INTERACT FORUM
More => Old Versions => JRiver Media Center 24 for Windows => Topic started by: JimH on July 13, 2018, 08:09:31 am
-
We've had support for DSD for several years. It's an extremely high bit rate format and has several related formats: DSF, 2XDSC, 4XDSD, etc.
Only certain DAC's support them.
They can be ripped from SACD's or purchased online. They are really big.
Our wiki topic on DSD (https://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/DSD).
Important?
As always, feel free to comment.
-
Been starting to use DSD's and am looking at a DSD capable DAC.
Not sure if this is true, but was told that DSD/PCM DAC's, especially at the low end are compromise devices and don't excel at ether PCM or DSD. That you need to spend significantly more than a good PCM only DAC to get really good native DSD.
-
Audiophiles will argue that they can hear a difference between PCM and DSD, audio experts argue that there is no audible difference between the two. I have som DSD's and all I can say is that you can tell the difference between a good DSD and a poor one, but converted to PCM I couldn't distinguish between DSD and PCM tracks in a true blind test. You need to support them though because JRiver is aimed largely at the audiophile experience.
-
While I can't hear any difference between PCM and DSD, I do find DSD interesting and do own some SACDs and DSF files, along with a DSD USB DAC.
In regards to importance, I'd say to me it's second to PCM in general. PCM encompassing all the PCM-supported features (which is more-or-less all of them), mind you.
-
It is an important item for audiophiles.
They do care to transfer DSD as-is to their DAC, and many audiophile-quality DACs today support DSD, albeight in limited fashion. Like a friend of mine has a support of DSD64 playback only. A workaround today with having two zones is kind of .. workaround. That friend forgets to stop playback in one zone when switching, so he finds himself playing back in two zones, while it is essentially same sound system.
I suggest to give DSD a first-class citizenship, so we could see both PCM and DSD signals on the same page, and to control their DSP options independently.
-
I suggest to give DSD a first-class citizenship, so we could see both PCM and DSD signals on the same page, and to control their DSP options independently.
JRiver's support of DSD is first class. I realize you may want more, but please allow us to judge what our market and our product require.
-
Some may not know what it is or does exactly. The best simplest explanation i ever saw was the link below.
https://www.cambridgeaudio.com/usa/en/blog/what-dsd
-
I would say that there is some importance to SACD support, as I believe there are still some discs out there which do not have multichannel releases on other formats.
>1x DSD playback? Zero importance.
These 2x, 4x, 8x DSD playback formats are snake oil being sold to audiophiles.
Yes they're technically better than 1x DSD but you know what is better than that? A multi-bit format that doesn't require stupidly high sample rates to try and make up for the inherent deficiencies of a 1-bit audio format.
If there was to be any further development in DSD support, the things I'd like to see would be:
- Increased multi-threading. The decoder is limited to 4 threads when it would ideally support at least 6 (for 6ch playback).
- Options to specify (or automatically detect) what DSD formats are bitstreamed vs converted to PCM; i.e. maximum DSD rate supported by the DAC.
- Improved DSD→PCM filters. Change the 'medium' 30 kHz filter from 24dB/octave to 48dB/octave, and match the sample rate to the DSD rate. The 24/30/50 kHz filters should be 48/60/100 kHz for 2x DSD etc.
- I still get pops and clicks when changing tracks on some SACDs with Media Center's DSD→PCM conversion, which is not present using other tools.
These are all very low priority for me though.
I don't bitstream DSD at all, so the option to limit the maximum sample rate which is bitstreamed doesn't affect me in any way. But for the people that do want bitstreaming (or think they do) it does seem like an important option.
Though I'd like to see improved multithreading for DSD, I'd much rather see an effort to go beyond 8 threads in the rest of the player's features first (audio analysis & conversion for example).
The main thing I actually care about in terms of MC's future is some way of having rule-based DSP presets applied on playback.
I hate having separate zones with their own "playing now" lists as a substitute for that, since I need rules for things like stereo music, podcasts, stereo video, multichannel playback, movies with atmos support, UHD movies, and more.
Even some way to group zones together so that they share the same "playing now" list would probably work.
-
For me the key disadvantage is that DSP could Not be Used.
-
As a long time multichannel music lover, DSD’s importance to me is that it remains the only multichannel source for hundreds of SACDs which I’ve since ripped and imported into MC. I use PCM conversion to play them and if I was told tomorrow that the feature is going away I suppose I’d sigh and then convert all those albums to ultra-high bitrate PCM permanently. But I would rather leave them as DSF in the event I get a DSD-compatible multichannel DAC some day...
-
DSD is important because the format exists and people listen to it, but I have no special love for it.
This paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289595500_Subjective_evaluation_of_high_resolution_recordings_in_PCM_and_DSD_audio_formats (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289595500_Subjective_evaluation_of_high_resolution_recordings_in_PCM_and_DSD_audio_formats)
suggests a listener preference for DSD. I personally can't hear a difference.
-
DSD should be banned. No real reason, high quality reason to support other than people who believe in vodoo to satisfy.
DSD: Low quality to what is today possible, gobbling up enormous hd space, high HF noise.
DSD has today not anymore any reason of existence.
I looked deeply at it and immediately banned DSD.
-
Some people prefer to listen to DSD and some think it is snake oil. It is never going to be even close to PCM in popularity. But some people prefer it and it seems JRiver should support it. It is particular useful for classical and multichannel.
Right now MC has very good support for DSD. The only addition I see is the ability to handle different sample rates separately in converting to PCM. Now 1x, 2x and 4x DSD are hand!ed the same way. Breaking them out as separate sample rates, like how PCM is handled, with the ability to specify the specific conversion (no conversion or a specific PCM sample rate), would be useful. Better control of the low pass filter when converting to PCM would be nice, but not critical.
Let's not get into the usual discussion about the desirability of using DSD. Some people have decided to use it. Let's respect that.
-
Some people prefer to listen to DSD and some think it is snake oil. It is never going to be even close to PCM in popularity. But some people prefer it and it seems JRiver should support it. It is particular useful for classical and multichannel.
It is what it is and that is currently the primary vehicle for multichannel classical music.
Let's not get into the usual discussion about the desirability of using DSD. Some people have decided to use it. Let's respect that.
Yes and the tweaking suggested will be appreciated.
-
MC is the only software I have that is able to support DSD. Even dbpoweramp cannot convert to this format. My DAC and headphone amp plays DSD natively from SD cards with no need for my computer, so your continued support of this is useful to me.
-
We have no intention of discontinuing DSD.
-
Check out the following site:
SACD's DRM was one of the toughest to crack, since it also relies on the special drive hardware.
As there have been no players for SACD on computer, I avoided to buy any more than a test sample, which did not work. Just thrashed it.
How dum is the music industry not want to sell to customers. Unbelievable.
-
Split Multichannel DSD (https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,116723.0.html)
-
With 54 votes cast, about 59% of people say that DSD is not very important or don't care.
The other 41% say it's very important or extremely important.
I'd guess that this means that about 40% of our customers are hard-core audiophiles and the rest are videophiles, TV users, or just like music.
-
not exactly. I am a hardcore audiophile and say DSD is not the way to go. its PCM.
