Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[HedgeHog]

Hi,

I was encoding some CDs via MC 21 and noticed that I can rip these to DSF/DFF as well as FLAC.  While the disc is limited to 16/44.1, is there any benefit encoding to DSD (single or double)?  I tried a disc and it plays but not sure if there's any improvement (the files get much larger).  So I'm checking users consensus.


Thanks in advance.

-Hedwig

[blgentry]

In my opinion there is no benefit to ripping a CD into DSD.  You can't create new information from thin air.  All of the information on the disc will be in a FLAC rip at 16 bit 44.1kHz.

Brian.

[Awesome Donkey]

Yes, the advice here would be to keep CDs ripped as FLAC/APE/ALAC/etc. and DSD as DSF/DFF. There's no benefit whatsoever from converting ripped CDs to DSD. Only thing you'd be doing is wasting hard drive space.

[Arindelle]

no benefit what so ever .

[HedgeHog]

Thanks all...it helps to confirm my initial thoughts.

Cheers.

PS.  How can one rip DSD?  Without a PS3, that is.

-H

[Awesome Donkey]

PS.  How can one rip DSD?  Without a PS3, that is.

That's pretty much it, actually. Old PS3s running old specific firmware.

Of course, there's some sites where you can buy DSD files, like Acoustic Sounds.

[RD James]

FLAC is lossless, DSD is a conversion.
You should never convert when ripping, you can only lose quality.

[crenca]

There have been several reply's that say "there is no benefit" to ripping CD to DSD and I will have to agree in this context (the way you likely use JRiver, your likely playback chain which might not even be able to play DSD files, etc.) although it is not this simple.  In other words, there are certain situations where using DSD can improve sound quality (I would even say "significantly" - for example in my "audiophile" playback chain, though I don't "rip" CD directly to DSD). 

However, given your likely context (which you did not outline) it is probably better for you to rip to a standard PCM format.

Also FLAC is a compression (lossless - not "lossy" like mp3 and the like) format and not to be directly compared to DSD, PCM, etc.

[RD James]

You're complicating the issue.
Some DACs sound better when fed a DSD signal, it's true.
But that is something which should be done on playback, or as a conversion from your master files - not when ripping.
 
When ripping, you cannot do better than a 1:1 copy of what's on the disc - and that is what FLAC gives you.

[Arindelle]

However, given your likely context (which you did not outline) it is probably better for you to rip to a standard PCM format.

I think the OP did outline it. He's ripping from a CD. That means redbook PCM 16bit 44.1K to me.  He asked for a user "consensus" as to whether there is a benefit to rip to DSF/DFF over FLAC. Seems pretty straightforward.

I'd be tempted to ask when would it ever be a beneficial to rip a standard CD to DSF/DFF, but I'm afraid of what the responses might be, so I'm not going there

[HedgeHog]

Thanks again for the discussion, guys!

Yeah, I'm ripping.  I did my whole collection via iTunes to ALAC initially (for that crappy Apple TV G2).  I used to use iTunes but now pretty much play with MC or, sometimes, use Bughead Emperor.  iTunes does a pretty random job of ripping, in my case.  Some song stutter pretty badly so I thought I should re-rip.  But given the opportunity, I was thinking changing format to FLAC (or DSF/DFF).

For output, my DAC is the Chord Hugo TT.  I think it prefers PCM as I recall it does DSD via DOP.  So maybe that is my answer...keep it in PCM.

My last "think aloud" part wrt ripping SACD is because I have some of those single layer SACD discs that I would love to get to a file format.  I do a lot more listening with my PC rig than my "home system" so playing those SACD via a disc player is not very frequent.

Anyway, I really appreciate the opinions!

Cheers,
-H

[blgentry]

I've had great results with XLD, having ripped several hundred CDs with it.

Brian.

[dtc]

For output, my DAC is the Chord Hugo TT.  I think it prefers PCM as I recall it does DSD via DOP.  So maybe that is my answer...keep it in PCM.

The TT is a nice DAC.

DoP delivers  pure DSD to the DAC, so using DoP versus native DSD should not produce any different results. DoP just packs the DSD into a PCM stream and the DAC then unpacks the stream into the original DSD signal. One of the main reasons for DoP is that Apple does not support native DSD, so a workaround was needed. Manufacturers implement DoP so they only have to have one DSD implementation.

The normal criticism of DSD on the Chord DACs is that  that they convert to PCM for output, but Chord says that is an oversimplification of the process they use.  They do not use a simple DSD filter, but it also is not PCM.  Rather than getting involved in that discussion,  I would suggest you use MC to convert some PCM files to DSD and give them a try with the TT. You can also download some sample DSD tacks and convert them to PCM and compare the results. Then, decide for yourself.

[crenca]

The TT is a nice DAC.

DoP delivers  pure DSD to the DAC, so using DoP versus native DSD should not produce any different results. DoP just packs the DSD into a PCM stream and the DAC then unpacks the stream into the original DSD signal. One of the main reasons for DoP is that Apple does not support native DSD, so a workaround was needed. Manufacturers implement DoP so they only have to have one DSD implementation.

The normal criticism of DSD on the Chord DACs is that  that they convert to PCM for output, but Chord says that is an oversimplification of the process they use.  They do not use a simple DSD filter, but it also is not PCM.  Rather than getting involved in that discussion,  I would suggest you use MC to convert some PCM files to DSD and give them a try with the TT. You can also download some sample DSD tacks and convert them to PCM and compare the results. Then, decide for yourself.

