DSD .. It's growing on me

Hi Simon, just to be clear, are you comparing "apples to apples" meaning same recordings in DSD vs FLAC/WAV? 

No.. I can't confirm they are the same recordings.. So there is a chance every classical DSD recording I have tried is somehow recorded better than its nearest PCM equivalent.. Although possible I feel unlikely, but hence my question.. There is an ebb and flow and naturalness on DSD that I havet yet heard on PCM  bandwidth up to 192/24, it's quite head scratching...

Judging by the avatar, definitely delusional!

...and headscratching...

Simon, what is your source to the Hugo?

M

A very good point Simon. Of course your system and experience are largely better than mine but I can't understand how we will do comparisons in future. My limited exploration on DSD recording point out that often are dramatically good and well done in origin (*).
Last concern: correct me but, in future, in case we will use Naim, the DSD will be recorded to PCM with the help of SHARC DSP that should guarantee the process jitter free (Naim assured it somewhere) and this could even have effects (increasing) on the final SQ starting from DSD but not strictly because it is DSD.
Apologise if I was not able to describe my doubts.

(*) We already had agreed that good jobs done by recording engineers even tens of year ago in analogue (and limited bandwidth) are fine and enjoyable as "music"
I'm anyway also collecting DSD as well, and 64 is just the entry level (I see already 128, 256, 512... Oh my God!)

We know that the Hugo converts DSD to high resolution PCM internally.  On June 1st last year, Watts posted the following on the long-running Head-Fi thread...

The filter actually used in the Hugo to filter DSD is much more sophisticated than normal DSD to PCM filters - there are actually two dedicated custom DSP cores handling it. I doubt very much that you would get Hugo performance from regular computer converters. It would also have to be DXD output (352.8k 24 bit) - which would be a huge file size.

I have a strong suspicion that the Hugo DSD conversion works so well because it converts DSD back to DXD, the original DSD mastering recording standard, without the front end ADC noise shaper noise, or the DSD noise shaper noise, as all this is filtered out.

SiS - It could very well be that the DSD recordings are more carefully mastered. Or perhaps what's growing on you is how well Hugo processes DSD, but not necessarily format itself?  Tough to tell.

ATB.

Hook

100% agree there is something about DSD that appears to give an improved SQ.

My problem is I don't have any 24 bit .wav recordings to compare .dsf with.  What I do have is original release 16/44 BUT they are not from the same masters,  there is no point comparing 16/44 from the original recording release to a later remastered DSD.  

But to add ...........   I am more convinced that material recorded & mastered with DSD & released as such really does have something special.

I might go trawl the Linn world later to see if they are still so adamantly anti-DSD as I am now getting the feeling they might need to eat some mumble pie

Hook, the Hugo does not use a delta sigma DAC and therefore needs to load the data for multibit processing by the physical DAC converter *after* it's been noise shaped and processed. This is not like the regular PCM we send to our DACs  more like the very high bandwidth PCM I2S interface that occurs between DSPs and DAC chips when not combined. 

Bicela, this is the same as potentially for Naim. If Hugo and Naim DACs used delta sigma DACs as opposed to multibit DACs you would need to do a similar processing to play PCM based files after all the oversampling and filtering etc.

But yes you could be right, hence asking for other people's experiences.. and it appears Mike above may be expieriencing something similar.

Huge and ChrisSU.. Thanks for your comments 

Hi Simon

is it L2 the sight name. Anyway its something like that, and they have free sample tracks at different resolutions. Maybe worth a try.

how are you feeding Hugo?

Graeme

Graeme, L2.no do have some free files and they are very good.. though mostly DFF as opposed to DSF so media servers like Asset V5 don't like them, but you can play via USB. Asset V5 is fine with DSF.

Native DSD Music have a growing list of DSD albums available commercially for download.

I can't discuss on this forum just at this time how I am feeding the Hugo.

Simon

 Gotcha

I'm still somewhat sceptical about DSD primarily from a value/availability perspective. I also understand why Linn and Meridian object to DSD.