-
I started another similar poll on video and TV (https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,116724.msg806931.html#msg806931).
-
With 54 votes cast, about 59% of people say that DSD is not very important or don't care.
The other 41% say it's very important or extremely important.
I'd guess that this means that about 40% of our customers are hard-core audiophiles and the rest are videophiles, TV users, or just like music.
I am not a hard-core audiophile (at least I think so, I do not know your definition) but what makes MC great is that it covers good support for both video and audio. Some areas are more covered, some less -hence the poll and why I vote "Very". I'd say that I just like audio & video -in it's best possible reproduction.
-
I'd guess that this means that about 40% of our customers are hard-core audiophiles and the rest are videophiles, TV users, or just like music.
Hard-core audiophiles who are classical fans (admittedly, a smaller niche) are likely to find it essential.
Having said that, one of MCs most important features is that it supports many different ways of enjoying many different types of media. I still have little use for its support of video or streaming but it is reassuring that if/when I do, it will support them in the familiar MC context.
-
Yes, for me, very important. Native 4xDSD bit-perfect playback that works with my Playback Designs ASIO driver is the main reason I keep using JRiver. Others may have different priorities, but this is my priority. Thanks for your continued support of this technology.
-
I am a pure DSD DAC developer. Also I vote for DSD support in JRiver.
Unfortunately now the DSD setting is only the choice of different bitrates.
I want to see more settings. What would be more accurate to choose the trade-off between sound quality and performance.
-
I am a pure DSD DAC developer. Also I vote for DSD support in JRiver.
Unfortunately now the DSD setting is only the choice of different bitrates.
I want to see more settings. What would be more accurate to choose the trade-off between sound quality and performance.
We'd be happy to try to help. I'm jimh at jriver. Just let me know what you need.
-
We'd be happy to try to help. I'm jimh at jriver. Just let me know what you need.
I mean that is needed support for the hi-quality PCM-DSD conversion. DSD format allows to create very simple DAC, all conversion math is transferred to a powerful computer/server.
A successful example of this approach is HQPlayer.
It is necessary to add:
- Implementation of different up-sampling filters with user's choice. It is would be great to have an open standard for these filters, so the ability to create and load custom ones by user.
- The same as 1 with modulators.
- Support for automatic and manual distribution of processes across threads for multi-core processors
- Dedicated upsampling filters for 44,1K and 48K families to reduce computational load. I.e conversation should be done within the same family - from 44,1 to 256/512x44.1 or 48K to 256/512x48K
-
JRiver's support of DSD is first class. I realize you may want more, but please allow us to judge what our market and our product require.
Jim, you didn't understand what I mean..
I ask you (as a paying customer, yes?)
1) to refactor GUI, so instead of touching few places both PCM and DSD will be present on the same dialog
2) implement an option to specify the limit of the DAC hardware.. as you have with PCM
-
Important
some labels that I regularly buy music from have started to release in DSD format and for reasons beyond me they seem to making an extra effort for the DSD releases over the PCM versions of the same music.
In my collection of about 4000 albms I now have about 100 DSD albums with varying sample rates. Space for music is not really an issue anymore. you can buy micro-SD cards with 512GB and drives go to 10TB.
So, while JRiver already does a pretty good job with DSD it would be great to address the remaining usability issues.
Best Regards
Thomas
-
With 54 votes cast, about 59% of people say that DSD is not very important or don't care.
The other 41% say it's very important or extremely important.
I'd guess that this means that about 40% of our customers are hard-core audiophiles and the rest are videophiles, TV users, or just like music.
Maybe some of us are like what JRiver tries to be for so long : a MEDIA Center (as many types of media as possible) with best quality possible.
I love BD and UHD and video is extremely important to me but then I also like enjoying my music collection ranging from 44.1PCM up to multichannelDSD files
-
Maybe some of us are like what JRiver tries to be for so long : a MEDIA Center (as most types of media as possible) with best quality possible.
I love BD and UHD and video is extremely important to me but then I also like enjoying my music collection ranging from 44.1PCM up to multichannelDSD files
That's a nice thought! Thanks!
-
The Native DSD mode is very important for me. First of all for classical and choral music, and, perhaps, jazz.
This is best implemented in Tau player and KORG AudioGate. Unfortunately, in MC this mode is turned off by default, and is not even recommended. This is very strange, and can easily confuse unsophisticated users.
No conversions of DSD-> PCM and PCM-> DSD are needed. The degradation of the sound is audible.
-
I voted strongly in favor. I also looked at the comments here, and I could be misinterpreting. We are reassured that DSD support in JR is not going away, even though some, for whatever earthly reason, wish to see it abolished, which would add nothing to their listening pleasure, but would penalize many others'.
Of course, DSD playback is now well supported beyond DSD256, or 4xSACDs DSD64 format. I have no trouble at all playing DSD64, 128 or 256 files or converting any of them to PCM on the fly if I wish to use DSP features.
Some don't seem to understand that JR is not what limits applying DSP to DSD, but it is the resource intensive nature of DSD itself. DSP in DSD has been and is extremely rare and cumbersome in the audio industry, requiring offline preconversion of files. There is existing stand alone software that will do that, so I don't see any urgency in adding that to JR, which likely still could not do it on the fly during playback as it can with PCM.
Yes, DACs have limits in supported sampling rates and formats. That is true for both DSD- and PCM-capable DACs. Again, though, downconversion of DSD is very resource intensive, so, again, we are likely talking about preconversion of files prior to playback for downsampling in DSD. And, the truth is that while DSD64 is somewhat common, as from SACD rips, DSD128/256 or beyond are rare and from downloads only. My advice to people with DSD64-limited DACs is simply that they purchase the DSD64 download version, not higher DSD sampling rates when offered, as though expecting JR to bail them out. Yes, you can downsample PCM easily on the fly, but not DSD.
So, the only remaining issue I see is the Zoneswitch issue and its impact on playlists. Yes, switching between a DSD bitstreaming zone and a PCM zone would cause separate playlists by zone. I seldom use playlists myself, so this has zero impact on me. It might be an issue for some, though I expect it to be a rather small number with DSD.
So, if DSD is here to stay, I am not really seeing the huge need for or impact of further enhancement/development of JR's support of DSD. There may be other oddball situations involving DSD, but they seem scarce and esoteric. It works just fine for me. The zone/playlist issue continues as a complaint by some, but that goes quite beyond DSD to JR's zone concept.
-
Fitzcaraldo215
This poll came about because of this post:
https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,116630.0.html
The issue is how to downsample on the fly some DSD sample rates and not others, when you have more than one DAC and the DACs support different sample rates. Note that downsampling on the fly is pretty easy with many modern CPUs. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
-
DSD support is important enough for me that I bought a Pioneer BR player that is able to rip SACD. And I'm buying SACDs now that I can rip and play them on my computer based playback setup. There are some very nice native DSD recordings available. Especially for classical music. DSD support is important enough for me that I'm spending additional hundreds and potentially thousands of dollars to do it.
My library is now a mix of PCM and DSD. JRiver is handling that very well.
I create different zones for each of my DACs. And for some I create two zones for the same DAC with each zone having different settings for sampling rates and DSD handling depending on what the DAC supports and what sounds best to me.
