Is there any budget DAC for DSD1024?

[dlovesmusic]

Because nobody has ever proven any objective audible improvement over PCM. It’s like audio homeopathy.

Agreed with the comment re: objective improvement over PCM. That does not answer my original question why the hate re: DSD and have to be sarcastic about it. Even if DSD sounds identical to PCM or worse and some people prefer DSD playback, there is no snake oil about it being a true hi-res format.

 

[kemmler3D]

Actually no because the upsampling is done by HQPlayer Server on the PC so files 16/44.1 or higher are upsampled to DSD128,256,512 or PCM up to 1536 KHz. So you don't need any more space than the native files.
All you need is a powerful PC. Personally I use an I5 12400 with 16 Gb DDR4 and I upsample up to DSD 512 without problems.
I don't have any measuring tools but IMO HQPlayer 5.5.1 with Ubuntu 22.04.3 sounds very good with a detail and three-dimensionality that I haven't found in other players (Foobar, JRiver, Daphile).
My endpoint is a SOtM 200 ultra neo connected to the Topping E30II DAC that I just purchased and which sounds wonderfully good. Amplification is entrusted to Jadis I50 (50+50w Class A push-pull KT150 tube) and the speakers are Acoustique Quality Pontos 6 with Pontos W Subwoofer

What's the point of upsampling / oversampling in the PC vs. the DAC though? I mean maybe you can use a really slow filter or something, but realistically I am not sure of any plausible audible benefit.

 

[voodooless]

Even if DSD sounds identical to PCM or worse and some people prefer DSD playback, there is no snake oil about it being a true hi-res format.

Yes there is, like homeopathy, it’s taken advantage of by nefarious entities that pray on the ignorant and set out to profit from them.

 

[dlovesmusic]

Yes there is, like homeopathy, it’s taken advantage of by nefarious entities that pray on the ignorant and set out to profit from them.

Where is the profit if one uses the free foobar to do the conversion on the fly, or if people are already using roon or jriver and decided to do the conversion on the fly?

 

[voodooless]

Where is the profit if one uses the free foobar to do the conversion on the fly, or if people are already using roon or jriver and decided to do the conversion on the fly?

That’s like mixing your own homeopathy.. you already drank the cool aid. Roon is not free, nor is HQPlayer or Jriver.

 

[dlovesmusic]

That’s like mixing your own homeopathy.. you already drank the cool aid. Roon is not free, nor is HQPlayer or Jriver.

Foobar, moode…? Those folks just use the free trial version of hqplayer for years???

There are many other reasons why ppl choose roon and jriver (madvr and movies playback) - library management, incorporation with other things ….. and dsd is just one of the features

 

[Timcognito]

Why would someone prefer one thing over another unless there is a difference? I prefer the air from my right nostril over the left. It's superstition if there is no difference and snake oil guys are promoting it for profit or recognition. But if there is a audible difference then that is real.

 

[voodooless]

Foobar, moode…? Those folks just use the free trial version of hqplayer for years???

They are still fooling themselves though, free or not. I wonder who would put up with using an audio player for a maximum of 30 minutes at a time for years?

 

[dlovesmusic]

They are still fooling themselves though, free or not. I wonder who would put up with using an audio player for a maximum of 30 minutes at a time for years?

I know a number of folks, thing is the term is so generous that the program allows you to play for 30 minutes then just close the program and restart for another 30 minutes and you can keep doing that.

According to these folks, that is “no different to having to get your butt up and swap in another cd or lp every 30 minutes”

 

[dlovesmusic]

Why would someone prefer one thing over another unless there is a difference? I prefer the air from my right nostril over the left. It's superstition if there is no difference and snake oil guys are promoting it for profit or recognition. But if there is a audible difference then that is real.

Yup, so assuming there is no difference at all, then why would anyone feel so offended here when they know someone uses DSD instead of PCM as playback?

I don't and won't feel offended when people tell me they just play everything in PCM but when someone said they play everything in DSD people here feel offended.

 

[bungle]

I don't and won't feel offended when people tell me they just play everything in PCM but when someone said they play everything in DSD people here feel offended.

Nobody is offended/offending, perhaps you just feel someone is. Or perhaps everyone is offended/offending. If DSD was the mainstream way, people would run hqplayers and turn everything to PCM. And I guess it may likely be the same people that currently turn PCM to DSD. Don’t take this as offence. I am not offended.

 

[Timcognito]

Yup, so assuming there is no difference at all, then why would anyone feel so offended here when they know someone uses DSD instead of PCM as playback?

I don't and won't feel offended when people tell me they just play everything in PCM but when someone said they play everything in DSD people here feel offended.

Well, I understand that there is no need to be rude unless there is rude attack, and really no need to criticize frivolity ether. But, at Audio Science Review, if there is no science and the benefits can not be quantified one has to expect to be held accountable for asking advice on an unsubstantiated format here. I have not investigated the benefits of DSD, have saved the link I have posted #58 so I can see if its worth my time and money to try another format other than the one that's presented. The vast majority (the choir) at ASR seems to think not, so that's what you are up against

 

[dlovesmusic]

Well, I understand that there is no need to be rude unless there is rude attack, and really no need to criticize frivolity ether. But, at Audio Science Review, if there is no science and the benefits can not be quantified one has to expect to be held accountable for asking advice on an unsubstantiated format here. I have not investigated the benefits of DSD, have saved the link I have posted #58 so I can see if its worth my time and money to try another format other than the one that's presented. The vast majority (the choir) at ASR seems to think not, so that's what you are up against

Appreciated your prompt response, I have nothing up against anyone here. I also agree there is absolutely no benefit going up to dsd1024 as per the title thread. I simply see nothing wrong if people opt to use another hires format for playback and others have to be sarcastic about it.

