SMSL SU-10 DAC Review

[solderdude]

Clearly this DAC does not upsample

It's a DS so of course it does upsample.
One can select any of the obligatory filters that have to be used for this process to have the least amount of aliasing.
The stop band of those filters is sample rate dependent.
Only at the lowest sample rates the filter (44.1 and 48kHz) can have an effect in the audible band that's why they are measured.
It would be rather pointless to see the filter response at 96kHz or 192kHz.

 

[PeteL]

It's a DS so of course it does upsample.
One can select any of the obligatory filters that have to be used for this process to have the least amount of aliasing.
The stop band of those filters is sample rate dependent.
Only at the lowest sample rates the filter (44.1 and 48kHz) can have an effect in the audible band that's why they are measured.
It would be rather pointless to see the filter response at 96kHz or 192kHz.

You are correct, but I think what Random Ear meant was to up convert the sample rate in order to have the reconstruction filter with a slower slope and push the nyquist frequency further up in the ultrasonics. The filter charts says "at 44.1k sampling"

 

[Jimster480]

From sampling theory we know that content above 22.05 kHz will alias ("fold back down") if sampled at 44.1 kHz. The only way to be able "unfold" that again is by destroying information in the 0 to 22.05 kHz band (which includes the audio band... where the actually audible stuff is stored) beforehand. MQA does this down to leaving only 13 bits of information intact. The freed up bits are used to store the aliased content and nothing else. Actually, this ultrasonic content goes through another lossy compression algorithm...

It's a spectacularly bad compression scheme. Even the "high-res" variant is pretty poor. It takes up more space than a "mid-res" FLAC file while delivering lower fidelity at the same time.

Do we have any proof of this? Because I haven't seen that to be true.

This thread really isn't about MQA, but well... You can watch Amir's video about an example MQA file. The file clearly shows that MQA raises the noise floor above 15 kHz and - in this range - seems to encode information used to reconstruct ultrasonic stuff. That clearly demonstrates, that information in that (audible) range is lost, albeit at a very low level. As the MQA compression has been shown to be lossy, that information can't be fully recovered by "unfolding" the file. Equally, the reconstructed ultrasonic content is incomplete and lossy.

The advantage of "smoother filtering" you might get by using HighRes files can equally be achieved by upsampling, without destroying parts of the audible information by using MQA. I further haven't seen any controlled study that proves the audibility of the "phase and ringing artefacts" you mention.

The fact that some MQA files on Tidal might sound better to you or me is most likely explained by the fact that they're using a different master. The same master could just as well be delivered in 44.1 kHz / 16 bit without a lossy compression.

I am not sure about this. Honestly when recording in 24/44.1 or 24/192khz with my phone or camera in videos; the audio is way clearer with much more depth. This is the case for both racing videos and musical ones. So there is definitely something there which allows the audio to be much clearer. So this entire concept that 16/44.1 is the best ever, just doesn't hold water with me with my own personal testing. I know that most people have never tested a damn thing in their life and like to instead just listen to what other people say, but I for one don't give a damn what other people say and like to test things for myself.
In my experiences the MQA tracks on Tidal which are actually high res; sound better than the non-high res versions. The 16b versions sound no different than the "hifi" ones which sound no different than Spotify.
Personally I have listened to plenty of FLAC's and I haven't heard a single one that at 16/44.1 sounds better than Spotify on "Extreme" or "high" (since the definition of their highest quality changes depending on device) which is 384kbps OGG VBR Q9.
The other reality is that most music is recorded like shit; if you listen to music recorded more than 20 years ago.... 99% chance it is recorded like shit. Why do you ask? ADC's were shit, DAC's were shit. Therefore the performance was shit.
No matter what you swear about; it doesn't change reality and facts. The actual distortion properties in that music at the time of recording are probably around 80 SINAD... so it doesn't matter if your entire stack can deliver 120 SINAD (which is impossible since as we have seen from headphones, they are just in the 90 SINAD territory) you can't hear things which aren't there.
Now with that being said; it doesn't mean that music recorded a long time ago can't sound good... One of my favorite albums is The Bill Evans Trio Live in the Village Vanguard in 1961. It is well recorded and even small background noises can be heard... however the noise floor can be heard as well even with the "remaster" (so I am sure SINAD < 60).