I'm also someone who hears a difference between CD and high-res. I also hear a difference between DSD and PCM. I can also hear when recordings were likely recorded using DSD recording equipment and then converted to CD. DSD recording has a certain sound that survives a PCM conversion, even when downsampled to CD.
-
why not buying files, so the need for ripping is gone?
Can JRiver convert multichannel DSD to multichannel PCM (I know, stereo works).
-
DSD support is important enough for me that I bought a Pioneer BR player that is able to rip SACD.
The ripping needs special software as mentioned above (in an article from computeraudiophile)?
-
The ripping needs special software as mentioned above (in an article from computeraudiophile)?
The software is free. The SACD players needed can be bought for under $50 and the Pioneer ones are maybe $150, although I have not looked recently. The process takes a little to get right, but then goes smoothly. The SACD player pays for itself pretty quickly compared to buying downloads. And, many people already have large SACD collections. And, SACD downloads are limited.
-
okay, may be same as with CD and CD download. CD is 1/3 of the price of download sometimes :)
Just the time, hardware , work needed is rather heavy.
-
why not buying files, so the need for ripping is gone?
Can JRiver convert multichannel DSD to multichannel PCM (I know, stereo works).
Yes. No problem with Mch on the fly, although it might be an issue with some older CPUs. Mine is an I7 which is several generations old, but CPU and resource usage is low (< 15% CPU) converting DSD64, 128 or 256 to 176k PCM, doing bass management in JR and using the Dirac Live VST.
-
Fitzcaraldo215
This poll came about because of this post:
https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,116630.0.html
The issue is how to downsample on the fly some DSD sample rates and not others, when you have more than one DAC and the DACs support different sample rates. Note that downsampling on the fly is pretty easy with many modern CPUs. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
I have never used HQPlayer, however from user experiences at CA it requires a very hefty CPU for DSD upsampling. I just assumed without actual knowledge it would be similar for DSD downsampling. Have you used it for DSD downsampling yourself?
But, you seem to be suggesting that JR provide DSD downsampling on the fly but no counterpart upsampling on the fly, which might be too resource intensive. Maybe half a loaf is better than none, however it still seems a rather esoteric feature of limited use for most. And, of course, people will question why, if it can downsample DSD on the fly, why can't JR upsample on the fly as well? Maybe it can be made to do so. But, BTW, I have yet to hear significant sonic advantage from ultra high DSD sampling rates myself. So, I would not use these features myself.
I could easily be wrong, but while converting DSD to PCM, even at high bit rates on the fly, is a snap for JR now, going the other way - PCM to DSD - with JR is a bear, not doable on the fly. In general, from my limited knowlege, working with DSD is tough and resource intensive. In spite of the desires of some users, computer resources may limit what JR can or cannot do.
-
I have never used HQPlayer, however from user experiences at CA it requires a very hefty CPU for DSD upsampling.
HQPlayer has a very sophisticated upsampling routine that includes lots of options and filters. It is indeed CPU intensive.
But, you seem to be suggesting that JR provide DSD downsampling on the fly but no counterpart upsampling on the fly, which might be too resource intensive.
JRiver does do upsampling from PCM to DSD, although it is an all or nothing action. You can not do it for some samples rates and not others. But the function is there. It is provided for people who have DSD only DACs. It does require a good CPU, but many modern CPUs are up to the task. Selective upsampling to DSD would be a nice additional feature, but I do not see it as a significant requirement.
-
Yes. No problem with Mch on the fly, although it might be an issue with some older CPUs. Mine is an I7 which is several generations old, but CPU and resource usage is low (< 15% CPU) converting DSD64, 128 or 256 to 176k PCM, doing bass management in JR and using the Dirac Live VST.
I would convert offline to pcm, saving only pcm format (DSD as temporary only), so resources are no problem, just it should work. As I can see this is no question, it works.
-
Advise to convert to PCM and delete to DSD is like convert photo to JPEG and delete the raw file, what are you talking about?
Of course it is done on the fly.
-
yes thats what I will do. Keep clean the HD.
My library can contain only flac (any resolution and channel count) and mp3 (only if no flac available).
-
So you are deleting the source and keep its lossy product.
If quality is not a concern.. you mention also mp3 here so..
-
PCM is lossless.
The source (mastertape and mastermix) of recordings is mostly PCM as DSD can not be edited.
I convinced myself of the quality of formats here, just make the test yourself:
http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html
For me quality of music is in this order:
1) music
2) Interpretation (artist): sometimes its the same 1) and 2)
3) recording
4) format
Format is clearly last in the list.
Thats why mp3 is possible while its certainly the worst format concerning technical quality :).
It is really very seldom that all four criteria will be on top level.
-
yes thats what I will do. Keep clean the HD.
My library can contain only flac (any resolution and channel count) and mp3 (only if no flac available).
Not sure why your library can contain "only Flac", etc.
I have ripped thousands of SACDs to DSF. They are contained in my library alongside flac downloads of various resolutions, channel counts, etc. The tag metadata makes clear which is which. And, there are no reasons to add extra steps or time to my SACD ripping process by converting the DSD to Flac. Storage savings for Flac vs. DSF are a pittance. And, there is only one version of the DSD rip or download file - the original.
I do play 99% of those DSFs using on the fly conversion to PCM in Mch. But, I could just as easily bitstream the DSD albums (without any DSP) and automatically via Zoneswitch using tag metadata play the Flac albums or whatever, subject to the playlist issue with different zones which is not of concern to me.
I have no problems at all with this scenario, and I have used it for a fair number of years.
-
I do not understand, many here mention the mp3 format. What for? No studio, no one artist released releases in this format. It is always possible to get any record in lossless format.
-
PCM is lossless.
The source (mastertape and mastermix) of recordings is mostly PCM as DSD can not be edited.
Conversion is lossy, and depends on many things. In this case, JRiver's algorithm and filters.
Years ago I also converted SACD to 176/24 until I upgraded my system, took a step deeper to understand the format and process, and converted again this time to DSF
Sonoma does DSD editing. There is a guy 'Bruce B' from WBF, you can ask him what do they do.. he is a subcontractor for HDtracks
-
given my exasound e38 DAC is on its way, please continue to support :)
-
I do not understand, many here mention the mp3 format. What for? No studio, no one artist released releases in this format. It is always possible to get any record in lossless format.
soem shops sell only mp3
-
Not sure why your library can contain "only Flac", etc.
onyl one lossless format and one lossy format, thats it, no need for anything else.
Only standards no prorietary (SACD, ALAC etc.)
I was always right to keep standards. I have some "Sony" corps so I decided not to have more..
-
I do not understand, many here mention the mp3 format. What for? No studio, no one artist released releases in this format. It is always possible to get any record in lossless format.
itune , googleplay: mp3
-
The point I believe here is not to abandon the support, but to improve it.
We mentioned revised UI for settings of DAC capabilities and rate conversion, also was mentioned more options and improved conversion quality to PCM and DSD
-
Conversion is lossy, and depends on many things. In this case, JRiver's algorithm and filters.
right, I do not understand why studio do it.
-
Sonoma does DSD editing.
