Absolutely agree, it shouldn't work at all, or poorly, but it does. It can even work great. The sound may even be preferable to digital, dunno. All my albums were bought for the music and their virginity is frayed. But I enjoy listening to them as much as I do to pristine digital streams.
nope...
Have not heard these players, but I am glad that some more manufacturers are looking at this approach. I wonder if they are using a DSC style converter (multi element averaging discrete FIR filter) or a simpler filter circuit?
Generally, my feeling is that the oversampling part of this style of conversion, to DSD 256, is much better does outside of the DAC, for two reasons:
1. Much more precise and sophisticated modulator and filter designs can be implemented by taking advantage of the full processing power available in computers: for example, my preferred settings in HQP require a i7-9700K processor at the least, no DAC has this kind of processing power onboard.
2. All this processing creates RF noise, and it can be difficult to keep this noise from causing other problems inside the DAC (corrupting ground planes, or noise getting into the analog outputs). In my view a better approach is to do as much processing as possible outside the DAC, away from he audio system, with a powerful computer in another room, and then just send the DSD 256 to the DAC for conversion and output only.
Although, I have been mightily impressed by the sound of Bruno Putzeys' DACs for Mola Mola, which use a similar, discrete conversion approach, but do all the processing onboard. They do the final conversion via a moving average FIR filter, with very many elements, and produce exceptional measured performance, and sound amazing as well. I listen to them every time I get at shows.
My Bricasti M3 DAC has a discrete DSD converter onboard, and I do all the oversampling and filtering in a computer in another part of the home, and then audio is distributed to the system over optical Ethernet to avoid noise via a Sonore optical renderer, then USB to the DAC.
BTW, you can rip SACDs to files, all mine are ripped and on my server. There are some services out there who will do this for you as well. I have not had a spinning disc player in my system for many years now.
Have not heard these players, but I am glad that some more manufacturers are looking at this approach. I wonder if they are using a DSC style converter (multi element averaging discrete FIR filter) or a simpler filter circuit?
Generally, my feeling is that the oversampling part of this style of conversion, to DSD 256, is much better does outside of the DAC, for two reasons:
1. Much more precise and sophisticated modulator and filter designs can be implemented by taking advantage of the full processing power available in computers: for example, my preferred settings in HQP require a i7-9700K processor at the least, no DAC has this kind of processing power onboard.
2. All this processing creates RF noise, and it can be difficult to keep this noise from causing other problems inside the DAC (corrupting ground planes, or noise getting into the analog outputs). In my view a better approach is to do as much processing as possible outside the DAC, away from he audio system, with a powerful computer in another room, and then just send the DSD 256 to the DAC for conversion and output only.
Although, I have been mightily impressed by the sound of Bruno Putzeys' DACs for Mola Mola, which use a similar, discrete conversion approach, but do all the processing onboard. They do the final conversion via a moving average FIR filter, with very many elements, and produce exceptional measured performance, and sound amazing as well. I listen to them every time I get at shows.
My Bricasti M3 DAC has a discrete DSD converter onboard, and I do all the oversampling and filtering in a computer in another part of the home, and then audio is distributed to the system over optical Ethernet to avoid noise via a Sonore optical renderer, then USB to the DAC.
BTW, you can rip SACDs to files, all mine are ripped and on my server. There are some services out there who will do this for you as well. I have not had a spinning disc player in my system for many years now.
No...
That is not what I meant by my post. But, in the ultimate sense I do not believe there are different nirvanas in playback fidelity, while still accepting that at the current level of development many folks prefer a different "sound" from each other. I really only think there are these different preferences because most, if not all, listeners are still hearing flawed systems which are far from "perfect".
My suspicion is that if we had a "perfect" system without any audible digital artifacts, everyone would prefer that system (in other words, "Nirvana"), but that now, most, if not all, of use are dealing with imperfect systems, and as such we have our preferences: the preference would be what artifact are we willing to live with.
for example of these beliefs: Some propose that audio products should be developed in order to minimize the distortions which are annoying, favoring the less annoying distortions (low order vs high order for example, or harmonic distortions vs inharmonic). While I respect that approach, there is another approach, which we are getting to now because of developments in both topologies and electronic parts. Designers such as Bruno Putzeys are following a different path: their goal is to reduce all distortions and artifacts to levels which are entirely inaudible, such that all that is left is what is on the recording-to me this where the true progress in audio reproduction systems lies, as opposed to choosing which euphonic distortion/artifact one prefers.
