Print

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

[verfan]

I recently started encoding my CDs with JRiver, using DSD512 as the encoding rate. However when I go back to play the .dsf files, JRiver displays the files as DSD256. Anyone have any ideas why the encoding rate rips to DSD256 instead of DSD512?

[JimH]

That may be what the device you're playing to supports with the connection you're using.

[dtc]

What value does the sample rate tag have?

[verfan]

What value does the sample rate tag have?

DSD256

[verfan]

That may be what the device you're playing to supports with the connection you're using.

When purchasing a drive how would you know what the drive capabilities are rated at for DSD?

[JimH]

If you're ripping ordinary audio CD's, there is no reason to encode to anything special.  Just use the default settings and encode to FLAC.  Later, you can convert it you want to, though there's no point in doing so.  MC can convert on the fly during playback.

A Super Audio CD is different.  The wiki has a topic on SACD.

[dtc]

I ripped a track to DSD512 and the sample rate tags shows DSD512.    Not sure why the difference.

[verfan]

I ripped a track to DSD512 and the sample rate tags shows DSD512.    Not sure why the difference.

What is the make and model of your optical drive?

[dtc]

$23 usb 3.0 drive from Gotega, although that name is only on Amazon. The drive and its box only say Made in China.  It is my traveling drive.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07MG5Y5W9/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

[verfan]

If you're ripping ordinary audio CD's, there is no reason to encode to anything special.  Just use the default settings and encode to FLAC.  Later, you can convert it you want to, though there's no point in doing so.  MC can convert on the fly during playback.

A Super Audio CD is different.  The wiki has a topic on SACD.

Too many CDs to do it twice.

[verfan]

$23 usb 3.0 drive from Gotega, although that name is only on Amazon. The drive and its box only say Made in China.  It is my traveling drive.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07MG5Y5W9/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I don't know what I did, but disc are ripping in DSD512 format now. Only thing I was changing was the Audio device type and I would think that this what cause it to start working. I'm going to experiment with the Audio device type to see if that makes a difference.

[kr4]

What is the make and model of your optical drive?

It is unlikely to have anything to do with the drive on which you ripped the disc or the drive on which you store the files.  The only likely external component that can influence what you see when you attempt to play the files is the target device (DAC or other endpoint).

[verfan]

It is unlikely to have anything to do with the drive on which you ripped the disc or the drive on which you store the files.  The only likely external component that can influence what you see when you attempt to play the files is the target device (DAC or other endpoint).

HMMM... It had to do something with the JRiver Encoder, not the DAC. I say this because when you hover over file it displays the information and in the case with files that I ripped earlier would display as DSD256, even though I selected the encoder to encode at OCT DSD (512fs /22.5 MHz).

[kr4]

HMMM... It had to do something with the JRiver Encoder, not the DAC. I say this because when you hover over file it displays the information and in the case with files that I ripped earlier would display as DSD256, even though I selected the encoder to encode at OCT DSD (512fs /22.5 MHz).

I typed that before reading your last post and was responding without that info and without this post.  My presumption was that the error was in playback, not in the ripping.  Sorry.

[verfan]

I typed that before reading your last post and was responding without that info and without this post.  My presumption was that the error was in playback, not in the ripping.  Sorry.

By the way, is there any differences in terms of quality between converting, say, MP3 files to DSD and CD to DSD?

[Awesome Donkey]

No, there isn't as CDs, MP3s, etc. are all PCM audio and DSD is something else. I'm going to be blunt here but the general rule of thumb is you shouldn't convert any lossy formats like MP3s to DSD (honestly you shouldn't convert lossy files to lossless PCM like FLAC, APE, etc. either), nor should you rip CDs to DSD. The PCM to DSD conversion being done during the CD ripping process is a lossy conversion, which means you're losing audio data every time you do the PCM to DSD (or DSD to PCM) conversion. You gain nothing from ripping CDs to DSD - in fact you're wasting storage space by doing so with lossy DSD256/DSD512 files ripped from a CD. You can't magically add anything new to the audio data with the DSD conversion that isn't already there by ripping CDs to DSD, in reality it's the opposite with audio data loss. If you care at all about bit-perfect audio, this should be the highest consideration.

It's highly recommended to rip CDs to FLAC, APE, ALAC, etc. or any other lossless format if you don't want to lose audio data. If you have SACD ISOs you can either leave them as-is and import them into Media Center or use an app like sacd_extract to extract DSF files from the ISO without doing any sort of DSD to PCM conversion.

[kr4]

No, there isn't as CDs, MP3s, etc. are all PCM audio and DSD is something else. I'm going to be blunt here but the general rule of thumb is you shouldn't convert any lossy formats like MP3s to DSD (honestly you shouldn't convert lossy files to lossless PCM like FLAC, APE, etc. either), nor should you rip CDs to DSD. The PCM to DSD conversion being done during the CD ripping process is a lossy conversion, which means you're losing audio data every time you do the PCM to DSD (or DSD to PCM) conversion. You gain nothing from ripping CDs to DSD - in fact you're wasting storage space by doing so with lossy DSD256/DSD512 files ripped from a CD. You can't magically add anything new to the audio data with the DSD conversion that isn't already there by ripping CDs to DSD, in reality it's the opposite with audio data loss. If you care at all about bit-perfect audio, this should be the highest consideration.

