PC+SW+DSD direct VS Any DAC

[widemediaphotography]

Be careful when introducing analogies. Whereas upsampling your images and increasing storage costs might be a bit daft that doesn't mean you can't get image improvement. As an example, even going back many years, I had an Epson printer that when asked to print a low resolution image at large size would (optionally) upscale it in real time on its tiny processor when printing giving a much better and less pixelated image and good modern phot processing software can do better. I do agree though that upscaling an image for its own sake isn't going to improve quality - generally only useful when the required output size is larger than you would get natively on the display for your pixel count.

Exactly, and I thank you for the observation from which I can take excellent inspiration.

This need depends exclusively on the purpose. It's one thing to archive all your oversampled photos and another when some of them need to go to quality print.

If I ask the printer or printing software to print a 1600x1200 pixel image on an A3 page at 300dpi, the software will apply its own algorithm to fill the page with a result that we will define as A.
If, however, through specialized software such as (PS and AI) I perform upsampling, using specific filters that require computing power, I can send an already upscaled file to the printer with the printer only having to worry about printing pixel by pixel exactly as it is read. We will obtain a result B, which for the purposes of quality and enjoyment is superior to result A.

This is exactly IN THEORY what HQplayer and a DSD-direct DAC would do!

 

[MaxwellsEq]

We are here to discuss and every comment or consideration always does me good

Then I recommend reading and re-reading the link @Verig added in post #70 and following some of the links in that Blog. It's a great single location for much of what is involved in your theory.

Audiophile Myth #260: The Detestable Digital Filter Ringing and Real Music...

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Exactly, and I thank you for the observation from which I can take excellent inspiration.

This need depends exclusively on the purpose. It's one thing to archive all your oversampled photos and another when some of them need to go to quality print.

If I ask the printer or printing software to print a 1600x1200 pixel image on an A3 page at 300dpi, the software will apply its own algorithm to fill the page with a result that we will define as A.
If, however, through specialized software such as (PS and AI) I perform upsampling, using specific filters that require computing power, I can send an already upscaled file to the printer with the printer only having to worry about printing pixel by pixel exactly as it is read. We will obtain a result B, which for the purposes of quality and enjoyment is superior to result A.

This is exactly IN THEORY what HQplayer and a DSD-direct DAC would do!

You need to know more about the finite limits of MTFs for real-world lenses and sensors. This crops up regularly. The analogy between picture and sound "upscaling" falls apart rapidly.

 

[widemediaphotography]

In the next image we can see the improvement even without DSD direct DAC (cip ES9039).


Yes, this improvement is probably below the audibility level, but it is there and we cannot ignore it from a scientific point of view, otherwise all the SINAD rankings proposed here would not make much sense, starting from a certain value...

 

[Verig]

In the next image we can see the improvement even without DSD direct DAC (cip ES9039).
Yes, this improvement is probably below the audibility level, but it is there and we cannot ignore it from a scientific point of view, otherwise all the SINAD rankings proposed here would not make much sense, starting from a certain value...

SINAD ranking is meaningless from audibility point of view starting from a certain value. It's just to see if something is a good design or not. It is not a sound quality metric.
For engineering and bragging rights it's nice to have but very little application with listening to music.

 

[phofman]

I only use 15% CPU in DSD512

15% of 14 cores at 4GHz is quite a lot of CPU power used, IMO.

 

[pkane]

I will briefly report my young experience with HQplayer, clarifying and apologizing that I am not a English mother tounge , and that for example the term "efficiency" in the Italian language probably takes on a different meaning from an engineering point of view. I am an engineer and owner of a Research and Development company, which operates in the Automotive sector, and where any result obtained must be measured and certified by an external Autorithy. I can't sell my clients feelings or suggestions, but the facts and my approach to my passions remain the same.

As you can see, on my unoptimized laptop (i7 12700 and Nvidia GPU) with all my job software (189 active processes) I only use 15% CPU in DSD512 (limit of my DAC), many users stop it to DSD256 is alrady enough.

On my audio PC I use just Foobar2000 I have about 78 active processes and it has 27% of the Celeron N5100 CPU

I don't have to convince anyone but myself, but I want to do it with a scientific approach and not because a phenomenon like mass delirium exists or reject it because someone simply says it is useless.
We are here to discuss and every comment or consideration always does me good.

Thanks

Just as an example of DSD upsampling/filtering "efficiency" in HQPlayer

Someone trying to make HQPlayer work with DSD512 with built-in filters a few months ago:

Turns out Titan V 12GB may not be enough, according to Miska, may need even more GPU memory:

Lets see... Titan V 12GB GPU - $1500, idle power consumption 95W. Consumption under load - 345W

 

[widemediaphotography]

Just as an example of DSD upsampling/filtering "efficiency" in HQPlayer

Someone trying to make HQPlayer work with DSD512 with built-in filters a few months ago:

View attachment 379772

Turns out Titan V 12GB may not be enough, according to Miska, may need even more GPU memory:

View attachment 379773


Lets see... Titan V 12GB GPU - $1500, idle power consumption 95W. Consumption under load - 345W

I'm here because Miska can consider himself biased and I might be interested in the measurements carried out by Amir who doesn't sell anything...
However, my Screenshot is worth much more than Miska's words or anyone else who says different things.

I have only 15% CPU and 10% GPU on a non-optimized and not even very recent W11pro notebook with conversion from 16/44.1 to DSD512 which is already too much for many good level DACs!