Convert to PCM , edit, convert to DSD what they do
-
more options and improved conversion quality to PCM and DSD
yes, good if improvment is needed why not
-
Convert to PCM , edit, convert to DSD what they do
No, they stay in DSD, multibit DSD
-
The point I believe here is not to abandon the support, but to improve it.
Who said DSD might be abandoned?
-
Who said DSD might be abandoned?
I said 'it won't' .. hopefully :)
But reading the feedback here I understood people didn't catch the idea of the poll properly.
-
We have no intention of discontinuing DSD.
Good news, Jim! This is Cookie Marenco from Blue Coast Records (and now) Blue Coast Music (our official DSD download store). I'm glad to hear that you are not discontinuing support of DSD.
As an update to the poll, today it says 49.8% of the 151 poll takers say DSD is extremely important or very important. (Up from previous reporting I saw)
From our end (as a reseller of DSD downloads and other formats of music) we are seeing an increase in DSD interest -- especially in DSD256. We are seeing more women purchasing DSD and more musicians wanting to record in DSD. Great news.
In order to increase content in our store, we have created a process called SEA (Systems for Exceptional Audio) that allows us to transform a PCM file into a DSD file. It's not a simple conversion but a lengthy process that helps to restore dynamics lost in PCM.
We clearly offer the provenance of the recording so the customer can choose whether to buy the much less expensive PCM or the SEA processed DSD file. To our surprise, most people are buying the DSD files (even in DSD256). We realize many people have an opinion about buying the original file as to how it was recorded which is why we clearly notate the original format of recording. It is surprising how many people buy the DSD files.
We haven't officially announced SEA to the public. We wanted to test first. The results have been amazing.
We believe DSD will have a future much like vinyl. Not over taking the mass market but the passionate listener will want to buy large DSD files for their enjoyment and preservation of the sound.
Thank you, Jim, for all you do!
Cookie Marenco
https://bluecoastmusic.com
Blue Coast Music
-
For me -very important - I have various DSD versions of albums that I also have in 24/192 flac and there are differences. In general (and it could be the way my audio is set up) I find the DSD just tends to flow beter.
-
As many others, I have various music formats and found after listening to quality DSD recordings for a time, there is something missing going back to other formats.
-
DSD support is why I first bought MC. It's a great product that I use for all my music now. Not to mention video and more.
-
Hi Cookie,
Thanks for stopping by.
Jim
-
DSD features are essential to my customers and business. Of course there are competitors to MC that we can use, but I personally like MC the best, and most of my customers grow to appreciate what it can do. Very happy to hear you have no intentions of discontinuing DSD support.
-
Split DSD Mastering (https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,116807.0.html)
-
Voted 'Not too important' because I don't use it, but as a high-quality audio player MC should always fully support it.
-
importance of MC and DSD is the availiability of MC to convert DSD to PCM.
Its already in MC and works for DSD256, DSD128, DAS64 and for stereo and multichannel.
So all what I need is already there.
-
So all what I need is already there.
Even if that's what you need, there are more recent algorithms for conversion, more options for filtering
As PCM to DSD is lossy, then DSD to PCM is a lossy algorithm, and the sound quality, besides your audio system and your ears, affected by the algorithm and the settings
-
Please move DSD discussion to another thread. Controversial statements can generate a lot of noise and they are unrelated to the topic of the poll.
-
discussion of technical DSD is here (conversion, filtering etc.):
https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,116802.0.html
-
DSD is my absolute preference. If there's anything I'd like to see added -but not sure if technically feasible- that would be some kind of DSP and volume leveling although I'm not sure that can be applied to DFF/DSF files.
-
If there's anything I'd like to see added -but not sure if technically feasible- that would be some kind of DSD and volume levelling although I'm not sure that can be applied to DFF/DSF files.
If you're bitstreaming DSD, not possible. DSP, including volume leveling, can't be applied unless you're converting DSD to PCM.
-
If you're bitstreaming DSD, not possible. DSP, including volume leveling, can't be applied unless you're converting DSD to PCM.
Obviously I meant DSP (typo), sorry.
Cheers, AD!
-
PCM is lossless.
The source (mastertape and mastermix) of recordings is mostly PCM as DSD can not be edited.
I convinced myself of the quality of formats here, just make the test yourself:
http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html
For me quality of music is in this order:
1) music
2) Interpretation (artist): sometimes its the same 1) and 2)
3) recording
4) format
Format is clearly last in the list.
Thats why mp3 is possible while its certainly the worst format concerning technical quality :).
It is really very seldom that all four criteria will be on top level.
"It is really very seldom that all four criteria will be on top level.". That may be true, but when they are all on top, it's worth everything. It's what kept audiophiles going. There are still recordings out there that are direct to DSD.
-
Split Starting with DSD
https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,116826.0.html
-
"It is really very seldom that all four criteria will be on top level.". That may be true, but when they are all on top, it's worth everything. It's what kept audiophiles going. There are still recordings out there that are direct to DSD.
the format is less important than the origin of the source material and the care and method taken to master it when it comes to lossless as by definition, it is lossless.
i have found personally DSD produced SACD sounds often better to my ears than same on CD or DVD-A or flac. i believe this to be a result of the care taken to produce the end product and not a result of DSD. i appreciate when online sites peddling this stuff state where, how, and who worked on the product.
scientifically speaking, 44.1/16 is perfect for the range of human hearing. it’s the journey to the destination that is most important.
-
scientifically speaking, 44.1/16 is perfect for the range of human hearing. it’s the journey to the destination that is most important.
A common fallacy or at least a debatable statement.
Humans cannot hear a continuous tone about 20K. However, there is significant evidence that humans can perceive transients at higher frequencies. And quick transients from attacks are definitely part of music.
It is important to recognize that human hearing is far more sophisticated than just listening to sine waves.
-
I voted "not too important" because everything I've read suggests to me that DSD was an experiment tailored to SACD's and was quickly superseded by DVD-A and BD-A after that. None of these formats attained the market traction needed to depose regular CD's and at this point, I doubt any format will because the music and video industries are moving away from physical ownership towards streaming at the expense of platform agnosticism.
Additionally, DSD seems to require its own dedicated, costly hardware to have any technical merit. If it were available on services like Bandcamp and Qobuz and wasn't more or less relegated to classical music and mainstream classic rock and pop (I'm a twenty-six-year-old metalhead and my library only extends backwards to the late '80's), I might have given it more of a chance but as it stands, I'm more than happy with my PCM-compatible A/V receiver. I think I'm through with buying metal boxes for a while.
It's worth keeping for those who do care about DSD. Compatibility and useability are good descriptors to apply to oneself, if nothing else.
-
Huh, looks like DSD is more important to users than I even realized, though the poll sample size is likely a drop in the bucket compared to the number of overall MC users. I'd be interested to see the poll expanded to a larger sample size.
Additionally, DSD seems to require its own dedicated, costly hardware to have any technical merit.
To be fair, there's a good number of DACs these days that support DSD along with PCM - especially if they have one of the Sabre ESS chips with some of the newer chips supporting both native DSD and DoP.