So this is a topic that can be argued about literally forever... however in the few studios that actually know how to record music using modern hardware (and not the 95% of idiot studios recording with 20 year old "r3db00k iS b3St" mentality) the music CAN sound better and can take advantage of modern DAC's and Amps to an extent.
These facts are part of why the audiophile community isn't very large, especially amongst younger people. Since most peoples phones can output sound that is "good enough" for most "modern" recorded garbage (especially the modern pop crap recorded @ 0dbfs or even +1 dbfs) and even if you buy nice headphones.... the differences aren't huge for lots of stuff...
However it depends on your musical tastes and what you care about... as there are lots of well recorded tracks going back half a century for you to enjoy.
When I see everyone gushing over the newest "high SINAD" device I laugh a bit to myself because while it is "cool" it means nothing for audibility and it hasn't for quite a while. I just spent the last 5 years listening to a 1st gen DX7 (SINAD ~108) through a O2, THX 789 & Geshelli Archel2 Pro and "upgrading" to a D70s/SMSL SU-8S does NOTHING. The only thing I 'gained' was MQA and this is after I experienced better audio quality from CERTAIN MQA tracks on Tidal... there are a few CDs from artists who do high quality recordings that have these higher res MQA tracks on TIDAL that really are better than anything else available for streaming.

People who decided to hate on MQA and tell me I should buy FLAC's have no idea what it is like to work all day and listen to music... I would need $10000+ worth of music. To me ... I won't pay $1 for music basically ever. I just don't care to buy it unless it is a small artist i see in person that I want to support directly. I can't imagine wasting the price of a car on music and needing to spend basically hundreds a month buying more. I use streaming services every day and for someone like me; MQA has a benefit for a fair price... the cost of an MQA DAC isn't really much more (or sometimes even less) than non MQA DAC's.... so I don't really understand all the hate... if it solves problem then it solves a problem.
If you understand computers, streaming services and bandwidth then you would understand exactly why and how the concept of something like MQA was created... much like HEVC / x265 / h.265 where data is saved for better quality at a lower overall data cost... the amount of $ saved in bandwidth costs (nevermind the ability to expand your services without paying for more bandwidth) is more than worst the licensing cost.

 

[xnor]

You seem to know exactly the encoding algorythm, we all know that it's lossy but what is in the freed up bit and how the decoder recovers it in not public domain as far as I know.

The signal is requantized to 13 bits using noise shaping. That means it will push a lot of the quantization noise towards low and high frequencies out of the range where hearing is most sensitive. This is something trivial in signal processing, most students should be able to implement this in a couple of minutes.

The difference between the output and the input to this step is NOT recovered in the 16 bit variant at all. It's lost. Hence the "lossy".
This is very close to the "dumbest" lossy compression scheme possible, since it's also nonadpative, which means that it will not even adapt to changes in the audio spectrum.
Just as a reminder: the same thing has been available for example in the form of the free and open-source lossyFLAC which had its initial release 14 years ago ... except that it supports and uses "smarter" adaptive noise shaping by default.

Let's go back to the input. The aforementioned process just frees up 3 bits that can be used to store HF. So the HF is compressed in yet another lossy compression step. The difference between the lossy 3-bit output and input is again discarded in the 16 bit variant.

In all case it is a quite strong statement that you come up with, I would wish you would back it up with something more than just basic general knowledge of sampling theory. Encoding is not necessarily resampling, FLAC demonstrate this already.

Not sure what your point here is. Technically the step of reducing the sampling rate is called downsampling. When it comes to Meridian's many claims then I'd also like to see some evidence.

In all case, you really feel that just based on that you state today that, on Tidal, which has both MQA and 44/16 flac for many albums, that all the MQA files are rigorously of less fidelity than their redbook counter part? It is easy to demonstrate that you would add some artefacts compared to the High Res untouched one, but your own statement I have not heard many demonstration of that really, hoping you'd give me some reading material/ sources to back that up.

