Topic: POLL: Importance of DSD? (Read 23373 times)

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.

Important?

As always, feel free to comment.

Screwdriver · « **Reply #1 on:** July 13, 2018, 08:22:10 am »

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.

swiv3d · « **Reply #2 on:** July 13, 2018, 08:29:39 am »

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.

Awesome Donkey · « **Reply #3 on:** July 13, 2018, 08:33:50 am »

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.

michael123 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 13, 2018, 10:53:34 am »

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.

JimH · « **Reply #5 on:** July 13, 2018, 11:01:18 am »

Quote from: michael123 on July 13, 2018, 10:53:34 am

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.

Dawgincontrol · « **Reply #6 on:** July 13, 2018, 11:12:38 am »

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

RD James · « **Reply #7 on:** July 13, 2018, 11:31:43 am »

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.

Manfred · « **Reply #8 on:** July 13, 2018, 02:58:46 pm »

For me the key disadvantage is that DSP could Not be Used.

DougHamm · « **Reply #9 on:** July 13, 2018, 03:11:40 pm »

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...

ikoiko · « **Reply #10 on:** July 13, 2018, 03:48:18 pm »

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
suggests a listener preference for DSD. I personally can't hear a difference.

pschelbert · « **Reply #11 on:** July 13, 2018, 04:34:24 pm »

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.

dtc · « **Reply #12 on:** July 13, 2018, 05:07:56 pm »

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.

kr4 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 13, 2018, 05:19:15 pm »

Quote from: dtc on July 13, 2018, 05:07:56 pm

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.

Quote

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.

Jamil · « **Reply #14 on:** July 14, 2018, 06:56:33 am »

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.

JimH · « **Reply #15 on:** July 14, 2018, 07:00:52 am »

We have no intention of discontinuing DSD.

pschelbert · « **Reply #16 on:** July 15, 2018, 11:47:22 am »

Quote from: Fitzcaraldo215 on July 15, 2018, 10:43:50 am

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.

JimH · « **Reply #17 on:** July 15, 2018, 11:47:49 am »

Split Multichannel DSD

JimH · « **Reply #18 on:** July 15, 2018, 11:53:05 am »

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.

pschelbert · « **Reply #19 on:** July 15, 2018, 11:59:45 am »

not exactly. I am a hardcore audiophile and say DSD is not the way to go. its PCM.

JimH · « **Reply #20 on:** July 15, 2018, 12:04:00 pm »

I started another similar poll on video and TV.

tyler69 · « **Reply #21 on:** July 15, 2018, 12:21:01 pm »

Quote from: JimH on July 15, 2018, 11:53:05 am

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.

kr4 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 15, 2018, 12:21:38 pm »

Quote from: JimH on July 15, 2018, 11:53:05 am

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.

chrisr · « **Reply #23 on:** July 15, 2018, 01:44:32 pm »

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.

ppy · « **Reply #24 on:** July 16, 2018, 11:34:55 am »

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.

JimH · « **Reply #25 on:** July 16, 2018, 12:49:16 pm »

Quote from: ppy on July 16, 2018, 11:34:55 am

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.

ppy · « **Reply #26 on:** July 16, 2018, 02:15:24 pm »

Quote from: JimH on July 16, 2018, 12:49:16 pm

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

michael123 · « **Reply #27 on:** July 16, 2018, 03:00:06 pm »

Quote from: JimH on July 13, 2018, 11:01:18 am

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

thomaspf · « **Reply #28 on:** July 16, 2018, 04:26:11 pm »

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

eddyshere · « **Reply #29 on:** July 17, 2018, 12:17:57 am »

Quote from: JimH on July 15, 2018, 11:53:05 am

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

JimH · « **Reply #30 on:** July 17, 2018, 02:12:14 am »

Quote from: eddyshere on July 17, 2018, 12:17:57 am

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!

Alex M · « **Reply #31 on:** July 17, 2018, 04:14:52 am »

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.

Fitzcaraldo215 · « **Reply #32 on:** July 18, 2018, 04:34:41 pm »

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.

dtc · « **Reply #33 on:** July 18, 2018, 06:42:11 pm »

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.

Frobozz · « **Reply #34 on:** July 19, 2018, 01:43:44 am »

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.

pschelbert · « **Reply #35 on:** July 19, 2018, 06:38:15 am »

why not buying files, so the need for ripping is gone?

Can JRiver convert multichannel DSD to multichannel PCM (I know, stereo works).

pschelbert · « **Reply #36 on:** July 19, 2018, 06:45:08 am »

Quote from: Frobozz on July 19, 2018, 01:43:44 am

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)?

dtc · « **Reply #37 on:** July 19, 2018, 06:55:13 am »

Quote from: pschelbert on July 19, 2018, 06:45:08 am

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.

pschelbert · « **Reply #38 on:** July 19, 2018, 07:00:33 am »

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.

Fitzcaraldo215 · « **Reply #39 on:** July 19, 2018, 08:45:51 am »

Quote from: pschelbert on July 19, 2018, 06:38:15 am

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 · « **Reply #40 on:** July 19, 2018, 09:22:42 am »

Quote from: dtc on July 18, 2018, 06:42:11 pm

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.

dtc · « **Reply #41 on:** July 19, 2018, 02:41:24 pm »

Quote from: Fitzcaraldo215 on July 19, 2018, 09:22:42 am

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.

Quote

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.

pschelbert · « **Reply #42 on:** July 19, 2018, 04:14:45 pm »

Quote from: Fitzcaraldo215 on July 19, 2018, 08:45:51 am

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.

michael123 · « **Reply #43 on:** July 20, 2018, 12:35:01 am »

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.

pschelbert · « **Reply #44 on:** July 20, 2018, 03:55:16 am »

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).

michael123 · « **Reply #45 on:** July 20, 2018, 06:09:58 am »

So you are deleting the source and keep its lossy product.
If quality is not a concern.. you mention also mp3 here so..

pschelbert · « **Reply #46 on:** July 20, 2018, 10:44:13 am »

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.

Fitzcaraldo215 · « **Reply #47 on:** July 20, 2018, 10:54:19 am »

Quote from: pschelbert on July 20, 2018, 03:55:16 am

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.

Alex M · « **Reply #48 on:** July 20, 2018, 11:01:33 am »

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.

michael123 · « **Reply #49 on:** July 20, 2018, 11:33:19 am »

Quote from: pschelbert on July 20, 2018, 10:44:13 am

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

INTERACT FORUM

Poll

How important is DSD support to you

Author Topic: POLL: Importance of DSD? (Read 23373 times)

swiv3d