That is not what I meant by my post. But, in the ultimate sense I do not believe there are different nirvanas in playback fidelity, while still accepting that at the current level of development many folks prefer a different "sound" from each other. I really only think there are these different preferences because most, if not all, listeners are still hearing flawed systems which are far from "perfect".
My suspicion is that if we had a "perfect" system without any audible digital artifacts, everyone would prefer that system (in other words, "Nirvana"), but that now, most, if not all, of use are dealing with imperfect systems, and as such we have our preferences: the preference would be what artifact are we willing to live with.
for example of these beliefs: Some propose that audio products should be developed in order to minimize the distortions which are annoying, favoring the less annoying distortions (low order vs high order for example, or harmonic distortions vs inharmonic). While I respect that approach, there is another approach, which we are getting to now because of developments in both topologies and electronic parts. Designers such as Bruno Putzeys are following a different path: their goal is to reduce all distortions and artifacts to levels which are entirely inaudible, such that all that is left is what is on the recording-to me this where the true progress in audio reproduction systems lies, as opposed to choosing which euphonic distortion/artifact one prefers.
Last edited:
The Gustard X16 uses ESS chips not AKM.
I have SMSL M400 with AKM4499 chip, sounds mighty good to me, though I also like vinyl.
As far...
As far as the recording side goes, I must accept that we get what we get. I love music, and I am not going to choose the music I listen to based on the recording quality, that just does not fly for me. Although i will seek out the best versions of the music I love. Playback converters can fix some flaws in the ADC (apodizing filters for example), but for the most part we have what we have.
As for ADC development, one of the best chips which was available apparently is no longer, and for DSD recording the Grimm is getting a little bit old and only does DSD 64. Right now we are left with the AKM chips and Merging, etc.
Although I hope for developments in this area also... In any case, new ADCs will not effect all the music which is already been made (perhaps excepting digital transfers from well preserved analog master tapes).
As far as the recording side goes, I must accept that we get what we get. I love music, and I am not going to choose the music I listen to based on the recording quality, that just does not fly for me. Although i will seek out the best versions of the music I love. Playback converters can fix some flaws in the ADC (apodizing filters for example), but for the most part we have what we have.
As for ADC development, one of the best chips which was available apparently is no longer, and for DSD recording the Grimm is getting a little bit old and only does DSD 64. Right now we are left with the AKM chips and Merging, etc.
Although I hope for developments in this area also... In any case, new ADCs will not effect all the music which is already been made (perhaps excepting digital transfers from well preserved analog master tapes).
The Gustard X16 uses ESS chips not AKM.
I have SMSL M400 with AKM4499 chip, sounds mighty good to me, though I also like vinyl.
Yes I know that but since everyone is measuring things I though I would ask what is the better performing chipset.
Over at AudioScienceReview they are saying the X16 is better.
That level has been reached already decades ago. If you know of a DAC that has distortions and artifacts even less inaudible than a cheap DAC (< $100), please share the info.
One's preference is where the nirvana varies.
I'll bet it sounds indistinguishable to cheap DAC when listened to at matched level and without looking.
The good thing, these days, is that a cheap DAC need only contain an ESS q2m/k2m part for excellent SnR and distortion.
Do you mean Bruno Putzys is selling snake oil, something with no audible justification for the high price?
Whether something is snake oil or not depends on how it's advertised. If someone advertises the oil extracted from olives as oil that cures all ailments instead of "good for salad dressing", then you would know. Don't you?
Read my post more carefully. If you know of a DAC that has distortions and artifacts even less inaudible than a cheap DAC (< $100), prove me wrong with it and I'll change my view.
Only if everyone had the same ears. Even then I still think there would be variation.