While I have never heard that Chord DAC before, I have heard many folks report that they prefer it's sound when fed with high sample rate PCM vs. DSD but the OP could try it for himself just as you say.

I agree with the above posters as well, usually you would not normally want to "rip" 16/44 to DSD simply for playback - playback software can handle that on the fly for you.  In a situation where storage space was not an issue, etc. it could be done however if you decided all you would ever listen to was a certain rate DSD...

[dtc]

While I have never heard that Chord DAC before, I have heard many folks report that they prefer it's sound when fed with high sample rate PCM vs. DSD but the OP could try it for himself just as you say.

Many in the DSD crowd have strong opinions. Some of the more vocal commenters on the DSD on Chord DACs start out by stating that it converts to PCM and I sometimes think that is a significant part of their evaluation. That is why I always suggest listening for yourself. I have a Chord Hugo which uses the same FPGA design as the TT, but the TT has a more robust power supply and is in a desktop package.  I'll leave it to the OP to decide how he likes the DSD versus PCM.

[AndyU]

The guy who designed the Chord Hugo TT, Rob Watts, has this to say about DSD. He isn't very impressed. He's replying to a question about a different DAC, the Mojo, but there is a lot of commonality between the Mojo and the TT ..

Converting the original file into DSD or up-sampling is a very bad idea. The rule of thumb is to always maintain the original data as Mojo's processing power is way more complex and capable than any PC or mobile device.
 
DSD as a format has major problems with it; in particular it has two major and serious flaws:
 
1. Timing. The noise shapers used with DSD have severe timing errors. You can see this easily using Verilog simulations. If you use a step change transient (op is zero, then goes high) with a large signal, then do the same with a small signal, then you get major differences in the analogue output - the large signal has no delay, the small signal has a much larger delay. This is simply due to the noise shaper requiring time for the internal integrators to respond to the error. This amplitude related timing error is of the order of micro seconds and is very audible. Whenever there is a timing inaccuracy, the brain has problems making sense of the sound, and perceives the timing error has a softness to the transient; in short timing errors screw up the ability to hear the starting and stopping of notes.
 
2. Small signal accuracy. Noise shapers have problems with very small signals in that the 64 times 1 bit output (DSD 64) does not have enough innate resolution to accurately resolve small signals. What happens when small signals are not properly reproduced? You get a big degradation in the ability to perceive depth information, and this makes the sound flat with no layering of instruments in space. Now there is no limit to how accurate the noise shaper needs to be; with the noise shaper that is with Mojo I have 1000 times more small signal resolution than conventional DAC's - and against DSD 64 its 10,000 times more resolving power. This is why some many users have reported that Mojo has so much better space and sounds more 3D with better layering - and its mostly down to the resolving power of the pulse array noise shaper. This problem of depth perception is unlimited in the sense that to perfectly reproduce depth you need no limit to the resolving power of the noise shaper.
 
So if you take a PCM signal and convert it to DSD you hear two problems - a softness to the sound, as you can no longer perceive the starting and stopping of notes; and a very flat sound-stage with no layering as the small signals are not reproduced accurately enough, so the brain can't use the very small signals that are used to give depth perception.
 
The second issue in using the transport to up-sample (44.1 to 176.4 say) is that the up-samplers in a PC or mobile device are very crude, with very limited processing power and poor algorithms. This results in timing problems, and like with DSD you can't hear the starting and stopping of notes correctly. These timing problems also screw up the perception of timbre (how bright or dark instruments sound), the pitch reproduction of bass (starting transients of bass lets you follow the bass tune), and of course stereo imagery (left right placement is handled by the brain using timing differences from the ears). Now Mojo has a very advanced algorithm (WTA) that is designed to maximise timing reconstruction (the missing timing information from one sample to the next) and huge processing power to more accurately calculate what the original analogue values are from one sample to the next. Its got 500 times more processing power than normal, and this allows much more accurate reconstruction of the original analogue signal.
 
So the long and the short is don't let the source mess with the signal (except perhaps with a good EQ program) and let Mojo deal with the original data, as Mojo is way more capable.
 
Rob

Link

[fooze]

Also FLAC is a compression (lossless - not "lossy" like mp3 and the like) format and not to be directly compared to DSD, PCM, etc.

Can you expand on this?

[glynor]

Can you expand on this?

Let's not. That could quickly devolve into a religious technobabble fight which will accomplish nothing other than getting this thread locked.

FLAC is a lossless compression system. This is no different than putting your PCM WAV files in a ZIP file, and then extracting them before you play them, except it is way easier to do and the compression is more efficient because FLAC is designed to compress audio and ZIP is designed to compress text.

In any case, the PCM audio data that goes into a FLAC file is the same as the PCM audio data that comes out of it, and this is easy to mathematically (and functionally) prove. For any fights discussions beyond that, Interact is not the appropriate venue.

[JimH]

hydrogenaud.io would be a good place.  Or computeraudiophile.com.  You would probably get two different answers.

JRiver's position on this is that ripping a CD to FLAC is the right answer.  There is no advantage to converting FLAC to DSD.

Closing this thread now.

[glynor]

I split out the "Using MC to rip" discussion and moved it over to the Mac board:
https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=103148.0