If it were available on services like Bandcamp and Qobuz and wasn't more or less relegated to classical music and mainstream classic rock and pop (I'm a twenty-six-year-old metalhead and my library only extends backwards to the late '80's)
Acoustic Sounds comes to mind, though granted it's not as big as Bandcamp, Qobuz, CD Baby, HDtracks, etc. But.. now that you've mentioned it and got me thinking, I haven't seen a metal SACD/DSD release yet (well, *maybe* Nine Inch Nails' The Downward Spiral, if that counts). I might have to look into that.
One of the main things about SACDs is that they're a good source for multichannel versions of albums that don't have an equivalent released in PCM (yet). If anyone doesn't have a DSD-capable DAC and you would like to try listening to an album in DSD you can just let MC convert DSD to PCM on-the-fly, I know some people who do that and are happy with the results.
-
DSD support in MC is more important to me than ever before, with the now easier way to rip SACDs via certain model Blu-ray players, much easier and cheaper than the previous somewhat kludgy PlayStation 3 method.
-
For me DSD is of little importance at most. Even though I am a truly crazy audiophile!
However the fact that JRiver offers those who have / use DSD files decent playback options is a good thing.
A strong multi faceted platform is what we need!
-
Split MQA Support (https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,116897.msg808402.html#msg808402)
-
Good news, Jim! This is Cookie Marenco from Blue Coast Records (and now) Blue Coast Music (our official DSD download store). I'm glad to hear that you are not discontinuing support of DSD.
As an update to the poll, today it says 49.8% of the 151 poll takers say DSD is extremely important or very important. (Up from previous reporting I saw)
From our end (as a reseller of DSD downloads and other formats of music) we are seeing an increase in DSD interest -- especially in DSD256. We are seeing more women purchasing DSD and more musicians wanting to record in DSD. Great news.
In order to increase content in our store, we have created a process called SEA (Systems for Exceptional Audio) that allows us to transform a PCM file into a DSD file. It's not a simple conversion but a lengthy process that helps to restore dynamics lost in PCM.
We clearly offer the provenance of the recording so the customer can choose whether to buy the much less expensive PCM or the SEA processed DSD file. To our surprise, most people are buying the DSD files (even in DSD256). We realize many people have an opinion about buying the original file as to how it was recorded which is why we clearly notate the original format of recording. It is surprising how many people buy the DSD files.
We haven't officially announced SEA to the public. We wanted to test first. The results have been amazing.
We believe DSD will have a future much like vinyl. Not over taking the mass market but the passionate listener will want to buy large DSD files for their enjoyment and preservation of the sound.
Thank you, Jim, for all you do!
Cookie Marenco
https://bluecoastmusic.com
Blue Coast Music
Keep up the good work !!
Isnt Sonys (or others pantents) running out ?
I have like 3 players that can load a DSD audio disk but all downmix it to stereo.
It would be nice to be able to extract the DSD track on PC but can only do that with a old PC I Have and only to PCM.
A general way to do that would be nice even if I had to buy a (?usb) DSD capable DVD drive.
(as far as I remember the protection is also made at HW level in the drive)
-
You probably confuse between SACD and DSD, it is like a Compact Disc and PCM.
You don't need any drive to playback DSD, and no need to downmix, as it is stereo today in 99% of the cases
-
It would be nice to be able to extract the DSD track on PC but can only do that with a old PC I Have and only to PCM.
Yes, it can be extracted to files from the disc with certain PCs and several disc players. The file format can be DSD stereo or DSD multichannel (depending what is on the disc) and, optionally, converted to PCM stereo or PCM multichannel.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1syTPLOlvmMz2ii_IvZx3unLwNRP7oTatKA0bEkwDPJMd0mc0W5nsOUnwyTd4/edit
https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/28569-sacd-ripping-using-an-oppo-or-pioneer-yes-its-true/?tab=comments#comment-559449
JRiver can play any of those formats.
-
I love great sounding music and have a Class D audiophile system. For my ears, standard FLAC is fine and the higher 24 bit FLAC and beyond has no discernible difference to my ears. Since I may come across a DSP recording that piques my interest one day it is great JRiver supports it.
If I was prioritizing JRiver future projects in an engineering/marketing meeting, further DSP feature enhancement would be way down on the list unless a very easy, low hanging fruit, type of project.
-
You probably confuse between SACD and DSD, it is like a Compact Disc and PCM.
You don't need any drive to playback DSD, and no need to downmix, as it is stereo today in 99% of the cases
Nope look below
-
Yes, it can be extracted to files from the disc with certain PCs and several disc players. The file format can be DSD stereo or DSD multichannel (depending what is on the disc) and, optionally, converted to PCM stereo or PCM multichannel.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1syTPLOlvmMz2ii_IvZx3unLwNRP7oTatKA0bEkwDPJMd0mc0W5nsOUnwyTd4/edit
https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/28569-sacd-ripping-using-an-oppo-or-pioneer-yes-its-true/?tab=comments#comment-559449
JRiver can play any of those formats.
Thank You Very much just the info i need.
Cause if possible I want to have the original track in the original format on the server and convert later in chain.
-
DSD is important because the format exists and people listen to it, but I have no special love for it.
This paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289595500_Subjective_evaluation_of_high_resolution_recordings_in_PCM_and_DSD_audio_formats (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289595500_Subjective_evaluation_of_high_resolution_recordings_in_PCM_and_DSD_audio_formats)
suggests a listener preference for DSD. I personally can't hear a difference.
Suggest you maybe need better recordings and/or better gear if you can not hear the difference
-
the paper is rather confusing. Setup and results are not clear and not really shown (measurment values). Quality of recordings, IM, THD is not measured.
May be that DSD just has high IM and THD, its well known hat distortion is perceived as "richness".
Has nothing to do with precise sound reproduction, where no additon is wanted.
-
the paper is rather confusing. Setup and results are not clear and not really shown (measurment values). Quality of recordings, IM, THD is not measured.
May be that DSD just has high IM and THD, its well known hat distortion is perceived as "richness".
Has nothing to do with precise sound reproduction, where no additon is wanted.
No but they must have compared to the live jazz orchestra they had as a source so maybe that was not so important ?
The ear is mostly sensitive in the time/domain area, most speakers have like two digits THD when they perform at the same sound level as the jazz orchestra.
So the paper is a good indicator so i am considering loan a Marantz NA8006 and/or NA11S1 to find out if I need a substitute for my Trusty NA7004.
-
yes try it.
I tried various recordings to compare. My conclusion is clear. The technology is good enough even CD, the art is in the recording and mixing.
An issue with DSD is the ultrasonic noise, that causes IM in electronics (amps) which is audible. See Griesigner's research (Lexicon, now HK respectively Samsung).
Paper:
The chain is not characterized in the paper, way less than the chain of Meyer Moran which they criticize.
Doing better is obviously difficult even years later :)
-
Someone's been stuffing the ballot box since at least July 20:
https://dsd-guide.com/jriver-runs-poll-importance-dsd-time-vote-we-think-so
I think her initials are Cookie Marenco. ;)
-
So I think the earlier snapshot stands:
With 54 votes cast, about 59% of people say that DSD is not very important or don't care.
The other 41% say it's very important or extremely important.
I'd guess that this means that about 40% of our customers are hard-core audiophiles and the rest are videophiles, TV users, or just like music.
And, just to repeat myself (again), we have no intention of removing or de-emphasizing JRiver's support for DSD.