If someone chooses to use wav vs flac, that’s their choice as well.

It’s no different than say someone bought a topping dac for $300 and another person spent $280 for a similar feature and measurements smsl dac and you would critique the guy for spending $20 more when it sounds the same and have equal features

 

[pkane]

If someone chooses to use wav vs flac, that’s their choice as well.

A better analogy would be to suggest that WAV sounds better than FLAC on ASR. Same as suggesting that high rate DSD sounds better than PCM, or that MQA sounds better than everything else: these will all elicit a similar reaction, IMO.

 

[Timcognito]

Appreciated your prompt response, I have nothing up against anyone here. I also agree there is absolutely no benefit going up to dsd1024 as per the title thread. I simply see nothing wrong if people opt to use another hires format for playback and others have to be sarcastic about it.

If someone chooses to use wav vs flac, that’s their choice as well.

It’s no different than say someone bought a topping dac for $300 and another person spent $280 for a similar feature and measurements smsl dac and you would critique the guy for spending $20 more when it sounds the same and have equal features

Yes but if there is no there, there and the ASR crowd needs data to prove it, they see no value. So it goes against the zeitgeist here, I mean ASR. Precision in execution seems to be core value, although you are not the first to run into over zealotry. Many a Node owner with its feature packed armorterium has been lambasted for its mediocre DAC.

 

[Ron Texas]

Who needs DSD anyway? It was designed as an archival format, likely because it can survive minor damage better than PCM.

 

[dlovesmusic]

Yes but if there is no there, there and the ASR crowd needs data to prove it, they see no value. So it goes against the zeitgeist here, I mean ASR. Precision in execution seems to be core value, although you are not the first to run into over zealotry. Many a Node owner with its feature packed armorterium has been lambasted for its mediocre DAC.

A bit off topic but I would say hqplayer even if we ignore the upsampling and conversion to dsd on the fly feature would be worthy of $300 (my personal valuation of course) given all its flexibilities in an all in one solution.

Even given there are no objective evidence to support upsampling and conversion to dsd on the fly, it won’t make the sound worse. And it’s free to try.

Case in point, I used to have a chord mojo 2 that has a white noise issue (a pretty common issue with chord dacs apparently and many others have similar experiences). Upsampling to pcm 705.6 before feeding it to the dac effectively bypasses the WTA1 filter and fixed the issue. I have not had a single white noise instance since…

 

[sunjam]

I think I may understanding why some people think DSD is something not worth to try (again). Here is my experience with DSD...

I bought my first SACD player, Marantz SA15S2, for playing my first SACD around late 2000's

Based on my personal experience, I could't tell much difference between SACD and CD version of the same title. Back then, there were not that many SACD and they were pretty expensive compared with CD (at least 2 times the price of the same CD version).

Given I tried a few SACD titles and couldn't tell much difference between SACD and CD, I kind of ignore it and going back to CD althought I knew technically, DSD should be better.

I've been mainly listening to CD and 44.1k files for long long time as I don't have much SACD.

Then the Hi-Res digital player revolution happened. A lot of Hi-Res players started to appear in the market. Some players could play even so-call DSD files... For me, I didn't care as I only had a few SACD titles and no DSD files.

Around 2017, I bought my first DSD capable DAP, the Sony WM-1Z. At that time, I knew it could play DSD files but I didn't care as I used it mainly for 44.1k files. And I was happy with the 44.1k files.

I was mainly a Mac user. Late last year, I got a new PC (because I need it to run certain Windows only program). Having a new PC prompted me to think what else I can do with it given it's excessive power / storage.

These years, people has been talking a lot about CAS (which I didn't use). Hmm... I talked to myself that probably I should spend some time to understand it more and see what I can do with it with my new PC.

I started to use Foobar (yes, I just started using it for a few months); started to use my Sony WM-1Z as USB DAC....

As I didn't care about DSD in the past, I didn't know the difference between DSD64, DSD128, etc.

Over the last few months, I've been learning the DSD technology extensively as I think I missed a lot over the years about its development. Now, I know more about delta sigma modulation, noise shaping, digital filtering, etc... One day, I came across HQPlayer and it is a game changer to me. To me, I can really tell the difference between the 44.1k source and its DSD256 upsampled version.

Long story short, if you think you know DSD well and experience its sound well enough based on DSD64, I would suggest you to try it again (especially if you didn't try to compare 44.1k file vs its DSD256 upsampled version). Make sure that you compare the same source by upsampling the source file to DSD256 yourself.

For me, the DSD64 (i.e. SACD) experience really suggested to me DSD is nothing... ha ha..

 

[sunjam]

A bit off topic but I would say hqplayer even if we ignore the upsampling and conversion to dsd on the fly feature would be worthy of $300 (my personal valuation of course) given all its flexibilities in an all in one solution.

Even given there are no objective evidence to support upsampling and conversion to dsd on the fly, it won’t make the sound worse. And it’s free to try.

Case in point, I used to have a chord mojo 2 that has a white noise issue (a pretty common issue with chord dacs apparently and many others have similar experiences). Upsampling to pcm 705.6 before feeding it to the dac effectively bypasses the WTA1 filter and fixed the issue. I have not had a single white noise instance since…

Based on my understanding, it is factual that upsampling do have benefits at least:

- utilizing gentler, less phase distorting reconstruction filters and algorithms in the Digital to Analog process

i.e. less artifacts will be introduced in the D to A process.

For high-bit rate PCM vs high-bit rate DSD, it is a matter of taste I would say.

 

[voodooless]

Based on my undstanding, it is factual that upsampling do have benefits at least:

- utilizing gentler, less phase distorting reconstruction filters and algorithms in the Digital to Analog process

No, the upsampling itself requires brick-wall filters itself, and they are phase linear, so no phase distortion anyway...