Based on what I said today? This info has been out there for 6 years now.
The MQA CD format is strictly lower fidelity in the audio frequency range than any lossless 16-bit format or just plain PCM. On top of that you get 3 bits of lossy compressed HF outside the audio range.

And all the other formats are strictly worse (in fidelity and compression ratio) than an equivalent FLAC file as well.
People have also demonstrated what you're asking for in the past. The loss of information manifests as noise.

 

[PeteL]

The signal is requantized to 13 bits using noise shaping. That means it will push a lot of the quantization noise towards low and high frequencies out of the range where hearing is most sensitive. This is something trivial in signal processing, most students should be able to implement this in a couple of minutes.

The difference between the output and the input to this step is NOT recovered in the 16 bit variant at all. It's lost. Hence the "lossy".
This is very close to the "dumbest" lossy compression scheme possible, since it's also nonadpative, which means that it will not even adapt to changes in the audio spectrum.
Just as a reminder: the same thing has been available for example in the form of the free and open-source lossyFLAC which had its initial release 14 years ago ... except that it supports and uses "smarter" adaptive noise shaping by default.

Let's go back to the input. The aforementioned process just frees up 3 bits that can be used to store HF. So the HF is compressed in yet another lossy compression step. The difference between the lossy 3-bit output and input is again discarded in the 16 bit variant.


Not sure what your point here is. Technically the step of reducing the sampling rate is called downsampling. When it comes to Meridian's many claims then I'd also like to see some evidence.


Based on what I said today? This info has been out there for 6 years now.
The MQA CD format is strictly lower fidelity in the audio frequency range than any lossless 16-bit format or just plain PCM. On top of that you get 3 bits of lossy compressed HF outside the audio range.

And all the other formats are strictly worse (in fidelity and compression ratio) than an equivalent FLAC file as well.
People have also demonstrated what you're asking for in the past. The loss of information manifests as noise.

At what level is this noise floor you are talking about in the audible range?

In all cases, even tough lossy, modeling the whole ultrasonic range with just 3 bits of meta data/coefficients is an astonishly impressive exercise in efficiency. It is obviously not as simple and stupid as representing the content with 3 bits, it has to be operational coefficients using the first pre unfold. We have to give them at least that. No, a student can't do that.

 

[xnor]

so I don't really understand all the hate... if it solves problem then it solves a problem.
If you understand computers, streaming services and bandwidth then you would understand exactly why and how the concept of something like MQA was created... much like HEVC / x265 / h.265 where data is saved for better quality at a lower overall data cost... the amount of $ saved in bandwidth costs (nevermind the ability to expand your services without paying for more bandwidth) is more than worst the licensing cost.

Because none of that is true.
The problem that MQA tried to solve is laid out in the patent:

It is commercially unattractive to issue audio recordings
in both an audiophile version (having a sampling frequency
of typically 96 kHz) and in a format that can be played on
mass-market players.
The possibility of issuing a recording
that is playable on standard mass-market players but also
contains hidden information that allows a special decoder to
retrieve additional bandwidth has been explored several
times previously, [...]
However none has so far provided standard PCM playback
compatibility [...]

Apparently mass-market players couldn't play 96 kHz files in 2014.... Anyway, note how the actual point is NOT about allowing mass-market, non-audiophile consumers to play higher fidelity music and NOT about giving audiophiles (which already had the "holy grail" aka HD audio in their hands!) even higher fidelity but about more successfully reselling the same music.

If it had been about solving the technological problem then Meridian could have simply improved those mass-market players by adding widespread FLAC/96 kHz support. But they instead created a proprietary, lossy codec that results in lower fidelity on those mass-market players, and lower fidelity for audiophiles vs actual high res ... because that apparently makes reselling the same music more financially successful endeavor. Also, it also requires audiophiles to buy new MQA-enabled players and re-buy all their CD in the horrible MQA CD format. And what for? To get lower fidelity than they already had access to.

With MQA CD out of the way, let's talk about streaming: MQA offers worse compression ratio than 20 year old free, open-source, patent-free lossless audio codecs.
You can test this for yourself: requantize and resample a genuine 24/96 track to 17 bits using noise shaping and encode the result with FLAC. You can do that in a lot of DAWs / audio tools with like 5 clicks. The MQA file will be larger and have lower fidelity due to the lossy compression involved. MQA, as described in their patent, would need an extra 7 bits per sample on top of that just to achieve the same fidelity ... which increases the file size much further still.


