The sound quality of DSD?

[trl]

• S/N ratio of DSD at high volume is bad. At high volumes, you can hear noise. Not good at all!

This is probably happening due to the poor DSD firmware implementation inside the Sonata HD Pro. I have an audible background noise coming from my older ASUS Essence One MKii while playing DSD file "natively", while when switching to software decoding I get the perfect audio output and without any audible noise. So, try software decoding and compare with the native decoding.

 

[krabapple]

This is probably happening due to the poor DSD firmware implementation inside the Sonata HD Pro. I have an audible background noise coming from my older ASUS Essence One MKii while playing DSD file "natively", while when switching to software decoding I get the perfect audio output and without any audible noise. So, try software decoding and compare with the native decoding.

Yup. The abundant shaped noise in DSD audio is beyond the range of human hearing. So DSD 'noise' is either some poor hardware implementation, or some stress effect in the audible range in a playback chain that cannot handle the ultrasonic noise being fed to it. (This possibility is the reason DSD spec recommended a 50 or 100kHz lowpass filter in the final output stage of SACD players)

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

I would suggest that DSD is unnecessary and it's full of audiophile BS. High resolution PCM is at least as good, and without the ultrasonic noise-shaping issues, see https://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/04/musings-on-sacd-dsd-audio.html

Thank you for this post. Now I feel less bad for mercilessly 44.1/24-ing high resolution DSD formats. Hey Foobars converter did well enough too.

On my hunt for multichannel music, I came across NativeDSD.com, a lot of music but I really dislike the file format.
Especially in multichannel, the file sizes just get beyond absurd.

I bought the Album "Polarity" from the Hoff Ensemble, lovely music but dear God, a whopping 27.7GB for 1hr of music. oO
Converted one track to PCM 88.2 and ran it though music scope: content is down -80dB @ 20KHz already, so most of these 27GB is just ... well inaudible data junk. After conversion the filesize is a much more reasonable 1.2GB.

I just don't get it. WHY? Why do people store 10s of GB of nonsensical, inaudible data and think that is a good thing or even of higher quality?

 

[Frank Dernie]

I just don't get it. WHY? Why do people store 10s of GB of nonsensical, inaudible data and think that is a good thing or even of higher quality?

Non technically minded people are very susceptible to BS numbers.

 

[danadam]

I bought the Album "Polarity" from the Hoff Ensemble, lovely music but dear God, a whopping 27.7GB for 1hr of music.

Couldn't you pick 96 kHz flac?:

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

Couldn't you pick 96 kHz flac?

Yop, that's what I actually bought but their downloader insisted on 256DSD *shrug*
Must be some kind of bug.

So I thought: what the heck, might as well give it a try. Most certainly will not try again.

 

[mkt]

I find NativeDSD overpriced and a little obsessed with DSD. Polarity, like most 2L recordings that I've heard, is a pretty good demonstration of how great multichannel can sound. It was recorded in DXD (352.8kHz/24bit), and putting it in DSD seems a little wacky to me, although that's what I have. (Polarity details including mic pics here http://www.2l.no/pages/album/145.html)

Daniel Shore of Sono Luminous has some reasonable comments on DSD vs PCM and SACD vs Blu-ray. https://www.sonoluminus.com/news/2015/why-do-we-choose-blu-ray-audio-over-sacd

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

Well if you are gunning for multichannel, there aren't that many sources I know of. :/ (I'm new to the multichannel gig)
I'm not going to touch SACD with a 10 foot pole.
Since I am dependent on routing the signal though my PC in order to get it to the Dirac Live processor, that format is of no use to me.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Yop, that's what I actually bought but their downloader insisted on 256DSD *shrug*
Must be some kind of bug.

Since I am dependent on routing the signal though my PC in order to get it to the Dirac Live processor, that format is of no use to me.

Or, perhaps, it was due to some unfamiliarity with the website. Over dozens of downloads from that website, it has never "insisted" on any format other than the one I selected.

Well if you are gunning for multichannel, there aren't that many sources I know of. :/ (I'm new to the multichannel gig)
I'm not going to touch SACD with a 10 foot pole.

Yes, there are too few sources for multichannel files. Moreover, the vast majority of multichannel Classical recordings are in SACD/DSD format and that alone makes it essential. Unfortunately or not, there isn't a real alternative at this time.

 

[mkt]

If you drink the multichannel kool-aid (and I have ), ripping SACDs is pretty good way to get content for a computer-based system. I just got a bunch from my local library.

 

[Buster Chestnut]

I just don't get it. WHY? Why do people store 10s of GB of nonsensical, inaudible data and think that is a good thing or even of higher quality?

