Topic: DSD or hires nonsense (Read 7803 times)

LFF · « **on:** April 02, 2013, 07:52:12 PM »

Quote from: purrin on April 02, 2013, 06:53:11 PM

Yes I have.

LOL, thank you for reading the important notes in the spreadsheet. I can't tell you how many people have asked me questions pertaining to the circumstances of the review but did not read the fine details.

To be honest, I only tried two DSD tracks from two albums. I didn't think they sounded any different from PCM (in terms of the treble issues). I also tried various tricks I've used in the past to smooth things out such as up-sampling PCM in JRiver to move the digital filter up way out of the audio band.

Quite frankly, I don't buy into the DSD dedicated DAC thing for computer audio - at least not yet. A native DSD DAC is nice, a DSD DAC can be a fun DIY project, but ultimately DSD can now be converted to hires PCM in JRiver or in Foobar? (Besides, 98% of my music is in PCM.) As I've said time and time again, I get SACDs only because of the availability of differently mastered recordings. Typically, SACD masters tend to be mastered or sometimes re-mixed better than their CD counterparts. (Then again, the MJ Thriller SACD was pretty badly messed up.)

Are there differences between PCM or DSD as they are handled by the chip and DAC? Yes, probably, but not significant enough to matter. I really don't masturbate about the fine details between 24/96 to 24/192 to DSD to DXD or whatever. The right mastering job of a recording will affect sound quality 100x more than the difference between 16/44 and DSD and 24/192.

God damn Sony. I sincerely hope they go bankrupt (pissed at them right now because the PS3 update bricked the box and Sony in it's infinite wisdom won't let you roll-back - I gotta pat $150 to get it fixed.)

Purrin is right about that.

SACD's were always seen as a "niche" product and thus, the record companies never really cared enough to screw them up.

Thus, on many SACD's, we got FLAT transfers of the master tapes, with NO compression or added EQ.

On others, we got very well mastered SACD's with NO compression.

That's the main reason why SACD's sound better...it's not the High Resolution...it's the better mastering. In fact, on many hybrids, the companies INSISTED the CD layer be an exact copy of the retail CD (which is often shit) or be an "approved" redbook mastering (also shit).

The right mastering job of a recording will affect sound quality 100x more than the difference between 16/44 and DSD and 24/192.

schiit · « **Reply #1 on:** April 02, 2013, 08:17:32 PM »

The right mastering job of a recording will affect sound quality 100x more than the difference between 16/44 and DSD and 24/192.

Thank you, Purrin and LFF, for this.

The #1 question we get on DACs these days is "Will it support DSD?"

To which we answer, "How much DSD ya got?"

Answer is invariably, "Nothing."

The problem is that DSD has been built up as the second-coming, holy-crap-gotta-get-this, next-latest-and-greatest audio format touched by divine hands and able to perform miracles like raising the dead and making crocodiles as pettable as kittens.

And here's the big problem: this creates more confusion in a market that already thinks we audiophiles are a bit touched in the head. Once you start explaining "Well, you know, most of your music is probably 16/44.1, but there's also 24/88 and 24/96 and 24/176 and 24/192 and by the way now there's also DSD, but it's not just DSD but DSD 1X and DSD 2X and DXD," well, the natural response is, "Wow, you guys are really bonkers, Ima just gonna go to the iTunes store and get what they sell me."

Some of us remember SACD. And HDCD. And DAT. And quadraphonic. And reel-to-reel. Yes, all better than the mainstream formats of the time. But they went exactly nowhere due to lack of content. And yeah, I know there's like 8000 SACDs out there (in stock where? mastered from what?) and they're playable on $50 Sony DVD players (but you can't get digital out, oh noes!), but, you know, it's still a tiny part of the overall musicosphere.

MuppetFace · « **Reply #2 on:** April 02, 2013, 08:28:09 PM »

I love this thread.