-
So I think the earlier snapshot stands:
And, just to repeat myself (again), we have no intention of removing or de-emphasizing JRiver's support for DSD.
That's for sure, but will you add the improvements we discussed so many times in the forum, Jim?
If yes, then when?
-
I am an audiophile (and thus Media Center) and I voted Extremely.
Commercial DSD titles are few, expensive and I have bought only a few. So direct DSD playback is of no importance.
I play my library of thousands of FLAC files converted by DSP Studio to DSDx2 output in DoP format. My DAC process them in DSDx2. And therefore it is Extremely important this way.
Why? A big clear performance improvement over 16/44.1. Biggest of which is cut down of that nasty 'digital' distortion which PCM will create in the analog conversion stage of the DAC. This is a fundamental problem of PCM and no engineering way around it. The only way is simply not to feed PCM to the DAC. Thus convert PCM in Media Center to DSD and let the DAC process it as DSD. Chop off the PCM distortion. Clearly discernible improvement, close to that nice liquid analog sound audiophile love.
-
Split PCM vs. DSD (https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,117013.0.html)
-
Quite simply, DSD playback (SACD ISO) is by far the best feature of JRiver. For someone who has carefully ripped all my years-cultivated discs (it can be done with the right player--no need for Playstation anymore), and having a HQ Exasound analog MultiChannel DAC--the time spent is totally worth it. You can even categorize them under 2-channel, Quad and Multichannel under playlists. You haven't lived til you've heard an expert Multichannel mix from the likes of a pro like Eliot Schneiner.
i really wish DVD-AUDIO playback would be added as well! There is no way to play that format other than off disc or via the iSO file an older non-updated Oppo bluray player. I have at least as many of those discs than i do SACD and so far there's been no way to stream them.
Forget the Bluray formats and its 87.1 channels, good 'old 5.1 channel SACD and DVD-Audio were the best inventions for musical reproduction.
-
i really wish DVD-AUDIO playback would be added as well! There is no way to play that format other than off disc or via the iSO file an older non-updated Oppo bluray player.
No problem. rip it with a DVD-rip software to flac.
Then play the multichannel flac.
Much easier to do than the encrypted SACD to rip.
MC can play multichannel flac as of today.
-
i really wish DVD-AUDIO playback would be added as well! There is no way to play that format other than off disc or via the iSO file an older non-updated Oppo bluray player. I have at least as many of those discs than i do SACD and so far there's been no way to stream them.
Forget the Bluray formats and its 87.1 channels, good 'old 5.1 channel SACD and DVD-Audio were the best inventions for musical reproduction.
There's a plug-in for foobar2000 which can play DVD-A tracks. You can use this to convert them to FLAC files which work in Media Center.
It would be nice if MC could handle this natively, but when a free solution exists and the conversion only needs to be done once, I don't mind things being as they are. It's easier than ripping SACDs.
-
DSD is not important to me, but just like JRiver Media Center supports .mp3 I think it should support DSD especially since I suspect a lot of the people that would be inclined to buy JRiver Media Center would expect this and use it.
-
Just adding my two cents here after reading some comments.
The poll is not whether which is the best format between PCM and DSD but whether support of DSD by Media Center is important for its users.
IMHO, DSD support is paramount because SACD (which is a very common media for classical music) uses DSD and, as I understand it, conversion between DSD and PCM is not a bit-perfect process.
With regards,
Opawesome
-
Just adding my two cents here after reading some comments.
The poll is not whether which is the best format between PCM and DSD but whether support of DSD by Media Center is important for its users.
IMHO, DSD support is paramount because SACD (which is a very common media for classical music) uses DSD and, as I understand it, conversion between DSD and PCM is not a bit-perfect process.
With regards,
Opawesome
Not just about conversions - DACs are different, and some are better at handling DSD natively
-
The support for DSD in JRiver is extremely important to me.
JRiver is by far the best audio playback platform for me. The key capabilities that set it apart are:
- ability to select files with filters and expression and flexible and powerful functionalities to manipulate selected files (absolutely unique)
- ability to play DSD / SACD ISO (THANK YOU for ISO sidecar tagging)
- powerful DSP engine
The reason why DSD is important to me is not because it sounds better, but simply because certain music is only available in DSD format. I believe in as few format conversions as possible. Music recorded or mastered in PCM I prefer to listen to in PCM. Music recorded native in DSD I prefer to listen to in DSD.
There is a lot of confusion around DSD. Music recorded in DSD, then converted to PCM for mastering and then re-converted to DSD for publishing is in my view simply marketing snake oil (because DSD "sounds more analogue"?). If it sounded good after the PCM mastering, simply leave it in that format. If it needed the further conversion to DSD to sound good, the (PCM) mastering failed its purpose.
A few things I would like to see for DSD in JRiver:
- ability to downsample from DSD256 to DSD128 in DSP Studio (like the PCM conversions). Not every DAC supports DSD256 and it would be nice to not have to convert DSD256 to PCM and define several Zones for the same DAC
- Maximise the quality of DSD to PCM conversion (DSD Master http://dsdmaster.blogspot.com/ (http://dsdmaster.blogspot.com/) is the benchmark to my ears)
- more filter options for DSD to PCM conversion
Thank you and keep it up. JRiver is the best thing since sliced bread!
-
ability to downsample from DSD256 to DSD128 in DSP Studio (like the PCM conversions)
The thing is if this was added, it'd have to go through a PCM conversion in the middle as there's no direct DSD conversions so it'd be DSD256 > PCM > DSD128. Honestly you'd probably be better off converting to PCM in that case, IMO.
-
The thing is if this was added, it'd have to go through a PCM conversion in the middle as there's no direct DSD conversions so it'd be DSD256 > PCM > DSD128. Honestly you'd probably be better off converting to PCM in that case, IMO.
Totally agree. No need to go to PCM and back to DSD. I was hoping there would be a way to downsample DSD -> DSD directly, but the math does not seem to exist or to be extremely complicated.
-
The support for DSD in JRiver is extremely important to me.
JRiver is by far the best audio playback platform for me. The key capabilities that set it apart are:
- ability to select files with filters and expression and flexible and powerful functionalities to manipulate selected files (absolutely unique)
- ability to play DSD / SACD ISO (THANK YOU for ISO sidecar tagging)
- powerful DSP engine
The reason why DSD is important to me is not because it sounds better, but simply because certain music is only available in DSD format. I believe in as few format conversions as possible. Music recorded or mastered in PCM I prefer to listen to in PCM. Music recorded native in DSD I prefer to listen to in DSD.
There is a lot of confusion around DSD. Music recorded in DSD, then converted to PCM for mastering and then re-converted to DSD for publishing is in my view simply marketing snake oil (because DSD "sounds more analogue"?). If it sounded good after the PCM mastering, simply leave it in that format. If it needed the further conversion to DSD to sound good, the (PCM) mastering failed its purpose.
A few things I would like to see for DSD in JRiver:
- ability to downsample from DSD256 to DSD128 in DSP Studio (like the PCM conversions). Not every DAC supports DSD256 and it would be nice to not have to convert DSD256 to PCM and define several Zones for the same DAC
- Maximise the quality of DSD to PCM conversion (DSD Master http://dsdmaster.blogspot.com/ (http://dsdmaster.blogspot.com/) is the benchmark to my ears)
- more filter options for DSD to PCM conversion
Thank you and keep it up. JRiver is the best thing since sliced bread!