In general, the price of storage is so cheap these days that this becomes a non-factor, imo. There may be fringe cases where someone would need to increase hardware capacity (i.e. invest hundreds to expand NAS capabilities) but on the whole, I’m not sure how file size becomes a relevant detractor. There are plenty of scalable cloud solutions as well that make sense as a multi-purpose alternative (e.g. storing photos, movies, etc. in addition to audio files).

As others have pointed out, sometimes your audio file format options are limited.

 

[muslhead]

In general, the price of storage is so cheap these days that this becomes a non-factor, imo. There may be fringe cases where someone would need to increase hardware capacity (i.e. invest hundreds to expand NAS capabilities) but on the whole, I’m not sure how file size becomes a relevant detractor. There are plenty of scalable cloud solutions as well that make sense as a multi-purpose alternative (e.g. storing photos, movies, etc. in addition to audio files).

As others have pointed out, sometimes your audio file format options are limited.

The other one that is almost always forgotten is if you already have a library of them from the past, what are you going to do? Throw them out? Not use? I cant tell the difference so there is no reason to toss them out and spend money to repurchase something i already have that is not broken.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

Or, perhaps, it was due to some unfamiliarity with the website. Over dozens of downloads from that website, it has never "insisted" on any format other than the one I selected.

I think I'd notice it if I paid more and I am not talking about the site, I am talking about their (beta) download program.

If you drink the multichannel kool-aid (and I have ), ripping SACDs is pretty good way to get content for a computer-based system. I just got a bunch from my local library.

Yeah but if I understood correctly, I'd have to be able to get my hands on some ancient drive that can use a firmware bug in order to rip them. <_<

In general, the price of storage is so cheap these days that this becomes a non-factor, imo.

Well 10 albums = 300 GB vs 12GB. That's a pretty heavy difference, considering that there is no increased sonic fidelity to be had.
I most certainly are too stingy to waste storage space on that.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I think I'd notice it if I paid more and I am not talking about the site, I am talking about their (beta) download program.

My comment about this stands. I have had a few downloads that failed or that were faulty but all were corrected with a subsequent attempt. Of course, I cannot see what you saw.*

Yeah but if I understood correctly, I'd have to be able to get my hands on some ancient drive that can use a firmware bug in order to rip them. <_<

Actually, it is quite trivial and inexpensive. Again, I am certain that I am not seeing this through your eyes.

* Note that there is an on-screen chat box to comment and/or report on difficulties. I've used that a few times and got swift responses.

 

[mkt]

Yeah but if I understood correctly, I'd have to be able to get my hands on some ancient drive that can use a firmware bug in order to rip them. <_<

Sounds crazy I know, but as part of my pandemic foray in multichannel-land, I got a Sony one in Aug 2020 from Ebay for $40, which is not much different from the price of a fancy download.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

Of course, I cannot see what you saw.

Actually, it is quite trivial and inexpensive. Again, I am certain that I am not seeing this through your eyes.

Ohh that can be remedied:

As you can see: no choice in the dropdown menu. Perhaps a beta bug or it's supposed to be a perk, who knows. Didn't find any info.
Via the website it offers me the correct 96/24DL.

I have not done extensive research into the SACD problem, so I cannot comment on how expensive the drives would be or where I could reliably source one (I do not trust eBay). I have a Sony UHD player here, so direct playback would be a non-issue. I really do not listen to music w/o Dirac anymore though.

Sounds crazy I know, but as part of my pandemic foray in multichannel-land, I got a Sony one in Aug 2020 from Ebay for $40, which is not much different from the price of a fancy download.

Neat, having such a device sure would open up a lot of options. Can you give my any details on your device?

 

[mansr]

I have not done extensive research into the SACD problem, so I cannot comment on how expensive the drives would be or where I could reliably source one (I do not trust eBay).

For me, price isn't the issue. I already have suitable hardware. I simply dislike the idea of relying on accidental features in order to access music I've bought.

 

[Buster Chestnut]

Well 10 albums = 300 GB vs 12GB. That's a pretty heavy difference, considering that there is no increased sonic fidelity to be had.
I most certainly are too stingy to waste storage space on that.

DSD64 isn’t 25x larger than 24/44K; not even close. Do you know what the storage capacity of a single-layer SACD is? Hint: it’s not 30GB. You are orders of magnitude off here.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Ohh that can be remedied:

Did you ask?

I have a Sony UHD player here, so direct playback would be a non-issue.

Perhaps you are fortunate in that many Sony UHD are among those with ripping capability. Here are information sources:
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/sony-blu-ray-players-used-for-sacd-ripping.26078/
https://gist.github.com/willsthompson/a4ececdee9cbc4e369eb923e136a8243
https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/...ing-an-oppo-or-pioneer-yes-its-true/#comments

 

[Kal Rubinson]

For me, price isn't the issue. I already have suitable hardware. I simply dislike the idea of relying on accidental features in order to access music I've bought.

I think of it as fortuitous rather than accidental.