.) Personally don't think DSD or MQA is necessary in a DAC. Such a small percentage of the market for questionable real sonic benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 21, 2023 12:04:16 GMT -5
For consistency and simplicity, all files on my server are 16/44 wav files. I do prefer my audio amigos’ stereo conversions from mono originals. I also consistently prefer my audio amigos’ “remasters” (via Equalization) of commercial releases when available. I also rely on audio amigos’ digitizations of analog records that never got released on CD.
The only equalization filters I apply (via Roon DSP) are for room correction.
Yes, I effectively HAVE turned control of my music over to others - but I can absolutely tell what sounds better to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Feb 21, 2023 12:54:37 GMT -5
I'm going to drop an interesting analogy here... just for fun... I would like to compare a PCM DAC to a stereo turntable... Back in the 1970's I had a lot of vinyl albums... And, back then, a significant number of those albums were in SQ-4 four channel format... And, even though I didn't have any, many of my friends also owned albums in CD-4 four channel format... Yet I've noticed very few complaints that "modern systems can't play SQ-4 vinyl"... And no complaints that modern cartridges cannot play CD-4 albums and modern equipment can't decode them... (SQ-4 albums required a special decoder but used an ordinary cartridge and preamp; CD-4 albums required a special cartridge, a special preamp, and a special decoder.) As you say, both DSD and MQA are very small parts of the market (and, to be quite fair, that seems unlikely to change at this point). So, to me, a DAC that only supports PCM is very much like a turntable that can "only" play stereo albums... (It will provide what most of the market actually wants and needs.) Personally don't think DSD or MQA is necessary in a DAC. Such a small percentage of the market for questionable real sonic benefit. Emotiva promised DSD over USB and a sample rate of at least 24/96 for their generation 3 processors as an upgrade that purchasers could rely on to be implemented after purchase. Emotiva did not live up to their promises. Those promises were exactly the same as the promise made to provide Dirac Live after purchase for their generation 2 and 3 processors. Imagine, if you will, the reaction of the Emotiva customer base if Emotiva had failed to provide Dirac as promised. Obviously, at one time Emotiva thought DSD over USB and a sample rate of at least 24/96 for Dirac were features that would appeal to customers and enhance sales or they would not have advertised those functions as future upgrades for generation 3 processors. DSD over HDMI (SACD) sounds great through the XMC-2. No doubt DSD over USB would also sound great. Some folks have a significant SACD collection and a universal player so the ability to play SACD over HDMI is of benefit to them and, no doubt, was one more good reason for them to purchase a processor from Emotiva. The same holds true for DSD over USB. Some customers enjoy DSD, own a significant DSD collection and would like to listen without conversion to PCM. It seems obvious that at one time Emotiva embraced high end audio, the idea that great sound was key and was happy to design and provide components that touched all the bases, esoteric or not, for a reasonable price. Now it seems the plan is to dismiss DSD and argue that it is impossible to tell the difference between PCM and DSD anyway so customers who did not receive what they were promised should be fine with the situation as is. It could be argued that 24/96 and 24/192 PCM are fringe formats that nobody really needs so why include that functionality in the upcoming generation 3 processors. I mean most folks are perfectly happy with 16/44.1 so why bother with those silly people who own high resolution PCM files? |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Feb 21, 2023 13:11:48 GMT -5
I've got to sort of split the difference with you there... Once you make the choice to "just listen"... you're handing ALL of the control over to someone else... and putting yourself at the mercy of all of THEIR choices. On the one hand I very rarely "remaster" anything... as in "spend a lot of time fixing it so it sounds good"... The only exceptions I've made are a few rare cases where the only available copy of a particular album had obvious problems which I could actually fix... I have one or two older albums where the actual "transfer to CD" was done pretty poorly and can be improved rather easily. At them moment I also have exactly one favorite album that is only available on vinyl where the digital transfer needed some restoration. HOWEVER...I do see a distinction between "remastering" and "controlling what's going on"... And that specifically becomes an issue when we get into discussions like comparisons between file formats... And, more specifically, when it comes to these endless discussions about "how DSD and PCM compare"... In this context my point is this: Assuming that you've actually taken a DSD file, converted it directly to PCM, and found that you don't think the PCM version sounds as good.... How do you know that the difference you're hearing isn't simply due to the particular program or settings you used to convert your file? (And, of course, if you use something like an Oppo to "output DSD as PCM", that conversion is simply being done by the software in the Oppo's firmware.) The point is, at least in this specific situation, you cannot avoid "software differences" and "differences due to options and settings"... And, since we are dealing with digital files, some of those variations are quite easy to control. And, to be quite blunt, if it does turn out to be that simple... Then it's hardly a big deal to use whatever software and settings you prefer to convert your DSD files to PCM... At which point you have choices to make... (there is no "null choice" of "just convert it"... either you make the choice or someone makes it for you ) (This isn't true for physical SACD discs... but it is true for DSD