[OzarkTom]

I already have the app for my Itunes on my Ipad, will I need to download another app for the Sony-Ipad?

[Stercom]

I already have the app for my Itunes on my Ipad, will I need to download another app for the Sony-Ipad?

To access your music on the HAP-Z1ES you will need to use the App Sony designed for it. Its called HDD Audio (You simply download it to your Ipad or tablet)

[flinn]

Vinnie

   I agree that transferring a few files at time is the way to go. I wish I had done that. I transferred everything from the folder which stores my iTunes tracks and there are many duplicates where the track is in both an ACC and AIFF format. I now wish I had cleaned up 10 albums at a time and transferred them.  I have to say though, that so far this player has vastly exceeded my expectations. I am really enjoying the  ability to instantly access hundreds of hi rez tracks without having to load SACD's or fool with the menus on DVD-A's.     
     You obviously have a deep knowledge in this area (mine is limited which is probably pretty apparent by now)  and I was wondering about the DSD remastering. If I am playing WAV 192 or 96.0kHZ/24 bit tracks should I turn the DSD remaster off, or just leave it on all the time? 

[smargo]

Vinnie

   I agree that transferring a few files at time is the way to go. I wish I had done that. I transferred everything from the folder which stores my iTunes tracks and there are many duplicates where the track is in both an ACC and AIFF format. I now wish I had cleaned up 10 albums at a time and transferred them.  I have to say though, that so far this player has vastly exceeded my expectations. I am really enjoying the  ability to instantly access hundreds of hi rez tracks without having to load SACD's or fool with the menus on DVD-A's.     
     You obviously have a deep knowledge in this area (mine is limited which is probably pretty apparent by now)  and I was wondering about the DSD remastering. If I am playing WAV 192 or 96.0kHZ/24 bit tracks should I turn the DSD remaster off, or just leave it on all the time?

really? - shouldn't you be the judge of whether to turn on/off the dsd remastering - thats like asking should i turn the light switch on before i go into a dark room

ugh!!!

[flinn]

My apologies for intruding on your Sunday. I'm confused as to why someone would pay the premium for hi rez files if regular tracks can be "remastered" to DSD on this machine, and was trying to ask if you use that feature with non-DSD hi rez files. For the future,   I'll  "step down" to the Sony forum with any questions.   Best of luck with your machine. 

[smargo]

My apologies for intruding on your Sunday. I'm confused as to why someone would pay the premium for hi rez files if regular tracks can be "remastered" to DSD on this machine, and was trying to ask if you use that feature with non-DSD hi rez files. For the future,   I'll  "step down" to the Sony forum with any questions.   Best of luck with your machine.

there is nothing to apologize for and you are not intruding on my sunday - yes i and others are paying for '"remastering to dsd" from non dsd tracks but sometimes the track already sounds very good without the remastering on - when you put it on it doesnt mean that it will sound better

some tracks sound really good with the dsd remastering on (you - you - you - you - you -you - you decide) and some tracks that are not recorded in dsd - sound much better with the dsd remastering off - its not a one size fits all - but you - you - you - you - you - you - you - you can decide for yourself ( not vinny - me - stercom - ozark tom - srb - steve in jersey - stargazering - flashman - and everyone else that i didnt mention

[steve in jersey]

Vinnie

   I agree that transferring a few files at time is the way to go. I wish I had done that. I transferred everything from the folder which stores my iTunes tracks and there are many duplicates where the track is in both an ACC and AIFF format. I now wish I had cleaned up 10 albums at a time and transferred them.  I have to say though, that so far this player has vastly exceeded my expectations. I am really enjoying the  ability to instantly access hundreds of hi rez tracks without having to load SACD's or fool with the menus on DVD-A's.     
     You obviously have a deep knowledge in this area (mine is limited which is probably pretty apparent by now)  and I was wondering about the DSD remastering. If I am playing WAV 192 or 96.0kHZ/24 bit tracks should I turn the DSD remaster off, or just leave it on all the time?

Sound preferences between different formats , whether you've been listening for 1 week or 30 years, are just
that, preferences.

That's the beauty of having the choice to listen to the music files you've loaded in their native form or
see if you like the way the sound processed to a format with a different file structure.

