Playback DSD (natively) with a PC

[LuvMyQuad]

I'm talking about the same source SACD played via the analogue outputs of the Oppo BDP-103 or BDP-95 (I own both). And I repeat that there is a huge difference.

I'm not saying that DSD is superior to PCM but the conversion to PCM as done by the Oppo far from perfect

That is why I started a thread about the BDP-103, I was shocked at the difference in sound between native DSD and DSD converted to PCM. I did not expect it as I had previously bought into the opinion of the "experts" who suggested that there could be no difference!

Yes, but par4ken doesn't seem to really believe that. He seems to think it is a matter of DSD and PCM sounding intrinsically different, with the Oppo doing it *right* and thus revealing a DSD sound so much better that it BLOWS HIM AWAY.

Above are excerpts from what he has written, (emphasis is mine). Superiority of DSD vs PCM isn't discussed, and he never implies that. His comments apply only to conversions, mainly within his oppo.

 

[par4ken]

If you have an audible difference well out of perception bias territory, that's matter of fact! Other's have demonstrated that with proper transcoding, any difference should be expected to be within perception bias. Not calling you out! More saying they had a different expectation from their experience.

Correct, I don't think that I said that good sounding conversions can not be made. I do however believe that DSD should remain as DSD wherever possible. I believe that the Oppo doesn't do a great job of DSD to PCM conversion. The difference in sound quality is even mentioned in the manual! They don't say that DSD blows away PCM (converted from DSD) but only that they sound different, you may prefer one or the other; my point is that they acknowledge the difference! And by the way hi-rez PCM sources sound great via the Oppo.

It kind of sounds like you believe that close of a transcode to not be possible and perhaps those making that claim have poor enough hearing to miss it? Dismissing the possibility that a better transcode is possible with different software (than the code written into the OS of that stand alone disc player - that you kind of don't have any way to vet like an app on a computer). And ssully can't imagine anyone would dismiss such a thing!

I didn't say that, I do get good sounding transcodes using Foobar with the short filter at 176.4 KHZ 24 bit. I haven't verified if they sound as good as native DSD, I will compare at some point. I will not be doing double blind testing, so don't ask!

he hasn't shown any concern at all for ruling out bias,

What possible bias did I have! I picked out the PCM sound on a number of different occasions, and was proven right. Each time the disc was playing in PCM. I didn't know that the player was not set to DSD but guessed right based on the sound.

Such bias can come from something as simple as a small output level difference.

How does a miniscule level difference make any difference when we are not even doing double blind testing! I adjust the level up and down while listening, so what, the sound quality is the same!

Why do you continue to insist that apples are the same as oranges?

 

[jimfisheye]

...

How does a miniscule level difference make any difference...

Louder always sounds better to humans. At least this is my experience. I thought it was universal? I know I read about it before testing the theory on myself FWIW. I've done this as a parlor trick with clients before that had never considered it. Take the very same audio file. Turn down 1 copy of it by 0.5db or 1.0db. Get them to pick the better sounding one. Then reveal it's the same file at the end.

Anyway anyway anyway...
Someone asked basically if investing in a different version of one of the most expensive hi-fi components next to speakers - a DSD DAC (and multiple channels of it) - was worth it. (DA converters and AD converters are still kind of a big ticket item. ie. $$$$)

I'm saying no and suggesting to prove it to yourself with some of the above methods rather than believing anything I say or claim to hear.

 

[Sal1950]

Louder always sounds better to humans. At least this is my experience. I thought it was universal? I know I read about it before testing the theory on myself FWIW. I've done this as a parlor trick with clients before that had never considered it. Take the very same audio file. Turn down 1 copy of it by 0.5db or 1.0db. Get them to pick the better sounding one. Then reveal it's the same file at the end.

Absolutely, Trained ears can easily identify a 0.5db across the spectrum difference between 2 files.
It may even be 0.1db under the best conditions.

 

[par4ken]

Anyway anyway anyway...
Someone asked basically if investing in a different version of one of the most expensive hi-fi components next to speakers - a DSD DAC (and multiple channels of it) - was worth it. (DA converters and AD converters are still kind of a big ticket item. ie. $$$$)

I would have said If you have the money then go for it. It might/should make a difference. With high end audio you have to spend enormous sums of money to get even slightly better quality.

Most of us have other financial commitments and have to curb recklessly spending like that, but there are far sillier things that you could spend your money on.

 

[Sal1950]

It might/should make a difference. With high end audio you have to spend enormous sums of money to get even slightly better quality.

Digital Audio Conversion has been a known mathematical process for decades.
For one DAC to sound detectably different from another simply means some are making poor implementations
of most available chips and good design. Sans a bunch of bells, whistles, and fancy touch screens, $250 will buy you SOTA sound.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/topping-rd3-tp-balanced-dac-review.47196/

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I would have said If you have the money then go for it. It might/should make a difference. With high end audio you have to spend enormous sums of money to get even slightly better quality.

Might? Should?

