First of all - all the existing DAC cips have better performance with PCM at 96kHz rather than 192kHz. There is no need in reproduction domain for 192kHz - that might be usefull in recording, studio processing.
I have players that can play SACD (DSD) nativelly and I like the sound a lot I prefer to switch the otput filter to slow roll-off 50kHz. To me sounds closer to analog LP/reel-to-reel reproduction, but without the noise and lower distortion.
I have several DVD-A at 96kHz also and it's hard to say which one is better - the mastering process is already more important at this level.
Personally I prefer SACD because I think quality of mastering is usually better, being a format dedicated primarily to a audience that is critical with the sound quality. DVD-A was pushed more like another "DVD" format and quality was not always the best.
Bluray audio, with a few exceptions (Tom Petty), is oriented towards pop-corn eater, movie watcher public. Lots of hype for nothing.
I have players that can play SACD (DSD) nativelly and I like the sound a lot I prefer to switch the otput filter to slow roll-off 50kHz. To me sounds closer to analog LP/reel-to-reel reproduction, but without the noise and lower distortion.
I have several DVD-A at 96kHz also and it's hard to say which one is better - the mastering process is already more important at this level.
Personally I prefer SACD because I think quality of mastering is usually better, being a format dedicated primarily to a audience that is critical with the sound quality. DVD-A was pushed more like another "DVD" format and quality was not always the best.
Bluray audio, with a few exceptions (Tom Petty), is oriented towards pop-corn eater, movie watcher public. Lots of hype for nothing.
Last edited:
technically 96k PCM could be better
SACD noise shaping gives +6dB, ~1 MHz noise peak - needs heavy filtering, 6th order or more
the original 100 kHz fc rec from Sony reputedly destroyed some high end amps at shows from the high level of shaped noise
now Sony recommends 50 KHz fc low pass for reconstructing SACD DSD - little better than 96 ks/s PCM
and 24 bits is better than SACD res throughout an extended def of "audio frequency"
not that the bits really mean that much in home reproduction - but way handy in mastering/processing
SACD noise shaping gives +6dB, ~1 MHz noise peak - needs heavy filtering, 6th order or more
the original 100 kHz fc rec from Sony reputedly destroyed some high end amps at shows from the high level of shaped noise
now Sony recommends 50 KHz fc low pass for reconstructing SACD DSD - little better than 96 ks/s PCM
and 24 bits is better than SACD res throughout an extended def of "audio frequency"
not that the bits really mean that much in home reproduction - but way handy in mastering/processing
As I said in the second post, there is no DAC today that can have a real analog range of 24 bit. They all in the 20-22 bit range. Also, for human hearing the 20-22 bit seems to be an absolute limit. More "resolution" in the medium frequency range, less in low and especially in the high domain. In the domain over 20kHz, human hearing has a absolute dynamic resolution of only a few bits (look at the curves of "equal hearing" and you will see the dynamic range for different freq), so DSD is perfect for that, regardless what PCM claims.
Last edited:
Yes they can:
sacd-ripper - SACD ripping software using a PS3 - Google Project Hosting
Native DSD playback is then the problem, but the appropriate playback software, DAC hardware, and drivers are starting to become available. DIY: exaDevices. Off-the-shelf: dCS, Mytek.
Situation is like this:
Some SACD players will NOT play a burned SACD disc (SACD-R) because is missing the watermark. Even if the source of the files is clear DSD, not from an ecrypted SACD.
Some SACD players have bugs in firmware and they ignore the watermark (or lack of) on SACD discs. The list is in the link above.
If the DSD files are on HDD, foobar2000 has a DSD decoder that can be added and will play those files via PC soundcard - of course, converted to PCM.
For free test files that can be used for comparations, you can look here (scroll down):
http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html
Some SACD players will NOT play a burned SACD disc (SACD-R) because is missing the watermark. Even if the source of the files is clear DSD, not from an ecrypted SACD.
Some SACD players have bugs in firmware and they ignore the watermark (or lack of) on SACD discs. The list is in the link above.
If the DSD files are on HDD, foobar2000 has a DSD decoder that can be added and will play those files via PC soundcard - of course, converted to PCM.
For free test files that can be used for comparations, you can look here (scroll down):
http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html
Last edited:
Most audio SACD players will not recognize Sony PS3 ripped DSD disks.
Most video DVD players with SACD support will be OK however they are downsampling DSD to PCM.
Mathematically SACD bitstream requires less interpolation then PCM 192KHz.
EMM Labs are known among audiophiles as a solid manufacture of SACD transports-DACs.
Most video DVD players with SACD support will be OK however they are downsampling DSD to PCM.
Mathematically SACD bitstream requires less interpolation then PCM 192KHz.
EMM Labs are known among audiophiles as a solid manufacture of SACD transports-DACs.
No, all of the decent Universal DVD players have a dedicated chip for SACD and DAC's that accept directly that format.
I have players (Denon) with Sony and players (Toshiba) with Phillips SACD chips. Both followed by BB DAC's that accept DSD.
As for the list, it is in the link posted above.
I have players (Denon) with Sony and players (Toshiba) with Phillips SACD chips. Both followed by BB DAC's that accept DSD.
As for the list, it is in the link posted above.
Last edited:
One of the things you can discuss in an endless-loop without a real outcome but i may add some thoughts.