If you are someone really interested in finding out what sounds best to you , you do yourself a great disservice
with the preconceived ratings of how the different formats are "better" or "worse" than each other. The more
sensible approach is with a clean slate open to what you're hearing at the time you're listening. Not "this
is the way, this sounds when I listen in this format, so this is sound is'nt right".

You will drive yourself to the never ending path of upgrading your equipment (I confess, I've been there too
long) when you seek information about what you should do. There is no one size fits all in this hobby, but
there are way too many "sacred cows" format superiority & if all Hi-Rez is actually that just because of file
size.

Relax , enjoy the music, have a drink, light up a doobie (scratch that last one & I'll plead "a" fifth if questioned
about saying that)

(Me ? I would try it both ways regardless of the native format ; No real need for it with actual DSD files but it's not going to hurt anything to try it anyway)

Alright, now I'm done with this posting, I think

[OzarkTom]

Relax , enjoy the music, have a drink, light up a doobie (scratch that last one & I'll plead "a" fifth if questioned
about saying that)

The last time a doobie smoker came to my house was 35 years ago. He listened to my system, got up and adjusted the equalizer, sat back down and said "aww, much better".

The only problem, my EQ was turned off. But I didn't tell him that.

[steve in jersey]

Tom,
 
That was you I visited ???

Things sound much better now that I've stopped using equalizers. ,Unfortunately everything else is much
blurrier.

"Those were......  The days my friend, we thought they'd never end" 

[Vinnie R.]

Vinnie

     You obviously have a deep knowledge in this area (mine is limited which is probably pretty apparent by now)  and I was wondering about the DSD remastering. If I am playing WAV 192 or 96.0kHZ/24 bit tracks should I turn the DSD remaster off, or just leave it on all the time?

Hi flinn,

As others have mentioned, you can play wiht the DSD Remastering engine and see if you prefer it ON or OFF.  In some cases, you probably will prefer one to the other.  That is the one that sounds better.

I'll  "step down" to the Sony forum with any questions.   Best of luck with your machine.

No need to step down and go to another forum, and don't feel like you don't belong here because you are new to this or new here.  We are all learning and learn from each other here.  There is no expert or leader.  I'm learning.  You are learning.  AudioCircle is great place to be!

I'm confused as to why someone would pay the premium for hi rez files if regular tracks can be "remastered" to DSD on this machine, and was trying to ask if you use that feature with non-DSD hi rez files.

The DSD remastering engine converts the PCM stream into a DSD stream.  A PCM stream is usually a 16-bit or 24-bit stream, sampled at 44.1kHz, 48k, 88.2k, 96k, 176.4k, 192k, and even 384k.  A DSD stream is 1-bit, but at much higher sampling rate (2.8MHz, 5.6MHz).  The d/a converter chips in the Sony player accept both PCM and native DSD streams, but they handle PCM and DSD a little differently in the actual digital to analog conversion process, so the results will probably sound a little different. 

BUT - if you start with a Redbook 16/44.1 file and enable the DSD remastering, you will not gain "information" (resolution) by having the Sony convert to the DSD stream. After an album has been recorded and transferred into a playback file, you can't add "more better" sound into it unless you go back to the original master and do a true remastering, which is usually done at the studio.

Just like if you start out with a compressed MP3 file and convert it to a Redbook file, it still is a compressed MP3 file "riding on a redbook file format."  Once you 'lossy compress' a file and data is lost, it is lost forever on that file. 

I'm not sure this is the clearest explanation and others probably can elaborate, but I hope you get the idea.  Feel free to ask questions, learn, and post your experiences to the group.

Vinnie

[Vinnie R.]

Tom,
 
That was you I visited ???

Things sound much better now that I've stopped using equalizers. ,Unfortunately everything else is much
blurrier.

"Those were......  The days my friend, we thought they'd never end" 

Well it sure wasn't me, unless you passed one over to me when I was still in diapers!     

[OzarkTom]

BUT - if you start with a Redbook 16/44.1 file and enable the DSD remastering, you will not gain "information" (resolution) by having the Sony convert to the DSD stream. After an album has been recorded and transferred into a playback file, you can't add "more better" sound into it unless you go back to the original master and do a true remastering, which is usually done at the studio.