+1
-
MC does not read the metadata from the .dff files. There are not many of them, only artist chunk and title chunk, but it's better than nothing.
-
MC does not read the metadata from the .dff files. There are not many of them, only artist chunk and title chunk, but it's better than nothing.
The DFF format does not support metadata.
You can pull that information from the filenames.
-
And you can also use the sidecar feature with DFF files too.
-
The DFF format does not support metadata.
The DFF format supports metadata:
https://dsd-guide.com/sites/default/files/white-papers/DSDIFF_1.5_Spec.pdf
-
For me the most important difference between DSD and PCM is the precision of phase shifts.
Assume you have a 18000 Hz signal on the left speaker and a 18001 Hz signal on the right. With DSD you will hear (if you can it that high at all) an interference swinging between the speaker once a second. In PCM, at worst with 44100 Samples per second, there are not so many ways how to encode these signals. As a result, the interference will not swing, but hop between the speakers.
You could extend the test with 18002 and 18003 Hz on the rear speakers. So it should be obvious that the more channels you listen to the more important the exact phases become.
Though higher PCM sampling rates reduce the problem, DSD is still the only coding technology not having such a problem at all, resulting in a so much more vivid sound.
-
representation of timing precision and phase precision does not depend on samplerate.
This is a widespread misconception in digital signal processing.
Hence CD can very precisely reconstruct pahse at 20kHz.
-
The DFF format supports metadata:
https://dsd-guide.com/sites/default/files/white-papers/DSDIFF_1.5_Spec.pdf
I stand corrected. I guess most software just doesn't support tags in DFF files.
For me the most important difference between DSD and PCM is the precision of phase shifts.
Assume you have a 18000 Hz signal on the left speaker and a 18001 Hz signal on the right. With DSD you will hear (if you can it that high at all) an interference swinging between the speaker once a second. In PCM, at worst with 44100 Samples per second, there are not so many ways how to encode these signals. As a result, the interference will not swing, but hop between the speakers.
You could extend the test with 18002 and 18003 Hz on the rear speakers. So it should be obvious that the more channels you listen to the more important the exact phases become.
Though higher PCM sampling rates reduce the problem, DSD is still the only coding technology not having such a problem at all, resulting in a so much more vivid sound.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how sampling and digital audio works.
I highly recommend that you watch the entire video, but here is a demonstration showing how timing precision is unaffected by sample rate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM#t=20m53s
-
I guess most software just doesn't support tags in DFF files.
I do not care what other software products can or can not do. I just want MC to get a little better.
For DFF files, I regularly use AudioGate, MC and Tau. AudioGate can not only read, but also edit the "Artist" and "Title" tags. For Tau, due to its specifics, this is not a problem at all. But MC perfectly reads SACD images, which neither AudioGate nor Tau can do.
-
I highly recommend that you watch the entire video, but here is a demonstration showing how timing precision is unaffected by sample rate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM#t=20m53s
What you see in the video is at 20:53 is a square wave with 44 samples/square, or round about 1 kHz at CD quality. Any yes, it is true you can place a single pulse with the nearly exact timing. But things become different the nearer you come to the Nyquist frequency. At 22.05 kHz only 0° and 180° phase are possible.
Even if the sampling theorem is fulfilled, aliasing may occur, an effect you can similarly be see on a computer screen when diagonal and curved lines are displayed as a series of zigzag horizontal and vertical lines. Checked jackets are mostly shown restlessly on a video.
Such effects can be reduced by oversampling (an option most video equipment does not have). And you need more or less intelligent algorithms to correctly e.g. put an 18 kHz sine wave into a 44.1 kHz raster, which will always remain a compromise. With the 1 Hz difference between the channels you will detect it.
-
no, you can have a resolution which is much higher, you can resolve depending on the accuracy of the sampling for example 0.0001degrees at 20kHz, not just 0 and 180 degrees.
Look it up in digital signal processing.
Oversampling does not help in accuracy, it just helps in easy filtering. Nyquist issues you will still have the same if you oversample or not.
The oversampling process in itself needs to deal with nyquist. No way around mathematics.
You will never jump over your shadow, no matter how fast you run...
-
no, you can have a resolution which is much higher, you can resolve depending on the accuracy of the sampling for example 0.0001degrees at 20kHz, not just 0 and 180 degrees.
At 22.05 kHz (not at 20kHz) only 0° and 180° phase are possible. A higher precision at for instance 20 kHz can only be an average with the current phase continuously shifting around the desired value. Otherwise you could convert a range of 20 kHz between 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz as often as desired without a quality loss.
Compared to photography, oversampling can help to prevent moiré effects between pattern and resolution. This also applies to acoustics and does not contradict the Nyquist theorem as the final resolution is not affected.
-
Actually aliasing in a properly designed and implemented linear PCM system is not an issue. Audio signals above Fs/2 will be removed by the low pass filters.
Even in inadequately designed systems it's not much of an issue; in the real world of acoustic instruments audio signals above 20kHz are uncommon and at a very low level.
-
oversampling does not enhance precision and or quality.
No magic possible here :)
-
oversampling does not enhance precision and or quality.
No magic possible here :)
Difference issue, but oversampling moves the deleterious effects of the brick wall filters (22.05Khz for NOS DACs) out of the normal hearing range, which many believe increases the quality of the conversions and the sound. The D to A conversions produces noise above the Nyquist frequency and how that is handled does effect the result. To avoid ringing from the brick wall filter, most PCM DACs oversample these days. Not magic, just straightforward physics.
-
yes, true.
In the oversampling process a digital brickwall filter needs to be implemented. No way around a brickwall filter be it analog or digital.
Yes Oversampling makes for easier DA conversion, though potential higher quality. I.e. the quality which the music-file has, can be converted to analog without further loss in quality. The quality of the music-file is not enhanced, in the best case preserved.
-
Even in inadequately designed systems it's not much of an issue; in the real world of acoustic instruments audio signals above 20kHz are uncommon and at a very low level.
This is debatable
-
Of course!
Those with a vested interested in wasteful systems will argue that there is a meaningful level of supersonic signal in music.
-
Of course!
Those with a vested interested in wasteful systems will argue that there is a meaningful level of supersonic signal in music.
For these with wasteful interest in audio quality,
That's what DSD subject is about and nothing else
-
Apparently, it is debatable! :-X
-
Everything is debatable. Sometimes it's like having teenagers.
-
Whether DSD is wasteful or not, whether it sounds better or not, whether humans can hear ultrasonic or not aren't the issues here. The point is there is a lot of great sounding music a fair number people want to collect and play that happens to have been released in DSD, mainly on SACD.
There is no definitive answer to the question does the CD layer of a hybrid SACD sound just as good as the DSD Stereo layer and should we therefore insist that people preferring the DSD layer should be cut off, ostracized and ignored? Some might say yes, some no. Ok, but what about the Mch DSD layer? Should that be ignored too?