The comparison with HEVC / AV1 must be a joke. These are video codecs developed by actual experts based on the latest research that deliver significant and objectively verifiable quality improvements while lowering bitrates over their predecessors. MQA is the opposite in every aspect.

 

[RandomEar]

In all cases, even tough lossy, modeling the whole ultrasonic range with just 3 bits of meta data/coefficients is an astonishly impressive exercise in efficiency.

It really isn't. That's 130 kbit/s for 44.1 kHz data. One full AAC stream of stereo music.

 

[Jimster480]

Because none of that is true.
The problem that MQA tried to solve is laid out in the patent:

Apparently mass-market players couldn't play 96 kHz files in 2014.... Anyway, note how the actual point is NOT about allowing mass-market, non-audiophile consumers to play higher fidelity music and NOT about giving audiophiles (which already had the "holy grail" aka HD audio in their hands!) even higher fidelity but about more successfully reselling the same music.

If it had been about solving the technological problem then Meridian could have simply improved those mass-market players by adding widespread FLAC/96 kHz support. But they instead created a proprietary, lossy codec that results in lower fidelity on those mass-market players, and lower fidelity for audiophiles vs actual high res ... because that apparently makes reselling the same music more financially successful endeavor. Also, it also requires audiophiles to buy new MQA-enabled players and re-buy all their CD in the horrible MQA CD format. And what for? To get lower fidelity than they already had access to.

With MQA CD out of the way, let's talk about streaming: MQA offers worse compression ratio than 20 year old free, open-source, patent-free lossless audio codecs.
You can test this for yourself: requantize and resample a genuine 24/96 track to 17 bits using noise shaping and encode the result with FLAC. You can do that in a lot of DAWs / audio tools with like 5 clicks. The MQA file will be larger and have lower fidelity due to the lossy compression involved. MQA, as described in their patent, would need an extra 7 bits per sample on top of that just to achieve the same fidelity ... which increases the file size much further still.


The comparison with HEVC / AV1 must be a joke. These are video codecs developed by actual experts based on the latest research that deliver significant and objectively verifiable quality improvements while lowering bitrates over their predecessors. MQA is the opposite in every aspect.

But what you are saying is the case of how MQA actually works... I've never seen an MQA CD and honestly who TF even owns CDs today? I don't know a single person who actually owns any recent CDs.... I bought a couple to support artists over the years and haven't opened a single one of them. CD is a DEAD format that literally nobody has or cares about anymore. If you are an audiophile with a CD player that you actually use then you are even further behind the times lol
If MQA offered worse performance with larger file sizes than FLAC; then why would TidaL use it and pay for a license for it? They alraedy offer FLAC with their regular "hifi" tier so why would they want to pay money to transfer more data at a worse quality if they could just offer an even higher quality FLAC that uses less data? There is something here that doesn't make sense. Especially since their Hifi tier doesn't sound better than Spotify's highest quality anyway but the file sizes are larger.
How come Tidal isn't using OGG VBR 384 Q9? That is better than FLAC in terms of quality/kbps (which makes me wonder why ANYONE EVER uses FLAC) and also free and open source and has been around forever.... Also why does Spotify's best quality still sound worse than Tidal MQA.... technically by what you are saying the Tidal MQA could be delivered better by FLAC or OGG (considering OGG is better than FLAC) for less data transferred and yet it isn't available? Why?

 

[xnor]

At what level is this noise floor you are talking about in the audible range?

18 dB higher.

In all cases, even tough lossy, modeling the whole ultrasonic range with just 3 bits of meta data/coefficients is an astonishly impressive exercise in efficiency. It is obviously not as simple and stupid as representing the content with 3 bits, it has to be operational coefficients using the first pre unfold. We have to give them at least that. No, a student can't do that.

It's actually a joke. 3 bits @ 44.1 kHz stereo is over 264 kbit/s. AAC can audibly transparently compress *entire tracks* with lower bitrates than that in many cases.
MQA only encodes very low level HF (few bits of actual data) of the same bandwidth at such low fidelity that it would need another ~350 kbit/s on top of that to get back to the mangled 17/18 bit input. Then you're still 6-7 bits away from the lossless 24 bit file.