Just like if you start out with a compressed MP3 file and convert it to a Redbook file, it still is a compressed MP3 file "riding on a redbook file format."  Once you 'lossy compress' a file and data is lost, it is lost forever on that file. 

Vinnie

So Vinnie, you cannot up-sample 10x and play back 2x and get more info out of a CD like PS Audio is claiming?

[steve in jersey]

So Vinnie, you cannot up-sample 10x and play back 2x and get more info out of a CD like PS Audio is claiming?

(I'm back to sanity ,once again) The thing that has to be remembered is DSD does'nt "work" by the same
principals . The objective is not to create "better" sounding PCM files. It's about formatting those "native"
files to something else, to see if the reformatting to a format with some different basic sound characteristics
will affect a different sound perspective that may or may not sound better to "you"

The thing is , is that we are so used to the way formats we listen to "sound", we are listening for those traits
subconsciously & may want to dismiss differences as either not an improvement or barely noticeable.

That's fine, that is why the feature is a defeatable choice. You don't necessarily need "more information" for
something to sound "better" . Sometimes different is better, sometimes not, but I think you have to be
willing to spend extended amounts of time listening to things in one mode or the other before you can
categorically state what the process can or can't do . It make take a few weeks to decide , it may not

A/B testing does'nt really work in this (or many other situations). Our " Aural Memory" is just too short & what
we listen to consecutively overpowers that memory with the immediacy of what we are now hearing.

You don't necessarily need to have a producer's creditials. Sound perspective is'nt something you're " locked"
into.

[smargo]

(I'm back to sanity ,once again) The thing that has to be remembered is DSD does'nt "work" by the same
principals . The objective is not to create "better" sounding PCM files. It's about formatting those "native"
files to something else, to see if the reformatting to a format with some different basic sound characteristics
will affect a different sound perspective that may or may not sound better to "you"

The thing is , is that we are so used to the way formats we listen to "sound", we are listening for those traits
subconsciously & may want to dismiss differences as either not an improvement or barely noticeable.

That's fine, that is why the feature is a defeatable choice. You don't necessarily need "more information" for
something to sound "better" . Sometimes different is better, sometimes not, but I think you have to be
willing to spend extended amounts of time listening to things in one mode or the other before you can
categorically state what the process can or can't do . It make take a few weeks to decide , it may not

A/B testing does'nt really work in this (or many other situations). Our " Aural Memory" is just too short & what
we listen to consecutively overpowers that memory with the immediacy of what we are now hearing.

You don't necessarily need to have a producer's creditials. Sound perspective is'nt something you're " locked"
into.

very well put steve - you said it perfectly !!!

[Vinnie R.]

So Vinnie, you cannot up-sample 10x and play back 2x and get more info out of a CD like PS Audio is claiming?

My point was (and I probably wasn't clear when I was typing last night after a long day) is that if you have a Redbook CD file, you
can upsample, convert to DSD, or whatever but the "resolution" is still that of Redbook.  It doesn't gain the resolution of something like
a native 24/176.4 just because you zero-pad it to 24-bit and upsample to 176.4k.   Same with converting to DSD.

BUT - you might like the way it sounds better when it is played back as a DSD file - again, because of the way the d/a converts the DSD stream to analog compared to the way it handles PCM. 

[steve in jersey]

I don't know how much more "resolution" you ever really gain when you "Upsample" or "Oversample". Yeah, you are
adding "more information" but it seems to ride above the music not further into it !

I don't believe double DSD sampled & up sampling are the same thing .I think this is a matter of people
lumping all Redbook together as the "Underachieving Stepsister" of higher bit/sampled PCM.

I have a pretty decent amt. of nice sounding Redbook that I am not tempted to Upsample . I would like to hear what kind of differences DSD remastering would bring to the table.

I see "Resolution" as a way over used term that many feel you can reach by playing the higher numbers game.

I have'nt found that to be necessarily true.

[Vinnie R.]

I don't know how much more "resolution" you ever really gain when you "Upsample" or "Oversample". Yeah, you are
adding "more information" but it seems to ride above the music not further into it !

I don't believe double DSD sampled & up sampling are the same thing .I think this is a matter of people
lumping all Redbook together as the "Underachieving Stepsister" of higher bit/sampled PCM.