Always keep in mind that you can easily recreate the complete signal response including the huge amounts of DSD dithering noise with a PCM signal but not the other way around.
DSD is very limited by noise-shaping garbage and must be a pita to master because there is nearly no possibility to apply any effects natively. The DSD you think to hear so great on so many recordings most likely for this reason alone was PCM at one point.
I did read the most fascinating reviews about the superior sound of some SACDs at SA-CD.net for example when people write "This is my favotite showcasing SACD" and in reality when analysing the output you´ll see there is no fart above 20Khz and somwhere in the fine print it claims "20-bit" remaster!
Imho the decision to sell SACDs to us is strongly related to its superior copy protection.
In the end the quality comes from carefull mastering, no matter what format. At this high data-rates and bandwiths humans don´t have a chance to hear the limits, only limitations and variations in the designs of some playback gear.
"Garbage" that you listen EVERY time you listen a modern DAC. They all relay on the same delta-sigma principle and same noise-shaping. Every record that you listen has originated in a delta-sigma ADC similar with the DSD "garbage".
IMHO in order to understand DSP solid mathematical background is required so no wonder why there is so many all kind of rumors around.
Mathematically reel-to-reel or LP are the best because of infinite sample rate - analog sound means no interpolation occurs at all during playback. However analog is so tough for modern industry except some advanced audiophile labels like Tacet.
Interpolation is guessing literally that what all digital sources are suffering from.
DSD is very good because of MHz sample rates but very limited gear can handle true DSD->analog conversion (because of MHz) as well some advanced amplification stuff and better planar or ESL speakers are required to hear the benefit. So most HiEnd gear owners are saying SACD is sonically better and most LowEnd gear users prefer PCM & both are right regarding personal experience.
Actually Red Book PCM 1644 also very good but very few DACs can reveal all potential of a RedBook recording (Wadia, dSC).
AFAIK ICs are very limited in DSP area but low cost. Advanced DACs are powered by sound processor which is obviously a way more powerful devices from mathematical algorithms they can handle point of view.
BTW what I understand form TI datasheet for an IC used in DENON video players it has DSD interface but let data stream go through low pass FIR in advance and later on oversamples it as well as PCM.
Mathematically reel-to-reel or LP are the best because of infinite sample rate - analog sound means no interpolation occurs at all during playback. However analog is so tough for modern industry except some advanced audiophile labels like Tacet.
Interpolation is guessing literally that what all digital sources are suffering from.
DSD is very good because of MHz sample rates but very limited gear can handle true DSD->analog conversion (because of MHz) as well some advanced amplification stuff and better planar or ESL speakers are required to hear the benefit. So most HiEnd gear owners are saying SACD is sonically better and most LowEnd gear users prefer PCM & both are right regarding personal experience.
Actually Red Book PCM 1644 also very good but very few DACs can reveal all potential of a RedBook recording (Wadia, dSC).
AFAIK ICs are very limited in DSP area but low cost. Advanced DACs are powered by sound processor which is obviously a way more powerful devices from mathematical algorithms they can handle point of view.
BTW what I understand form TI datasheet for an IC used in DENON video players it has DSD interface but let data stream go through low pass FIR in advance and later on oversamples it as well as PCM.
All the TI DAC's can bypass internally the OS section - in the external filter mode and in the DSD mode. Actually Denon uses a DSP as external filter for PCM signals, so in their players, the DAC has always the OS disabled.
As for the FIR, it is done analog, not digital (so no need to go via PCM):
"The DSD mode provides a low-pass filtering function. The filtering is provided using an analog FIR filter structure."
Plots for the analog FIR's are given and the word ANALOG is everywhere in the DSD section.
WM has a converter from DSD to PCM inside their DAC's (if volume control inside the DAC is desided) but they have also a direct path for DSD to bypass the the delta-sigma modulators needed for PCM. The signal that goes in the actual switched-capacitor DAC is always DSD type (delta-sigma).
Attachments
Last edited:
All right no more discussions just a picture regarding the topic (might be just bs Pyramix marketing however
) 
OK thank you for the explanation. DENON are making very good stuff no dubt.
LOL! Marketing, yes indeed. This ugly pre and post echo is always used to impress. Think about how this comes and wonder of what frequencies this ringing consists. They are not audible to you and me and can be much less as this funny pic shows. After all this is a non-issue to how it sounds.All right no more discussions just a picture regarding the topic (might be just bs Pyramix marketing however
The truth is that the DSD sounds exactly like analog LP/reel-to-reel. With less noise and less distortion. I have PCM 96k and it does not sounds the same. Some people don't have that memory, especially if they are part of i-Generation and they grew up with mp3 and ear-buds.
Speaking of "unfounded claims", for some people if the ringing and slow step response is done by PCM, is not audible. If is done by DSD is "garbage".
Wombat, if you have something constructiv to add, please do. LOL does not count as inteligent response in my opinion.
Speaking of "unfounded claims", for some people if the ringing and slow step response is done by PCM, is not audible. If is done by DSD is "garbage".
Wombat, if you have something constructiv to add, please do. LOL does not count as inteligent response in my opinion.
Last edited:
All right no more discussions just a picture regarding the topic (might be just bs Pyramix marketing however
It is indeed. I'd love to see an analog system that was prospective and had essentially infinite bandwidth.
Their sampling theorem violation is a red flag that we're talking marketing, not technical.- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.