0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 8830 times.
You can stream hires from Qobuz.
It's too bad that Sony's SACD output is proprietary. Sony does allow a given vendor to develop a custom interface to mate between the transport and the DAC. The reason I bring this up is streaming SACD signals to the DAC is far and away the best sounding setup I've heard in the digital domain. Case in point: The McIntosh MCT transport via the DIN connection to a supporting preamp/DAC is among the very best I've heard from digital. Easily surpasses the CD level on dual layer discs. Additionally, the DIN setup is superior to SPDIF on redbook CD's as well. Jitter is not really an issue. Another method of getting SACD streamed to a DAC is to employ a audio extractor from the source. Select the SACD out to PCM, and the audio extractor will supply 22 to 24 bits at 88KHz to the DAC. I've used this method to listen SACD's with a Devialet 400 with excellent results. The Devialet does an outstanding job of re-clocking the audio stream, and at -133 noise floor, any hiss is strictly from the source recording.IMHO, I think that the CD standard should have been 24 bit/48KHz. That would have been sufficient for most applications. Not sure how accurate this is, but the story going around at the time of CD release was that the 16 bit/44 KHz limit was the standard of getting Beethoven's 9th on a single CD. The story goes that the initial spec was to be 48 KHz, but it exceeded the 660 MB limit of the CD.
SACD/DSD is plagued with issues due to 1-bit modulation. First of all, you can’t use a modulation index past 0.5 without stability issues. Second, this is merely skipping the decimation step of a PCM converter, except that PCM modulators are multi-level, allowing deeper modulation and thus realized superior noise performance. Third, in order to edit DSD, you need to convert it to PCM, so you know conversion to PCM is essentially lossless. Plus, try to find an un-edited SACD. Fourth, the effective resolution of base rate DSD is only 6-bits at 20kHz! It increases as the frequency goes lower due to the nature of the modulation. Every halving of the excitation frequency or doubling of the rate gives you one more effective bit, thus 4xDSD gets you 8 effective bits at 20kHz. So, if you want the best performance audio end-to-end, go with high rate (96kHz/192kHz) 24-bit PCM.
Found this article regarding DSD vs. PCM:https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/The issue is not as clear cut as argued.
The article has a number of valid technical points. Don't you find it interesting that a large percentage of the digital recorded catalogue is stored as DSD?I like both hi-res PCM and DSD. Both formats have advantages and disadvantages. Neither one is perfect. I will say that I have a few 24/192 PCM recordings that are outstanding (especially when using a Devialet 400 to play it back). The following summary points are valid: "High-resolution PCM and DSD formats of comparable resolution are statistically indistinguishable from one another in blind listening tests. Pure DSD recordings, as pictured in the flow charts used in DSD marketing hype, are almost nonexistent. There are currently very few recording studios that have the ability to edit, mix, or master DSD. High-definition 5-bit and 8-bit PCM (Wide-DSD), are used in recording and post-production editing, mixing, and mastering of nearly all modern DSD recordings. When a PCM file is played on a native DSD single-bit converter, the single-bit DAC chip has to convert the PCM to DSD in real-time. This is one of the major reasons people claim DSD sounds better than PCM, when in fact, it is just that the chip in most modern single-bit DACs do a poor job of decoding PCM. DSD64 SACD has roughly 33 times the resolution of a 16-bit 44.1KHz Red Book CD, roughly the same resolution as 24-bit 96KHz PCM recording, and less than half the resolution of a 24-bit 192KHz PCM recording."The quality of the recording plays a far more significant role than the format or resolution it is distributed in. To increase profits, modern recording studio executives insisted that errors be edited out in post-production, significantly compromising the quality of the original master tapes. "Another point made was that the DAC should play back the stream in it's native format as opposed to conversion real time. IMHO, I do not blindly buy the fact that DSD will sound better all the time as PCM. I would recommend that you listen to a McIntosh setup where the transport is connected to the DAC via the DIN cable passing DSD. It's VERY good, and a lot better than CD playback. There is always some "sales pitch" tied to these types of threads. Have to separate the wheat from the chaff. Audio is 80% science and engineering, and 20% art. We will always argue about the 20% that is art.