files.) Not me, KeithL - I don't want anything to do with remastering or the hardware / software to do it. I leave that to those who are fascinated with such technology. I just want to listen! LOL Agreeing pretty much ... but you led me down a funny path ... The bottom line with regard to DSD is this: 1 - you can't do any digital processing to a DSD source, including room correction; 2 - All listening rooms have modal resonances and reflections that affect sound more than any other component in an audio system (per Toole and others); 3 - modal resonances are nearly impossible to fully correct with room treatments; 4 - the only way to ultimately eliminate the effects of room resonances to the point where other factors of sources or electronics MAY become audible is room correction ... hence, DSD will never sound as good as PCM And while I'm here joking around, a question: Can Emotiva products play 9.1 discreet 384KHz 32 bit WAV files? |
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Feb 21, 2023 16:36:20 GMT -5
That is also my personal opinion... My impression of the MQA files I've heard is distinctly mixed... and about on a par with other "remasters"... Some I've heard sounded slightly better... some slightly worse... and a lot about the same... Also, to be quite blunt, the only place I know of that actually offers wide support for MQA is Tidal. And, for one thing, I still do not find that Tidal has the best selection of the music I want to listen to... And, from what I've been reading recently, Tidal also has some issues with not having non-MQA versions of albums available... (In the cases where you would actually specifically prefer to listen to a certain non-MQA version of a certain album). And, at the moment, I don't have any SACD discs that I listen to. And, while I definitely have some DSD versions of albums I prefer, I find that a properly converted PCM version of those albums sounds equally good to me. And, in the context of "just playing music", standardizing on PCM and FLAC has certainly made my life at home a lot simpler. (I play with lots of file formats.... but I only keep PCM files on my server... almost always in FLAC format.) Personally don't think DSD or MQA is necessary in a DAC. Such a small percentage of the market for questionable real sonic benefit. To me it really doesn’t matter if a format is widely used or not. If you release a DAC or streamer it should support most (if not all) sound formats available. This does certainly include MQA and DSD/SACD. It has nothing to do with SQ.. It’s the same argument as why your processors should have a sleek and fast GUI. CONVINIENCE.. Even if I use it once a month it should simply not be a hassle to use. Regarding MQA.. It can be quite different results depending on wether the DAC does support the full unfold, just the first or even no unfold. You would not want to use TIDAL without support for atleast the first unfold. If you do then because of how the format is set up it leaves you with 13bits of effective bit depth. So less than CD. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 21, 2023 17:10:26 GMT -5
Emotiva promised DSD over USB and a sample rate of at least 24/96 for their generation 3 processors as an upgrade that purchasers could rely on to be implemented after purchase. Emotiva did not live up to their promises. Those promises were exactly the same as the promise made to provide Dirac Live after purchase for their generation 2 and 3 processors. Imagine, if you will, the reaction of the Emotiva customer base if Emotiva had failed to provide Dirac as promised. Obviously, at one time Emotiva thought DSD over USB and a sample rate of at least 24/96 for Dirac were features that would appeal to customers and enhance sales or they would not have advertised those functions as future upgrades for generation 3 processors. DSD over HDMI (SACD) sounds great through the XMC-2. No doubt DSD over USB would also sound great. Some folks have a significant SACD collection and a universal player so the ability to play SACD over HDMI is of benefit to them and, no doubt, was one more good reason for them to purchase a processor from Emotiva. The same holds true for DSD over USB. Some customers enjoy DSD, own a significant DSD collection and would like to listen without conversion to PCM. It seems obvious that at one time Emotiva embraced high end audio, the idea that great sound was key and was happy to design and provide components that touched all the bases, esoteric or not, for a reasonable price. Now it seems the plan is to dismiss DSD and argue that it is impossible to tell the difference between PCM and DSD anyway so customers who did not receive what they were promised should be fine with the situation as is. It could be argued that 24/96 and 24/192 PCM are fringe formats that nobody really needs so why include that functionality in the upcoming generation 3 processors. I mean most folks are perfectly happy with 16/44.1 so why bother with those silly people who own high resolution PCM files? Ouch! True? If so then Emotiva needs to own up and offer their mea culpas. I haven't really followed the Emotiva home theater saga because I was (and still am) primarily a stereo audio guy. But I've claimed from the beginning that any small company (and despite their successes, Emotiva is still a relatively small company) would have a heck of a time trying to compete against the already-established and very-entrenched industry titans of Yamaha, Sony, Denon, etc. In fact, I originally predicted that HT would eventually bankrupt Emotiva. Despite a great deal of flapping and foundering, and with occasional conspicuous lack of grace, Emotiva has, at least thus far, managed to stay afloat in the roiling seas of Home Theater. Will they continue to survive or will my unhappy prophecy still become reality? Time will tell... |
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Feb 21, 2023 17:21:32 GMT -5
Let’s really stir this up. So most of your efforts are about the DSD thing that most people don’t care about anyway. Just checking. I just do PCM. As always most people’s mileage may vary.
|
|