Great posts from Purrin, LFF, and Jason. Karma points all around.

LFF · « **Reply #3 on:** April 02, 2013, 08:33:53 PM »

Quote from: MuppetFace on April 02, 2013, 08:28:09 PM

I love this thread.

Great posts from Purrin, LFF, and Jason. Karma points all around.

Thanks MF!

It's critical that people understand the true meaning of "Source First". I have said it time and time again...it's all in the mastering. Just look at the High Resolution master of Nirvana's "Nevermind" on HDTracks.

High-Res won't do

for you if it's brickwalled and improperly EQ'd.

rhythmdevils · « **Reply #4 on:** April 02, 2013, 08:35:27 PM »

Absurd thinking of the audiophiles out there who buy some fancy dac and then just listen to 16 albums.

LFF · « **Reply #5 on:** April 02, 2013, 08:41:43 PM »

Quote from: rhythmdevils on April 02, 2013, 08:35:27 PM

Absurd thinking of the audiophiles out there who buy some fancy dac and then just listen to 16 albums.

I kinda envy them.

It's frustrating to have a pile of CD's and LP's waiting for your attention and not having the time to listen....

Anaxilus. · « **Reply #6 on:** April 02, 2013, 08:48:10 PM »

Quote from: schiit on April 02, 2013, 08:17:32 PM

The problem is that DSD has been built up as the second-coming, holy-crap-gotta-get-this, next-latest-and-greatest audio format touched by divine hands and able to perform miracles like raising the dead and making crocodiles as pettable as kittens.

At this point, the whole SABRE thing is looking like the third coming. You forgot DVD-A.

MuppetFace · « **Reply #7 on:** April 02, 2013, 08:57:18 PM »

I just can't get too riled about specific formats.

Entire rooms of my living quarters are filled with physical media: CDs, vinyl LPs, minidiscs, and cassettes. I also have several external drives filled with lots 'n' lots o' files.

I try to find the best quality I can whenever possible, but often times you just have to go with what's available. Even if it's a cassette tape wrapped in a banana leaf and stuffed in a ziplock bag (for reals).

Maxvla · « **Reply #8 on:** April 02, 2013, 09:21:53 PM »

I agree with all that has been said, the only reason I pestered on the DSD/DXD in the X-Sabre thread was because according to the unclear notes it didn't look like it had been tried at all. I didn't know if you three had heard native of those before and wanted you to experience it and see what you thought. Your results are identical to mine. I heard great sound but that could have easily been the master more than the format.

I think having the native format flexibility is a nice bonus, but as Jason said, I have basically no media to run with that flexibility.

Questhate · « **Reply #9 on:** April 02, 2013, 09:52:21 PM »

Yep -- it's frustrating to see people attribute better sounding records to the actual format themselves (hi-res or SACD) than the mastering. Same with many people preferring vinyl versions of albums, despite the medium being inferior to digital.

But since the SACD formats tend to have better masters, in the end, it ends up being SACD > CD anyway. Sure, it's for different reasons than the average joe audiophile thinks, but the result is the same. That in itself will make SACD/DSD format more prevalent and the support of that format more desirable.

Then again, the fact that JRiver and Foobar can convert DSD to PCM makes the native support of DSD unnecessary. Thank god I don't listen to audiophile music so I don't have to worry about this stuff.

Author Topic: DSD or hires nonsense (Read 7803 times)

LFF

DSD or hires nonsense

schiit

Re: DSD or hires nonsense

MuppetFace

Re: DSD or hires nonsense

LFF

Re: DSD or hires nonsense

rhythmdevils

Re: DSD or hires nonsense

LFF

Re: DSD or hires nonsense

Anaxilus.

Re: DSD or hires nonsense

MuppetFace

Re: DSD or hires nonsense

Maxvla

Re: DSD or hires nonsense

Questhate

Re: DSD or hires nonsense

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Author Topic: DSD or hires nonsense (Read 7803 times)