Playback DSD (natively) with a PC

[ssully]

I have to say I think there is a slight difference to listening to DSD files directly.

And you're sure that difference is real because....

 

[par4ken]

And you're sure that difference is real because....

I trust my ears, obviously you don't!

 

[jimfisheye]

I trust my ears when I have to but my lying ass perception bias sometimes leaves a lot to be desired! Then it's time for science!

 

[MrSmithers]

And you're sure that difference is real because....

Because it’s a legible difference… Honestly why does every thread on this discussion have to descend into this?!

I’m literally just giving an honest opinion on how it sounds on my system. I have no fight in the game or preference in either format…

It just sounds better, that’s all I can say…

 

[Sal1950]

I have to say I think there is a slight difference to listening to DSD files directly. You can still have great quality sounding audio by converting to PCM, but there is a slight 'dullness' introduced when comparing the files for me on my system. This is by either letting J River convert or manually converting to flac to 88.2k via the 32 bit floating point method Jim mentioned earlier. That certainly made it sound better than going directly to 24 bit / 88.2.

Have you listened under tightly bias controlled blind conditions?

 

[MrSmithers]

Have you listened under tightly bias controlled blind conditions?

I’ve listened by simply playing one format followed by then playing another...

I’ve heard every argument and the backed up science behind it... Including the Nyquist theory saying there is no point in listening to anything above CD level…

Yet, somehow (and I’m thankful for this) my imagination makes me think it sounds better when I listen to higher resolution files…

Especially when listening to DSD!

 

[jimfisheye]

Because it’s a legible difference… Honestly why does every thread on this discussion have to descend into this?!

Because the difference is unexpected with other variables under control. This is one of those 1% discussions in the first place. When you hear something audible well out of perception bias, it follows to start asking about the other variables.

My quip about perception bias and getting frustrated by it sometimes was a way of highlighting that.

I'm certain you heard something! My experience with these format's ability to contain a complete audio recording equally leads to the expected questions to remove the usual variables from the discussion. eg. Did you carefully match levels to within 0.5db? Were you able to A/B switch between those setups silently with no distraction? Meaning no lag or chirp or click on the A/B toggle. (Which is kind of a monster to set up thoroughly! Matching 2 different DAC outputs.)

When I'm trying to A/B something by ear I can tell you that any distractions like that just blow the whole thing for me. We don't listen to raw ear data. We listen to our filtered perception of the raw ear data. Any lag, chirp, or click on an A/B toggle just fucks my perception bias. (Not to project any of my shortcomings on anyone else.)

When the very same audio file is A/B'd between one of them being even just .5db louder, the louder one sounds better. If I'm focused on high frequencies I'll say it has better high end. Focused on low end? Now it sounds "punchier" to me. If I really start paying attention and maybe use a couple tools (meters, null tests, etc) I'll finally figure out that it was just slightly louder.

Does that help?
No one is meaning to be disagreeable outright. It's just the usual questions and things get difficult when they're within our perception bias.

 

[jimfisheye]

I’ve listened by simply playing one format followed by then playing another...

Can you qualify that the levels were matched and there was no lag or distraction between A/B toggle?

If that doesn't seem like a reasonable requirement to qualify to you, all I can say is I have no ability to A/B with any distraction in between and that's why I'm asking. I thought this was an accepted condition in the audio world too!

 

[doriangrey63]

Agreed... I have converted just about all of my stereo and multi-channel SACD's to FLAC at 88.2kHz/24-bit

EDIT: It is however a great shame that nobody has discovered a way of hacking a PC's HDMI drivers to pass a DSD bitstream...

I have done the opposite, deleting my 16/44.1 khz and 24/48 CD files and replacing them with new DSD files and the SACD ISOs that my new Marantz NA6006 DAC plays perfectly. And I do notice a difference with respect to the previous ones at 88.2 khz, in some more than others, depending on the recording. Curious, Plex plays native DSD, but Foobar, however, automatically converts it to PCM 24/192. Another thing, DSD can only be played over analog cable, since the digital output is limited to 24/192 and the output signal is automatically changed.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

...and the SACD ISOs that my new Marantz NA6006 DAC plays perfectly.

I guess your Marantz NA6006 network audio player is fine for finding and playing 'stereo' files including DSD, located on network storage devices. However, a lot of us here require players (or AVR's) that a capable of finding and playing 'multi-channel' audio files.

Thankfully, my 'unhacked' OPPO UDP-203 is able to find and play 'multi-channel' DSD files with either an .dsf or .dff file extension. And according to page 59 of its user manual: "DSD data is converted into an analog signal directly by the internal DAC" (rather than converting to PCM first).