 

[Jimster480]

18 dB higher.


It's actually a joke. 3 bits @ 44.1 kHz stereo is over 264 kbit/s. AAC can audibly transparently compress *entire tracks* with lower bitrates than that in many cases.
MQA only encodes very low level HF (few bits of actual data) at such low fidelity that it would need another ~350 kbit/s on top of that to get back to the mangled 17/18 bit input.

Then why would streaming services use it? Why does it sound better than standard FLAC offered from the same services.
It would make no sense to pay for something that is already available for free and then actually pay more money for bandwidth every time you deliver that...

 

[mctron]

If MQA offered worse performance with larger file sizes than FLAC; then why would TidaL use it and pay for a license for it?

If this is the defense for MQA it is time to give it up, lol

 

[dartinbout]

After this endless conversation about MQA, high resolution playback and all the deafening noise (not attributable to actual music playing but the endless discussion amongst enthusiasts). If there is no audible (whatever that really means beyond the Nyquist theorem) difference beyond 16\44.1, why does "every mother's son" of a dac, dac\amp, bird-whistle manufacturer create product that will (theoretically) play 768 PCM or DSD 1024? Is this all a giant hoax? Has snake oil become the defacto standard? Are we all living in the audiophile "Matrix"?

I, for one, have a huge library of high resolution files that I enjoy. I also put airplane gasoline in a 50hp British motorcycle and put racing tires on it, despite using it mostly for short commutes.

 

[Jimster480]

If this is the defense for MQA it is time to give it up, lol

I'm waiting for someone who is attacking MQA to prove it being worse and using more space while sounding worse. Then explain why if this was the case there would be studios and streaming services paying for MQA licenses when free alternatives exist.
if they cannot explain this then basically they are just hating on something they don't understand fully or simply don't like because it costs money.

I took a look at it myself, listened to it myself and found that it did produce better sound quality when used properly from a properly mastered source. Clearly if it was terrible and did nothing, then nobody would use it just like DSD; the most dead and worthless format ever created that had no benefits the day it launched. Last time I checked despite DSD being free; there is not a single streaming service that ever has offered DSD. Most players cannot even play DSD and most DSD music was made from PCM versions just because.

After this endless conversation about MQA, high resolution playback and all the deafening noise (not attributable to actual music playing but the endless discussion amongst enthusiasts). If there is no audible (whatever that really means beyond the Nyquist theorem) difference beyond 16\44.1, why does "every mother's son" of a dac, dac\amp, bird-whistle manufacturer create product that will (theoretically) play 768 PCM or DSD 1024? Is this all a giant hoax? Has snake oil become the defacto standard? Are we all living in the audiophile "Matrix"?

I, for one, have a huge library of high resolution files that I enjoy. I also put airplane gasoline in a 50hp British motorcycle and put racing tires on it, despite using it mostly for short commutes.

Exactly my thoughts; if there was no use at all for Hi-Res and it did nothing then we would have never expanded resolution or sample rate at all.... its just like the people who say that 24p video is the only way to make video and yet 60 and even 120fps video is catching on these days for various different things.
I'm sure that back in the day they thought 80 SINAD was the greatest thing ever too... Just like I grew up playing games in 240i then 360i then 480i then 480p then 720p then 900p then 1080p then 1200p then 1440p and then 2160p and now in 1440p and 2160p 120-240hz.... Yet when I was a kid it was said that you can't see more than 60fps and you cant tell the difference of any screen past 200ppi and yet here we are with much higher PPI screens and higher refresh rates...
I would venture to guess when most of the audio research was done; people couldn't tell differences with any higher quality audio because of SINAD limitations in the gear being used for testing... as technology improved either people evolved or they were able to hear better.

 

[dartinbout]

I'm waiting for someone who is attacking MQA to prove it being worse and using more space while sounding worse. Then explain why if this was the case there would be studios and streaming services paying for MQA licenses when free alternatives exist.
if they cannot explain this then basically they are just hating on something they don't understand fully or simply don't like because it costs money.