Fortunately, the powers that be at JRiver want to continue to support the format in stereo and in Mch. They do not wish to be engulfed in a petty, meaningless debate about the relative sonic merits or the wastefulness of the format. If a segment of the user base wants to use it, let 'em have it. Why not? And, what are there useful improvements that can be made to the support of it?
But, if for whatever reason you don't like DSD, just don't use it.
-
there is a lot of great sounding music
I actually got curious (I'm not an audiophile), and was planning to buy a DAC that does DSD256 just for kicks, to hear things for myself. My problem is with the idea highlighted above. Maybe I don't know enough about this market but how and what music is available in this format? Take out the symphonic, the dead artists, and niche ones that only 100 people heard about them. What's left? SACD music that one needs to buy the discs from Mars, a 1000 player to rip them, and even after that there's the problem (aka not a quality guarantee) of "how was this mastered, from what source?"
This is just too niche to even warrant a debate. JRiver supports it, just as they support 1000 other things; why does this poll even exist?
-
What's left? SACD music that one needs to buy the discs from Mars
If you think that Japan is on Mars, you should teach geography :)
-
what music is available in this format?
Check the NativeDSD Database at https://www.nativedsd.com/database (https://www.nativedsd.com/database)
Lists over 30 music download sites with DSD Downloads available. Most in Stereo, some sites offer Stereo, Multichannel and Binaural DSD.
-
there are 1430 albums on nativedsd.
How many which are not classical music see yourself.
-
Everything is debatable. Sometimes it's like having teenagers.
Yes :) but that's extreme. My both kids (14, 18) first say 'No' to everything
-
I actually got curious (I'm not an audiophile), and was planning to buy a DAC that does DSD256 just for kicks, to hear things for myself. My problem is with the idea highlighted above. Maybe I don't know enough about this market but how and what music is available in this format? Take out the symphonic, the dead artists, and niche ones that only 100 people heard about them. What's left? SACD music that one needs to buy the discs from Mars, a 1000 player to rip them, and even after that there's the problem (aka not a quality guarantee) of "how was this mastered, from what source?"
This is just too niche to even warrant a debate. JRiver supports it, just as they support 1000 other things; why does this poll even exist?
Www.hraudio.net lists all SACD and BD-A releases in all genres, stereo/Mch, etc. Many may, however, be OOP and no longer available new. There are over 10,000. I have well over 4,000 albums on my NAS, mostly classical, mostly Mch. New releases keep showing up, increasingly via download.
Yes, it is a niche, but growing in interest now that more people can rip SACD via certain Oppo, Pioneer, Sony, etc. players. But, yes, it is predominantly classical, so it will never be more than a niche, one that many have never heard of. It is of special interest to those who prefer music in Mch, like me, since SACD/DSD are overwhelmingly the main sources of Mch music.
I believe the poll exists for JRiver to determine what needs or issues DSD users have and to gauge overall level of interest and what resources to allocate to DSD support beyond just continuing current support, which is very satisfactory to me, by the way.
-
Www.hraudio.net lists all SACD and BD-A releases in all genres, stereo/Mch, etc. Many may, however, be OOP and no longer available new. There are over 10,000. I have well over 4,000 albums on my NAS, mostly classical, mostly Mch. New releases keep showing up, increasingly via download.
Yes, it is a niche, but growing in interest now that more people can rip SACD via certain Oppo, Pioneer, Sony, etc. players. But, yes, it is predominantly classical, so it will never be more than a niche, one that many have never heard of. It is of special interest to those who prefer music in Mch, like me, since SACD/DSD are overwhelmingly the main sources of Mch music.
I believe the poll exists for JRiver to determine what needs or issues DSD users have and to gauge overall level of interest and what resources to allocate to DSD support beyond just continuing current support, which is very satisfactory to me, by the way.
JRiver is niche ... whether its music (dsd, hires, ect) or video (3d, madvr, etc)
masses do streaming (netfix, imusic, etc) these days
-
For me the key disadvantage is that DSP could Not be Used.
+1
This is the reason why I always convert DSD to PCM @192KHz
-
+1
This is the reason why I always convert DSD to PCM @192KHz
This is the reason why I almost always convert DSD to PCM @176.4KHz on the fly. Someday, I may not need to.
-
I use DSD heavily for multichannel classical music (exaSound e38). I do not like any type of conversion from the original files for any format, if it is under my control. I have been an audiophile since high school (graduated 1961) and I can barely count the number of times file conversion has been erroneously said to make no difference in sound...(and now MQA!).
That said, I think it primarily matters for classical, and in particular, orchestral/choral/opera. It requires a good system and careful listening, but there is a difference between the original and flac and pcm and etc., etc. All that really matters is whether it matters to you. Some people think mp3 sounds good!
-
+1
This is the reason why I always convert DSD to PCM @192KHz
MC converts DSD by first converting to 1/8th the sample rate of the original file. That means you get 352 KHz or 705KHz or 1410Khz PCM, all of which are integer multiples of 176 KHz. Downsampling to 192KHz means you are doing a non-integer conversion. You might try converting to 176 KHz instead. if you can play that, just because the conversion is faster and consumes less CPU.
-
MC converts DSD by first converting to 1/8th the sample rate of the original file. That means you get 352 KHz or 705KHz or 1410Khz PCM, all of which are integer multiples of 176 KHz. Downsampling to 192KHz means you are doing a non-integer conversion. You might try converting to 176 KHz instead. if you can play that, just because the conversion is faster and consumes less CPU.
Using SoX I see an 0.1% difference in CPU usage between resampling to 192kHz or 176.4kHz on my system (3.05% vs 3.15%).
Without SoX the difference is slightly larger at roughly 0.5%, but CPU usage for both is higher than using SoX.
And that's with three other VST plug-ins in the DSP chain too.
-
Integer or non-Integer resampling is not very relevant with modern resampling algorithms. The quality and resource usage differences are minimal to non-existant. If anything a difference of load might be the result of the different amounts of data that need to be processed with different sample rates.
-
OK - I know this used to be an issue. Sounds like it is not anymore. I have not tested in a while. My bad.
EDIT : Actually, I just tested it, and did see a big difference. A 264 MB 4xDSD dsf file took 67 seconds to convert to 96 KHz flac and only 34 seconds to convert to 88 KHz, using SoX.
-
Speaking of DSD, this is finally coming in the next build:
NEW: Added a DSD Bitstreaming option to select the maximum DSD sample rate to bitstream, and otherwise fallback to decoding.
You can find it in the Custom Bitstreaming dialog.
-
Speaking of DSD, this is finally coming in the next build:
NEW: Added a DSD Bitstreaming option to select the maximum DSD sample rate to bitstream, and otherwise fallback to decoding.
You can find it in the Custom Bitstreaming dialog.
Awesome! Thanks.
-
Speaking of DSD, this is finally coming in the next build:
NEW: Added a DSD Bitstreaming option to select the maximum DSD sample rate to bitstream, and otherwise fallback to decoding.
You can find it in the Custom Bitstreaming dialog.
Finally :)
Many thanks
-
DSD is a must have for me. I have a lot of SACDs that I've ripped which have mastered versions that so far have only been released on SACD. Even the CD layer on the same disc has a different mastering. Love that JRiver has supported bit-perfect DSD for so long!
-
Fantastic, thank you so much!!