It has been shown many many times that spending much more often ends in less accurate performance. Better cosmetics, yes. Better build quality, yes. Better performance, not so much.

 

[par4ken]

Absolutely, Trained ears can easily identify a 0.5db across the spectrum difference between 2 files.
It may even be 0.1db under the best conditions.

Today when I listen to the radio it sounds far better when I turn it down!

Back in the day there were those who didn't think music sounded good without being cranked up past the point of distortion!

 

[par4ken]

Might? Should?

It has been shown many many times that spending much more often ends in less accurate performance. Better cosmetics, yes. Better build quality, yes. Better performance, not so much.

Agree, but if you have the money why not use it? I love high end gear but would still look only for deals. Performance of high end gear is measured in part by how it sounds, sometimes less accurate might sound better to some. Build quality is very important to me.

Stay years behind the curve and you can often find good deals. The same goes for computer equipment. My current PC is the best and most powerful that I have ever owned but it won't do Windows 11. It cost a small fraction of my first computer.

 

[barfle]

Of course, it’s possible to hear things you can’t measure, and measure things you can’t hear. Our measurement technology is not perfect, and neither are anyone’s ears.

That being said, if you can hear the difference betweed a good quality DSD file and its PCM conversion, something is wrong with the conversion, and I’m pretty certain it could be measured.

And to answer the original question, no, not on my setup.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

So how about getting things back on topic???

As we know, it's not possible to output a stereo/multi-channel DSD bitstream from a computer via HDMI to an AVR, so the current options are: -

01: Set-up the computers media player to transcode the stereo/multi-channel DSD bitstream to a stereo/multi-channel PCM stream and pass the PCM stream via HDMI to an AVR.

02: Set-up the computers media player to transcode the stereo/multi-channel DSD bitstream to a stereo/multi-channel PCM stream and get the computer to pass analogue via its analogue audio outputs to an AVR or other form of amplification.

03: Set-up the computers media player to transcode the stereo/multi-channel DSD bitstream to a stereo/multi-channel PCM DoP (DSD over PCM) stream and pass the PCM DoP stream via USB to a supporting USB DAC/decoder.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Owen Smith]

Did I miss anything?

Get the computer's media player to play DSD direct to the DAC in the PC and output it over analogue. There are multi channel DACs available as cards to go in a PC, a USB external DAC is not the only option.

There's also the option of a FireWire DAC, but that's generally been superceded by USB these days.

 

[par4ken]

Get the computer's media player to play DSD direct to the DAC in the PC and output it over analogue. There are multi channel DACs available as cards to go in a PC, a USB external DAC is not the only option.

There's also the option of a FireWire DAC, but that's generally been superceded by USB these days.

Any examples? Most DACs only do PCM. I let Foobar play .dsf direct but it still has to use the programmed settings to convert to PCM to be able to output analogue.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

Get the computer's media player to play DSD direct to the DAC in the PC and output it over analogue. There are multi channel DACs available as cards to go in a PC, a USB external DAC is not the only option.

Nice one... This is how my OPPO does it. Are there any prefered audio cards for doing this?

 

[dabl]

One of the gotchas with using multichannel analog ins on typical AVRs such as Denon/Marantz is you lose bass management and room correction such as Audyssey.

The loss of bass management alone is a deal breaker for me.

Can you handle that in other ways? Yes but now you're in the weeds again.

 

[mkt]

Absolutely, Trained ears can easily identify a 0.5db across the spectrum difference between 2 files.
It may even be 0.1db under the best conditions.

#2

 

[Sal1950]

#2

Excellent video. I can't believe in all my years as an objectivist type audiophile I
never ran into that before. And from one of the most famous recording engineers in history.
Thanks

 

[Sal1950]

Excellent video. I can't believe in all my years as an objectivist type audiophile I
never ran into that before. And from one of the most famous recording engineers in history.
Thanks

Now I understand, that was brand new yesterday.. DUH

 

[Kal Rubinson]

There's nothing new in Bob Katz' nice and brief video but it deserves to be heard and understood by anyone who does not already know these things.

 

[jimfisheye]

This is why qualifications are always asked for in these discussions. A shootout between different analog devices - like comparing the outputs from two different DA converters - is actually a pretty brutal critical thing to set up! There's no "close enough" that wouldn't completely invalidate the test. So it's inevitable that someone will ask about the setup if an A/B shootout between actual AD converters is mentioned.

You also really need silent and lag free A/B switching. This can be tricky enough with your favorite DAW when just doing a media file shootout on the same system! (Do the solo buttons click/glitch? Crap! Let's try the mute buttons then. Can I group the two tracks to get a single button push for that? And so forth...)

Audio memory within perception bias is fully impossible. And we're talking about shootouts between high end audiophile gear. Hence the lag free and glitch free A/B. Any slight distraction blows the whole thing. An idea that someone could remember the sound for moments or seconds and hit play on a 2nd device all those moments later and call that an A/B is ludicrous.

Katz is 100% on point there!