I took a look at it myself, listened to it myself and found that it did produce better sound quality when used properly from a properly mastered source. Clearly if it was terrible and did nothing, then nobody would use it just like DSD; the most dead and worthless format ever created that had no benefits the day it launched. Last time I checked despite DSD being free; there is not a single streaming service that ever has offered DSD. Most players cannot even play DSD and most DSD music was made from PCM versions just because.

Exactly my thoughts; if there was no use at all for Hi-Res and it did nothing then we would have never expanded resolution or sample rate at all.... its just like the people who say that 24p video is the only way to make video and yet 60 and even 120fps video is catching on these days for various different things.
I'm sure that back in the day they thought 80 SINAD was the greatest thing ever too... Just like I grew up playing games in 240i then 360i then 480i then 480p then 720p then 900p then 1080p then 1200p then 1440p and then 2160p and now in 1440p and 2160p 120-240hz.... Yet when I was a kid it was said that you can't see more than 60fps and you cant tell the difference of any screen past 200ppi and yet here we are with much higher PPI screens and higher refresh rates...
I would venture to guess when most of the audio research was done; people couldn't tell differences with any higher quality audio because of SINAD limitations in the gear being used for testing... as technology improved either people evolved or they were able to hear better.

I'm not sure you really answered by question. I would quibble about "Most players cannot even play DSD and most DSD music was made from PCM versions just because." as a possessor of a huge amount of DSD, high bit rate PCM, 4k video and other such "sh__ty" formats, I can attest to a huge number of players that will play them. I am a PC\Android user and have no problem with playback, in native formats. If higher rate formats, video\music, and hardware (GPU's, Monitors, DACS, etc.) can effortlessly\operate correctly, what the h-e-double hockey sticks is going on? Or we all a bunch of delusional fools, blindly consuming with no actual benefit? Please "Explain It Like I'm 5"? Every monitor, GPU and DAC available in the last few years can play them. Is there a secret conspiracy? Are marketing demons at play?

 

[solderdude]

when recording in 24/44.1 or 24/192khz with my phone or camera in videos; the audio is way clearer with much more depth.

Studio recordings are never made in 24/44.1 nor 16/44.1
Those bitrates are only for the final 'product'.
Phones and video cameras are not meant for high fidelity recording.

If you want to make a point about 24/44.1 not being good enough and distinguishable from say 24/192 you must use a 24/192 recording, down-sample it to 24/44.1 (with a known good re-sampler) and post an ABX showing you can pass this test.

. its just like the people who say that 24p video is the only way to make video and yet 60 and even 120fps video is catching on these days for various different things.

I would not make that comparison. The differences between higher frame rates and lower ones as well as resolution is clearly because it is very evident to everyone looking at a large hires, high FR screen from a close distance. The main reason for all of this is the 'slow' response and resolution of old video gear combined with small sized screens and limited video transmission BW.
This is not the case for audio. In the days of early video high quality recordings and sound reproduction was already there.

As most studios record with at least 24/96 and reproduction gear became available that could do this the market asked for these formats. So higher res audio is available because of the market, not necessarily because it offers better SQ.

DSD is not streamed because it requires a very high BW (not compressible) and requires quite a lot of storage space so really only interesting for discs and people that have an abundance of storage space. It offers no real world benefits and is older that PCM.
One could even say it isn't really a digital format when considering class D is also not considered as a digital amplifier.

MQA is 'too late' and is only interesting for streaming providers so they can offer 'seemingly high-res' recordings with less BW used (which saves them BW = money)
The 'story' around MQA is just to lure in people re-buying everything that they already have, even in 24/192 with the promise of 'better encoding' and 'more real' sound quality.

As we all (should) know by now not much is needed for people to find sound quality to be excellent. MQA thus can sound fine just as 16/44.1 can. If you want MQA you just have to pay a little extra for it (the HW decoder in the DAC) but at least the blue light or lit MQA logo brings you the assurance you have the 'best SQ' even if technically the signal fidelity is not as good as the original.

 

[Snoopy]

Then explain why if this was the case there would be studios and streaming services

Because it's another way to make money for the studios. People are rebuyng music that they already own as CD, SACD, DVD-A or Blu-ray audio because they believe what they read about the next best thing.