 

[phofman]

I have only 15% CPU

The HQPlayer load would be more representative, than the total machine load.

 

[pkane]

I'm here because Miska can consider himself biased and I might be interested in the measurements carried out by Amir who doesn't sell anything...
However, my Screenshot is worth much more than Miska's words or anyone else who says different things.

I have only 15% CPU and 10% GPU on a non-optimized and not even very recent W11pro notebook with conversion from 16/44.1 to DSD512 which is already too much for many good level DACs!

I appreciate that you think so, but your words and screen shot is just about you. Why would you think that the filter you're using in HQPlayer is sufficient and that the much heavier, and much more complex filters that are in HQP aren't necessary, and in fact, required for any objective improvements? I shared a message from an actual user who is attempting to use HQPlayer with a built-in filter that requires a large GPU and much CPU power to process for DSD512 upsampling -- this is not at all unusual, and is more the norm.

The wider discussion about HQPlayer and PCM to DSD conversion has been going on for many years, with lots and lots of discussions and measurements here and on other fora. I suggest you read those before reaching any conclusions.

 

[widemediaphotography]

Apprezzo che tu la pensi così, ma le tue parole e lo screenshot riguardano solo te. Perché pensi che il filtro che stai usando in HQPlayer sia sufficiente e che i filtri molto più pesanti e complessi che sono in HQP non siano necessari e, di fatto, richiesti per qualsiasi miglioramento oggettivo? Ho condiviso un messaggio da un utente reale che sta tentando di usare HQPlayer con un filtro integrato che richiede una GPU di grandi dimensioni e molta potenza di CPU per elaborare il sovracampionamento DSD512: questo non è affatto insolito ed è più la norma.

La discussione più ampia su HQPlayer e la conversione da PCM a DSD è in corso da molti anni, con un sacco di discussioni e misurazioni qui e su altri forum. Ti consiglio di leggerle prima di trarre conclusioni.

Tomorrow I will use same filters indicate at post #87 and I will report my results

 

[widemediaphotography]

15% of 14 cores at 4GHz is quite a lot of CPU power used, IMO.

A lot depends on what, in an honest/good audio chain, the digital source should be able to do.
I am a supporter of PC audio solutions which alone perform all the tasks that we attribute to digital sources today. Media player, CD/DVD/BD player, network streamer, file server, etc. Etc. For $1000 or so you can also configure what is needed for HQplayer or similar softwares. What is the cost today just for a good network streamer? 1000/1500 dollars? Audio-pc is more efficient... sorry, much better!

 

[gwing]

What is the cost today just for a good network streamer? 1000/1500 dollars? Audio-pc is more efficient... sorry, much better!

The bar is very low for that. Just as a network streamer the Wiim mini is good and just 90$ or so.

If you want a good DAC thrown in as well though you perhaps need to move up the range a bit.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

A lot depends on what, in an honest/good audio chain, the digital source should be able to do.
I am a supporter of PC audio solutions which alone perform all the tasks that we attribute to digital sources today. Media player, CD/DVD/BD player, network streamer, file server, etc. Etc. For $1000 or so you can also configure what is needed for HQplayer or similar softwares. What is the cost today just for a good network streamer? 1000/1500 dollars? Audio-pc is more efficient... sorry, much better!

Raspberry Pi with PiCorePlayer, Volumio, MOode.

 

[widemediaphotography]

The bar is very low for that. Just as a network streamer the Wiim mini is good and just 90$ or so.

If you want a good DAC thrown in as well though you perhaps need to move up the range a bit.

You can also save 90 dollar using your smartphone in LDAC

 

[widemediaphotography]

Raspberry Pi with PiCorePlayer, Volumio, MOode.

My current source is an Audio-pc with Foobar2000, before was Raspberry Pi4 and Volumio…

 

[widemediaphotography]

In recent days the Author has confirmed that it will soon be possible to use one Raspberry Pi5 and run the sw @DSD256 in very high quality and this will most likely be true, from what I see from my tests...

 

[Verig]

If I ask the printer or printing software to print a 1600x1200 pixel image on an A3 page at 300dpi, the software will apply its own algorithm to fill the page with a result that we will define as A.
If, however, through specialized software such as (PS and AI) I perform upsampling, using specific filters that require computing power, I can send an already upscaled file to the printer with the printer only having to worry about printing pixel by pixel exactly as it is read. We will obtain a result B, which for the purposes of quality and enjoyment is superior to result A.

This is exactly IN THEORY what HQplayer and a DSD-direct DAC would do!

300dpi is one of those odd obsessions that came with digital photography and still lives somewhat. Even fifteen years ago commercial printer drivers were just fine. In this sense this is a good analogy for HQP - picking a goal that never needed reaching. A printer does not print pixels so why would it need to read them pixel by pixel exactly.

 

[widemediaphotography]

300dpi is one of those odd obsessions that came with digital photography and still lives somewhat. Even fifteen years ago commercial printer drivers were just fine. In this sense this is a good analogy for HQP - picking a goal that never needed reaching. A printer does not print pixels so why would it need to read them pixel by pixel exactly.

Pixel by pixel it referred to the bitmap of the file. Printers have the dots (small drops of ink)

 

[widemediaphotography]

The HQPlayer load would be more representative, than the total machine load.

13,5% of CPU