The fancy interfaces can and do work very well and do provide a improvement. They cost more to implement, Again, as an example, if one actually listens to a demonstration of the McIntosh transport/DAC setup via the DIN, it is pretty easy to notice the improvement with Redbook CD playback using the DIN over SPDIF, while SACD sounds outstanding with the well mastered recordings. Since SACD optical media is still readily available, a method to play the media back in its native format is desirable. If all the media was available as hi-res PCM, then that would be ideal. Since it's not, SACD is a very viable option for hi res playback, and since audiophiles can't (allegedly) hear a difference in double blind testing between hi res PCM and SACD, SACD remains a viable option for hi-res playback. Converting SACD to PCM when played back on a Devialet sounds incredible, while other setups with different hardware demonstrates that SACD played back in native format does sound better than SACD/PCM. There is no absolute one is better than the other here.Here is some more information regarding DSD vs. PCM:https://headfonics.com/2018/02/dsd-vs-pcm-real-competitors/Check out the other links provided in the main article. Also found this from the Arye Audio website: At the highest levels of audio engineers there has been little consensus as to which format is better, but most audiophiles have had first-hand experience with SACDs generally sounding better than DVD-Audio disc. So the prospect of being able to play downloadable DSD files via computer has led to a great deal of excitement, even controversy in the audiophile community.Read more at https://www.audiostream.com/content/ayres-pcm-dsd-comparison#F0omWVFPqkad08mu.99So, here's a summary so far:1) SACD and Hi-Res PCM both sound better than redbook CD's2) There is some level of disagreement as to merits of hi-res PCM vs. DSD.
There's a missing link above.There's so much misinformation out there regarding non-PCM formats, mostly just marketing pushing an agenda.Bottom line is that with such doubt regarding high-res sounding any better than 44/16 (though listening tests), anything beyond that seems like another money making scheme, although Cherry DAC DAC, Cherry USB, and Cherry DPA all support up to 192/24. "Why not" was started to show the justification for this. However, there's no need to keep DSD/SACD in its original format since conversion to PCM doesn't take anything away that can be heard by human ears.Here's the debate that's raging on (all 30 pages of it!):https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/high-resolution-audio-does-it-matter.11/
Tommy,Thanks for posting your link. Very informative, learned a lot. Really enjoyed the talk given by Mark Waldrep. I then went to Mark's website (Real HD-Audio), and started reading a lot of the blogs. Turns out his thinking aligns pretty close with my experiences with audio. I especially enjoyed his take on power cords and interconnect cables. I now better understand your issues with DSD. Unfortunately, I still prefer to get most all of my media via optical storage, so CD, DVD, and SACD are the choices. Since I now listen to classical more than the other genres, three are still a lot of SACD's of recent vintage for classical that are actual hi-res recordings. Those are mostly what I get now, and the SACD does sound a bit better than the CD layer. Depending on the playback hardware used, the SACD in native format sounds better played back in native SACD, the notable exception being the Devialet 400, where SACD/PCM is outstanding. What I really found to be informative was the subject of resolution. His explanation of taking analog master sources and then claiming that the hi-res versions of the remastered audio was somehow better was quite enlightening. Certainly gives one pause.
IMHO, I think that the CD standard should have been 24 bit/48KHz. That would have been sufficient for most applications. Not sure how accurate this is, but the story going around at the time of CD release was that the 16 bit/44 KHz limit was the standard of getting Beethoven's 9th on a single CD. The story goes that the initial spec was to be 48 KHz, but it exceeded the 660 MB limit of the CD.
It's mentioned here, in this example of an LP sounding better than the CD:https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=103744.0-Tommy O
The Bluesound Node 2i I recently bought sounds better than the Sony Hap-Z1es I owned. The Sony played DSD, the Bluesound does not. Does this tell anything?