This is simply different from going from VHS to a 4K Blu-ray. Even if someone was unhappy with the 40 year old CD format they could have had SACDs since 20 years.

What more could one possibly need with today's DACs and their upsampling algorithms.



There are still some great SACDs and DSD files available. Even new releases but they are often made from the same PCM master. That's absolutely true.

But it's not the case for all releases.

Take the 2002 SACDs of the rolling stones. Those are direct to DSD releases and got converted to pcm later. Or the Mofi SACDs are another good example.

And we wouldn't need these old CD, SACD releases from 20-30 years ago with studios wouldn't mess with the master's . But they do it so music sounds good on all these Bluetooth speakers and Soundbars etc.

So I still buy CDs and DSD files. I rip the CDs and upsample them in roon.
SACD players and DACs have a cut-off frequency. I can set it on my DAC to 52khz for example. So I could still feed the DAC upsampled DSD512 , all the noise gets pushed in the inaudible range of a Bat and Cut-off.

This is basically what MQA kinda claims to do in a nutshell. But they are doing this with lossy audio.

Maybe have a look at "Dr Loudness War".
How today's 192khz files have a Dynamic range of 5-7 while a 30 year old CD had a DR of 11-15.

Or Google UMG (universal media group) and "watermark" . Basically audible DRM noise that gets added to files. It used to be on qobuz, tidal, Spotify, Apple.
They removed it or most of it in the last few years but U might still have old purchases in hi-res that have it.

SACDs and CDs didn't have that problem.

 

[Jimster480]

I'm not sure you really answered by question. I would quibble about "Most players cannot even play DSD and most DSD music was made from PCM versions just because." as a possessor of a huge amount of DSD, high bit rate PCM, 4k video and other such "sh__ty" formats, I can attest to a huge number of players that will play them. I am a PC\Android user and have no problem with playback, in native formats. If higher rate formats, video\music, and hardware (GPU's, Monitors, DACS, etc.) can effortlessly\operate correctly, what the h-e-double hockey sticks is going on? Or we all a bunch of delusional fools, blindly consuming with no actual benefit? Please "Explain It Like I'm 5"? Every monitor, GPU and DAC available in the last few years can play them. Is there a secret conspiracy? Are marketing demons at play?

No, I was saying that DAC's can definitely play these files... 4K video isn't bad... also video quality depends on bitrate just like audio... 16bit audio at 56kbps mp3 isn't the same as 16bit audio at 384kbps... with video the resolution is the same as the "bit depth" on audio and fps is sample rate.

What I am saying is that things like DSD basically have no real world applications and never took off and yet every "audiophile" DAC can play them basically... no streaming service has DSD and players built into windows and mac don't have DSD support. 3rd party players can play DSD but not all of them... That was the point of what I wrote.

Because it's another way to make money for the studios. People are rebuyng music that they already own as CD, SACD, DVD-A or Blu-ray audio because they believe what they read about the next best thing.

This is simply different from going from VHS to a 4K Blu-ray. Even if someone was unhappy with the 40 year old CD format they could have had SACDs since 20 years.

What more could one possibly need with today's DACs and their upsampling algorithms.



There are still some great SACDs and DSD files available. Even new releases but they are often made from the same PCM master. That's absolutely true.

But it's not the case for all releases.

Take the 2002 SACDs of the rolling stones. Those are direct to DSD releases and got converted to pcm later. Or the Mofi SACDs are another good example.

And we wouldn't need these old CD, SACD releases from 20-30 years ago with studios wouldn't mess with the master's . But they do it so music sounds good on all these Bluetooth speakers and Soundbars etc.

So I still buy CDs and DSD files. I rip the CDs and upsample them in roon.
SACD players and DACs have a cut-off frequency. I can set it on my DAC to 52khz for example. So I could still feed the DAC upsampled DSD512 , all the noise gets pushed in the inaudible range of a Bat and Cut-off.

This is basically what MQA kinda claims to do in a nutshell. But they are doing this with lossy audio.

Maybe have a look at "Dr Loudness War".
How today's 192khz files have a Dynamic range of 5-7 while a 30 year old CD had a DR of 11-15.