I have a pretty decent amt. of nice sounding Redbook that I am not tempted to Upsample . I would like to hear what kind of differences DSD remastering would bring to the table.

I see "Resolution" as a way over used term that many feel you can reach by playing the higher numbers game.

I have'nt found that to be necessarily true.

My point is that you do NOT gain any resolution beyond what is already on the disc or in the music file from upsampling or converting to DSD.

It might sound different.  It might sound better to you, but you are not adding resolution that was not already on the disc or music file.

Converting from Redbook CD to high res PCM or DSD allows the Redbook file to "take a ride on the high res PCM or DSD formatting" and be decoded as such, but you are NOT adding real information that something like a natively recorded high res PCM or DSD file (where the analog was originally A to D converted at these higher rates) has.

I hope that makes sense.

Vinnie

[steve in jersey]

I don't know , if it sounds better to me it may be because what I've heard may have  appeared to be more resolved. So for "me" it would be

I know I'm being a "Capadoste" (Italian word for hard head that I probably misspelled)here, I.just wish they decided to use a different term then Resolution after the file size description. I think if an abbreviation for
possible (pos) were used in front of it  I'd be just fine

Oh what I was saying about about upsampling is that it just sounds like an additional layer of artifacts has been added that seem to do little else then "ride above" the actual signal . In this case for myself it appears to lower the amount of
Resolution by increasing the amount of NON musical information. Unless the Sony
engineers lied about the Remastering process double DSD sampled is not the
same

[Vinnie R.]

Hi Steve,

Ok - just to make sure you know what I am saying:

I'm not saying it wouldn't sound better.  It certainly could sound better.  It could sound more resolved, more this and more that.  Not doubting that at all.  I'm just saying that there is no more musical data added.  The file is just either being padded with extra 0-bits, bumped up to a higher sampling rate carrier, both, or converted over to a DSD stream.  The way the d/a conversion handles it may very well end up resulting in a more pleasing sound, or not.  I'm glad Sony decided to make this a feature you can turn ON or OFF.  You don't have to "remaster to DSD" - but you could and I would encourage everyone with this player to try it a few times and have fun with it.

I know I'm being a "Capadoste" (Italian word for hard head that I probably misspelled)here,

Capadosta!  Or "testa dura"!  With a name like Vinnie, I should know this. 

I.just wish they decided to use a different term then Resolution after the file size description. I think if an abbreviation for
possible (pos) were used in front of it  I'd be just fine

I hear you - it's all in the lingo and marketing I guess.

I just didn't want some people reading this thread to be confused into thinking that by enabling the DSD remastering (or using the DirectStream product), it would make something like a Redbook CD sound identical or be a bit-for-bit clone of the real SACD file that came from an A to D in the studio that originally converted the analog to DSD. 

Maybe it would make it sound more like it in some cases, but if the SACD's DSD data came from the A/D converter in the studio that converted it off the master, then that will have more musical information on it compared to just taking a Redbook CD and then converted to a DSD stream.  The files sizes could even be the same, but they will not be identical in the content of those bits. 

It's like buying a 2 liter bottle of Coke that came from Coke, vs. one that your poured half of it out and replaced it with water.  They both will be 2 liter bottles, but one is missing some "resolution" in that your taste buds will not be stimulated the same way.  Not sure this is a perfect analogy, but gives you the idea of what I am saying. 

Again, once a file is in Redbook CD form (which is compressed if it originally was a native DSD file, or if it was originally A to D converted to 24/192k or some higher res than 16/44.1), then even if you later upsample or convert the Redbook to DSD, you will not get back what was taken out when you compressed it down to 16/44.1.  Same is true when you take a CD and rip to MP3.  You can't get back what you took out.  If you want to get the original again, you need to go back to the file before it was compressed. 

I'm sure the terminology might make this harder to understand than what it is.  So I hope my Coke analogy helps.  I'm only trying to help because there seems to be some confusion what the DSD remastering really is and is not.

I think I probably beat this dead horse long enough, being the capadosta that I am! 

 

[steve in jersey]

Benne, Vinnie.... Benne (Did I get this one right ?)

Let me stop before I start talking about my Uncle Vitto, who appeared to have no neck !!!... Or Aunt Rose who would twist your cheek between her thumb & forefinger ( that would sting for a good minute afterwards)