Currently, the biggest issue I have with SACD.iso files is that my 'unhacked' OPPO UDP-203 can't play them. And when I unpack the DSD data from an SACD.iso file into an .dff stream, their file sizes are huge! However, re-encoding a 'multi-channel' DSD.dff stream to a 'multi-channel' 88.2kHz 24-bit FLAC file greatly reduces the file size by around 60%!

Anyway... We all do what we do given the playback devices we have and prefer to use. So there's always a "trade-off" somewhere

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I have done the opposite, deleting my 16/44.1 khz and 24/48 CD files and replacing them with new DSD files and the SACD ISOs that my new Marantz NA6006 DAC plays perfectly..

But why? How can any additional conversion make something better? Taking 16/44.1 PCM and converting to DSD can't improve anything. The only possible explanation is the DAC used for the DSD somehow sounds better than the DAC used for the PCM. That's hard to believe for a mid-fi stereo streamer. And if that indeed is the case, the real solution is a better DAC for PCM.

Additionally, there are no native 24/48 CD files. Redbook CD is always 16/44.1. Upsampling 16/44.1 to 24/48 can only degrade the signal. It can't improve it. And on top of that, you are performing an additional conversation to DSD. Again, why?

 

[doriangrey63]

But why? How can any additional conversion make something better? Taking 16/44.1 PCM and converting to DSD can't improve anything. The only possible explanation is the DAC used for the DSD somehow sounds better than the DAC used for the PCM. That's hard to believe for a mid-fi stereo streamer. And if that indeed is the case, the real solution is a better DAC for PCM.

Additionally, there are no native 24/48 CD files. Redbook CD is always 16/44.1. Upsampling 16/44.1 to 24/48 can only degrade the signal. It can't improve it. And on top of that, you are performing an additional conversation to DSD. Again, why?

I'm not referring to conversions, I'm simply replacing my old CDs with their analogues in DSD or SACD if I can find them, if not I maintain them, but I never make conversions for the worse, in any case I resample so that they take up less space, but I can. To avoid it, I am trying to recover all the ones that I changed from 24/96 to 24/48 from the original sources at their original resolution.

 

[Owen Smith]

But why? How can any additional conversion make something better? Taking 16/44.1 PCM and converting to DSD can't improve anything.

He never said he was converting to DSD, I assumed he'd re-ripped an SACD of the same album.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

He never said he was converting to DSD, I assumed he'd re-ripped an SACD of the same album.

I guess he needs to clarify.

 

[ubertrout]

There's a small difference in my experience, but it's equally possible that I'll I'm hearing is different EQ/processing rather than a quality difference. Difficult to tell, and I don't think it's worth the trouble.

That said, instead of getting an expensive DAC and new AVR, you should just get a $70 Sony Blu-Ray Player like the BDP-S3700 (cheaper used) All the ones of its generation (as far as I know) play DSD files in multichannel over HDMI, and do DSD out. Or you can get a X800 for a bit more and get a swiss army knife of a player that will also play DSD files over HDMI. You can play off a USB stick, external hard drive, or network share/NAS.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

He never said he was converting to DSD, I assumed he'd re-ripped an SACD of the same album.

As did I...

Indeed, when SACD ripping first became a thing (using a Sony PS3), the practice of creating 44.1kHz/16-bit PCM re-encodes for comparison testing was quite popular for some. However creating 48.0kHz/16 or 24-bit re-encodes was never advisable!

 

[marpow]

@coolerking101
I am curious, now that all the wolves have come out of the tree line.
Are you making any progress/decisions on your question, Post 1?
Any external DAC's that you find affordable?
I looked at the Topping MX5, it does support up to DSD256, which is OK, but looks like stereo only, looking at the inputs/outputs.

Did you try this on JRiver?
Playback could not be started using the format 352.8Khz 2ch.
Either your sound card or receiver/DAC is reporting this format is not supported.
This format would work: 176.4Khz 2ch.
Would you like to have your DSP Studio>Output Format settings changed automatically?

I am a gear head, I love to find and use gear on my own, find things out for myself.
I believe the point of your question is while using JRiver, which in my opinion is a fantastic player of all digital files.

I hope you are making progress on your original question.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

I'd be interested to know what devices people are using to decode 'multi-channel' DSD audio streams. Are there any AVR's that can do this via a network connection?

 

[marpow]

I'd be interested to know what devices people are using to decode 'multi-channel' DSD audio streams. Are there any AVR's that can do this via a network connection?

I use the Exasound e38 MCH external DAC.

 

[Owen Smith]

@Owen Smith
I am curious, now that all the wolves have come out of the tree line.
Are you making any progress/decisions on your question, Post 1?

Post 1 wasn't by me.