Or Google UMG (universal media group) and "watermark" . Basically audible DRM noise that gets added to files. It used to be on qobuz, tidal, Spotify, Apple.
They removed it or most of it in the last few years but U might still have old purchases in hi-res that have it.

SACDs and CDs didn't have that problem.

To me this makes no sense. Who are the "people" who are "rebuying music"? I don't know anyone who owns music. Almost nobody who is basically 30 and under "owns" any music anyway. So I doubt that studios are making money from TiDAL streaming MQA specifically considering that TiDAL has to make money.. if MQA used more data and was worse for them and had license fees then they wouldn't pay it or use it.

I didn't say that there was no DSD music; I said that most of the music around especially today is all from PCM.
I am saying that there isn't that much and that most people today (think 98%) don't buy music at all. Cars don't even have CD players anymore...

In terms of the loudness problem; I talked about this in a previous post about 0dbfs recordings or even +1 dbfs recordings... They are just to make music louder for normie fools... Lots of stuff is recorded like garbage today as well; which also makes it worse for us "audiophiles" and our high end equipment which cannot reproduce sounds which aren't there.
However it doesn't mean that there isn't some glorious tracks with super high DR and quality today that isn't normie garbage. That is all I was saying.

 

[dartinbout]

At nearly 70, I come from a decidedly different era. I've 130 SACD and DVDA's, all ripped to their native format. I have 700 CD's all ripped as well to my 20TB NAS with triple backup. I inherently started amassing music well before streaming. I've never had an interest in an online source, probably because for most of my life internet connectivity sucked. Music is the greatest anti-depressant drug and I mainline it for many hours a day. Personally, as a purely subjective voice, without any claims beyond that, higher resolutions, of everything, stirs my dark heart with joy. Nothing else comes close. Watching "The Peripheral" , in 4k, makes this genre junkie cry with joy.

What I really still don't understand is the firestorm of complaint about anything beyond 16\44.1. It chokes every internet audio discussion source like kudzu in a Georgia swamp. I've attributed it to a variety of sources, youth, the ubiquity of ITunes, or obversely, old age and the other worldly passion that vinyl engenders. It could also be the miserly motive and the depth to which many people squeeze Lincoln until the penny cries out. With 3500 albums at my whim, none of these views is satisfactory. I just want people stop invoking Nyquest as a golden tablet delivered by the gods.

 

[Snoopy]

In that case I'm probably to old to matter anymore I'm 36 this year and I'm streaming music through Qobuz and Tidal (roon).
I'm still buying CDs, DSD files (highresaudio still sells some, there is tons of classical and jazz in DSD). Or I purchase stuff that I really like through Bandcamp, qobuz store (sublime subscription).

And while I have Prime Video, Netflix, Apple TV, Disney and YouTube premium I'm still buying some movies and TV shows in the iTunes store.

 

[Jimster480]

At nearly 70, I come from a decidedly different era. I've 130 SACD and DVDA's, all ripped to their native format. I have 700 CD's all ripped as well to my 20TB NAS with triple backup. I inherently started amassing music well before streaming. I've never had an interest in an online source, probably because for most of my life internet connectivity sucked. Music is the greatest anti-depressant drug and I mainline it for many hours a day. Personally, as a purely subjective voice, without any claims beyond that, higher resolutions, of everything, stirs my dark heart with joy. Nothing else comes close. Watching Lestat, in 4k, makes this genre junkie cry with joy.

What I really still don't understand is the firestorm of complaint about anything beyond 16\44.1. It chokes every internet audio discussion source like kudzu in a Georgia swamp. I've attributed it to a variety of sources, youth, the ubiquity of ITunes, or obversely, old age and the other worldly passion that vinyl engenders. It could also be the miserly motive and the depth to which many people squeeze Lincoln until the penny cries out. With 3500 albums at my whim, none of these views is satisfactory. I just want people stop invoking Nyquest as a golden tablet delivered by the gods.

Amen to that. I definitely understand where you come from as my parents had a large collection of music.
I also agree that higher resolution is generally better especially combined with higher bit rates and made even better with newer codecs.