It's highly recommended to rip CDs to FLAC, APE, ALAC, etc. or any other lossless format if you don't want to lose audio data. If you have SACD ISOs you can either leave them as-is and import them into Media Center or use an app like sacd_extract to extract DSF files from the ISO without doing any sort of DSD to PCM conversion.

Agreed.  A statement like this needs to be more visible to the audio public than buried here in this forum.

[JimH]

Agreed.  A statement like this needs to be more visible to the audio public than buried here in this forum.

Reasons not to do this:

1.  Our ability to educate is limited in many ways.  Time, money, patience, stamina, knowledge. 

2.  We have a pretty big job just supporting and developing JRiver products.

3.  There are lots of really important things.  They can't all be featured.  "Why is that [obscure setting] buried so deep in settings?  Why isn't this software more intuitive?"

4.  The people who need accurate information are often pretty adamant that their knowledge is accurate or superior.  Does this sound familiar?

And so on and so forth.  Could you pass the donuts?

[dtc]

Bit perfect audio is certainly a desirable goal, but it is not the only consideration in playing back digital music.  The whole D to A conversion process is not a closed end solution. That is, it is an approximation to the exactness of the Nyquist (or Shannon) Theorem. Therefore, DAC manufacturers have adopted multiple methods of D to A conversion, almost all of which include a lossy transformation of the data into a high sample rate, low bit form. This is the well-known Delta-Sigma method, which is designed to simpify the playback circuitry.  In fact, the actually signal sent to the end stage circuitry of most PCM DACs is more DSD like than PCM like.

Some people think that a properly designed DSD DAC sounds different than a PCM DAC, just because of the nature of the processing. Then the questions is whether the lossy conversion of PCM to DSD is worse than the advantage of DSD playback.  For me, the answer to that depends on the details of the DAC processing and the preference of the user to different types of sound. And, yes, different DACs do sound different to some people.

I totally agree that lossy conversion should be generally avoided. But, it should not be a hard and fast rule, given that some people honestly like the sound of DSD better.  Likewise, a statement that DSD always sounds better than PCM is not appropriate.  The individual's preference of the sound really needs to be considered.

I assume some will disagree with this assessment, as we have have been down this route before. So, let's not get into yet another long discussion that leads us nowhere.  I just wanted to get an alternative view on the record.

[AGAWA]

Enjoy the music. This is all about.

[kr4]

Reasons not to do this:
...............................................
And so on and so forth.  Could you pass the donuts?

I was not suggesting that you do this especially since I am not willing to do so.  I should have put it in the passive voice:  This is something that needs to be said in those audiophile sites that are festooned with outrageous unsupported claims for extreme upsampling, megabuck DACs and kilobuck cables.   

[JimH]

I was not suggesting that you do this especially since I am not willing to do so.  I should have put it in the passive voice:  This is something that needs to be said in those audiophile sites that are festooned with outrageous unsupported claims for extreme upsampling, megabuck DACs and kilobuck cables.

Hear, hear!

[jbony01]

DSD DACs or sigma/delta 1-bit DACs do an internal conversion from PCM to DSD anyway, since such DACs can only process the data 1-bit at a time at the desired-supported sampling rate. If the internal PCM to DSD converter of the DAC does a better job than what JRiver's PCM-to-DSD conversion does, then I do agree that it is better to not do any external conversion and let the internal DSP of the DAC do it; however, one problem so often observed even with the high-end DAC chips --  is that their internal conversion is prone to quantization error, an issue that some external converters handle better due to the vast processing power of a PC CPU compared to the embedded micro-controller within a DAC. Which is why you see some here ague that some audio applications do a better job than some others. 

In other words, yes, it is possible for an external converter to do a better job than the onboard converter of the DAC.

[jbony01]

No, there isn't as CDs, MP3s, etc. are all PCM audio and DSD is something else. I'm going to be blunt here but the general rule of thumb is you shouldn't convert any lossy formats like MP3s to DSD (honestly you shouldn't convert lossy files to lossless PCM like FLAC, APE, etc. either), nor should you rip CDs to DSD. The PCM to DSD conversion being done during the CD ripping process is a lossy conversion, which means you're losing audio data every time you do the PCM to DSD (or DSD to PCM) conversion. You gain nothing from ripping CDs to DSD - in fact you're wasting storage space by doing so with lossy DSD256/DSD512 files ripped from a CD. You can't magically add anything new to the audio data with the DSD conversion that isn't already there by ripping CDs to DSD, in reality it's the opposite with audio data loss. If you care at all about bit-perfect audio, this should be the highest consideration.

It's highly recommended to rip CDs to FLAC, APE, ALAC, etc. or any other lossless format if you don't want to lose audio data. If you have SACD ISOs you can either leave them as-is and import them into Media Center or use an app like sacd_extract to extract DSF files from the ISO without doing any sort of DSD to PCM conversion.

Agree with some aspects of your comment, and disagree with some of it as well. I already wrote a reply to this thread, no point repeating what I already wrote; see my last comment above.