But hearing is something else. I've been using a PS Audio DirectStream DAC in my system this week and it sounds fabulous. Compared to my DAC-V1 the presentation has more space and flow, breathes more easily, as Simon says, but also comes with more texture, grip and heft. The interesting thing is that the source material is all PCM which has been upsampled to 10x DSD rate; so says the marketing. What's particularly impressive is just how good a job it's doing with the Sonos Connect. What I am hearing is clearly the result of a better DAC. Fair enough it's more expensive.

Next week I am going to download some native DSD material and test again, with the obvious caveats about masters etc. I have high expectations.

I've been getting DSD from HighResAudio.jp who have a great selection

Albums bought were all 2700jpy = £14.53gbp

HighResAudio.de also have some nice material & similar pricing   

Wunder wot Naim'll be offering  

I have no doubt that DSD sounds 'different', and in most cases subjectively 'better'.  Although not in every single case, and not based on scientific like for like comparison.  Some material in DSD does seem to lack a certain raw edge that feels integral to the essence of the live sound, but on the other hand has a purity of tone that PCM seems unable to capture......

You can just use Korg AudioGate to change the dff into dsf, as it is just another 'container' type.

Hi,

2l.no, not L2.no

ragman - indeed thnx dyslexic rule ko 

 Could it be that it sounds better because you expect it to sound better because of the higher sample rate?

One thing is a certainty, our own brain is a master in fooling ourselves.

I really doubt that DSD64 sounds better then it's PCM equivalent.

Because of the higher 'cost' , more effort has been put in the recording itself. The way it's been mixed, etc.

Making it a better recording.

A bit the same reason why most of us prefer vinyl over CD. Is it because it lacks compression or because it is 'older' and brings backs memories of the past (brain fooling us again)?

Drawing on my very, very limited exposure to DSD, I have to agree on the SQ. What makes me scratch my head though, is how limited DSD in in some ways and is still able to sound this way.

Let me elaborate a little: As far as I know, there is no way to manipulate the DSD-stream in any way. No fade-ins or fade-outs, level matching between different tracks or feeds and, of course no compression, echo and all these other nice little studio tools. All of these things are only possible, if the data gets converted to PCM. Unless you have an analog master, or you do something like direct-to-disc, you get (most likely) several DSD/PCM/DSD conversions in each recording. Not to mention the near absence of DSD A/D converters. The only ones I know are Meitner and Grimm.These two are likely above average soundwise, so this might be an inherent advantage.

Morten Lynberg from 2L does in fact prefer PCM as the more transparent format. And no matter what, the only 2L disc I own (Ola Gjeijo Hybrid SACD), sounds really good, even in Redbook PCM. Nice music, too.

Before you guys get all gaga. Check out this...

http://mapleshaderecords.com/cds/07752.php. This is a killer CD as is damn near all Mapleshade offerings.

PCM CD 44.1/16 done right...

http://mapleshaderecords.com/cds/07752.php

Richard, I hope these are okay...links to music...

It could be all to do with the recording method and mastering method..I don't know.. All I know I am really liking the sound of orchestral and choral music through DSD64 at the moment. I certainly wasn't expecting it to sound better, but I tried to have an open mind, and of course DSD is limited to 16 bit resolution. 

I have yet to hear rock or pop through DSD though and that might not work as well?

Simon

DSD also sounds better to my ears than PCM through my Hugo. At least (although I don't have anything to compare directly), all of the DSD files I have sound uniformly very good indeed, and subjectively better than just about anything I have in any other format or resolution. 

Just a pity I can't stream DSD files directly from my NAS to either my Klimax Renew DS or ND5XS/Hugo. I may be tempted to change at least one of my sources to an Auralic Aries/Vega in order to allow me to do this.   

Naim have already announced DSD (DSF and DFF) file playback is coming to its streamers.. Just like it has for the N272. If your media server can dish out these files then your Naim should  hopefully be able to play them before too long.

Simon

With NAIM now delving into DSD territory I was thinking that this makes no good sense if it is contemplated exclusively for the Streamers. At some point sooner or later it's got to find its way into the DAC proper. As the latter is (to my knowledge) not upgradable via firmware I would dare predict that a new DAC is on its way .. sooner or ... later..