NDX and DSD and general SQ after 4.3 firmware upgrade

The crack occurs and very end of proceeding track. Thank you Simon-in-Suffolk  for detailed explanation of possible reasons of crack. I will try to rip into WAVE files.

Hi Ian,

We have fixed an issue in 4.3 whereby if music of different bit rates or sample depths was being played via UPnP then the very start of a track could be clipped *IF* it was a higher bitrate or sample depth than the previous track.

Is that the specific issue that you are having? If you are then it *SHOULD* be fixed in 4.3 ... if that is *NOT* your issue then it is something else and it probably hasn't been fixed as we may not know about it.

This is why we ask people to contact us directly so that we can ensure that issues are actually attended to where appropriate.

Cheers

Phil

AFAIK we are getting DSD crossed with DSP which IIRC doesn't change for the NDS with this FW. But I could be wrong about that, what with all the acronyms flying about, in which case I'll RTFM PDQ.

The DSP code for *ALL* the streamers has changed in 4.3...

Phil

Thanks Phil.

Phil,

the first track I played post update last night was a hi res one and it started a couple of seconds in. I didn't have much time to listen but I will do tonight so I'll let you know how I get on.

cheers, ian

I updated my NDX yesterday but didn't have time for a proper listen. This morning I listened to my "Baby" playlist for about ten songs. Everything sounded really good and it made me late for work. Middle to top sounded more open and detailed. Bit tighter bass. I hope it wasn't atmospheric or electrical quality.

Definitely sun spots 

By any chance is it possible to get back to the older version ?

Why on earth would you want to do that ??  

4.3 is better in all areas,  not just DSD but also overall SQ

I see in your previous that you are questioning this,  I don't understand what you are hearing, but you seem to be alone in whatever it is.

Yes i am alone - will wait a week to see if i can get used to it.

Send an email to technical support.

I know it is possible to roll back in some cases. I'm NOT qualified to say if you can do so in this instance.

No ... You should not attempt to roll back software.

Phil

Is it true that the DSD files sound different in .dff / .dsf - files??

While reading this. I would ask myself is there a kind of definitive consensus on DSD topping other formats. F.i. you can often buy DSD or 24/194 FLAC or WAV. Would the DSD be better, is it the same, is it a matter of taste ? Any insights on this ?

Only confusion here. I have one DSD album. It's one of the most life like and easy to listen to albums in my collection. It's also available in 24bit PCM formats.

I have no idea of the providence of the recording, mastering, remastering (if any) or what format the album originated in. So does it sound good because it is rendered as a DSD, or because it may have been recorded in this format, or it is just a recording that sounds good?

Where's that piece of string?

Well it is not because everybody says it is better than it is for everybody. And i think that i can have and keep my own taste. My taste is not any worste than yours - not any better too Just personnal perception, subjective.

And you are right, the sound is more opened and detailed. The up medium is enlightened yes and some bass arrived as well as some disappeared. In the final, for my personnal taste, i find the medium less rich and the music generally more tiring - at least for the price range of the material we are talking about. I find the "s" of the lyrics really digital, when it was much more analogic and soft before.

And i always thought that it is not because you ear more that your system is better or more performing. It is better if you want more to stay to listen to it.

cheers

My first impression with DSD was a wow moment, David Elias “The Window”; David manages his own recordings, including his own studio techniques & uses DSD all the way through the process, so genuine native DSD. I've since added more Elias recordings & albums from Blue Coast & Opus.

The most noticeable difference is DSD has more of a feeling of analogue sound than anything I've heard from digital, a higher level of realism, instruments sound natural, probably most noticeable is the definition. You can hear the wood as well as strings, the skin in the drum & especially the variations of tone in the metallic instruments. The definition is present through all the frequencies, double or electric bass's are clearly different, & again the wood & string timbre is clear, the same carries through to high frequencies.

Volume is lower than normal because DSD has no compression meaning the dynamic range between maximum peak & the other parts is more pronounced. The dynamics appear as clear & well defined as do the lower volume notes/tones, no hint of distortion & very true to life

Sound stage is noticeably better, real 3D & to use the old magazine reviewers phrase, the speakers disappear.

Given a choice of DSD or very high def WAV, from now on I am choosing DSD.  Some of the crazy pricing of Blue Coast is a bit off putting,  but others seem to be broadly on par with 24 bit PCM

Here i do not complain on DSD files. It is just the render for the same tracks as before.

I do agree somewhat with Ikoun. I believe in general it sounds better after the upgrade but find it indeed more tiring. Something inbetween the two would have ideal.

To say the least, the issue of whether DSD sounds better is highly controversial. There's certainly no reason why (as a poster a couple above suggests) it should have superior dynamic range than high resolution PCM. Quite a few people do seem to find it more analogue-like, and good luck to them If they're convinced that's a good thing compared with a good 96/24 or better PCM recording.

No.

I don't believe DSD has a superior dynamic range,  24 bit & DSD are both 144dB I believe 

I think the difference is PCM can/does carry dynamic range compression whereas DSD cannot.

Guys,

Interesting discussion - Personally I think that DSD and PCM are each capable of providing a wonderful listening experience but I'm concerned that - once again - we're getting into a 'one format sounds better than another' discussion when the reality is that it isn't the format that sounds better but the contents.

it's the same as the discussion between 44/16 and 192/24 ... a 44/16 source *CAN* sound spectacular *IF* the recording and post processing has been done sympathetically. The format is simply a bucket or carrier ... the contents of the bucket can be fine wine or vinegar.

While we have been designing the 272 and testing the 4.3 firmware I've heard some spectacular sounding music from both DSD and from PCM but I've also heard some absolutely gash sounding stuff too (from both formats).

The theory should hold out that a *TRUE* DSD source file may sound better than a PCM file but that's not due to the format per se ... because DSD cannot be easily post processed without converting it to PCM then DSD recordings *SHOULD* be cleaner than a post processed PCM however the reality is that many DSD recordings will have been converted to PCM for post processing and then back to DSD for running off to SACD which is inherently wiping out the *SUPPOSED* advantage that DSD has.

IMO (and this is only my opinion) the reality for me is that there is no inherent format advantage to DSD over PCM ... 

Phil

Apart artists, we needs capable sound engineer as well... It's not an easy job listening in the results.