Has anyone ever compared these two ultra-high end powerhouses? I remember when I demoed the dCS stack it was producing guitar harmonics more fully than my Denon DVD-5910 with regular redbook CD playback (in this case on Steve Vai's "Sisters").

I'm asking because I was offered a stellar deal on a dCS stack demo model (since the new models are coming out). Has anyone else experienced that little bit of extra harmonic content with the dCS stack? I'm going to go back and demo it again to make sure I remember it correctly, and hopefully demo it at home first as well, but I am curious what other people have experienced with these models, or even just one of them.

Thanks.

Has anyone ever compared these two ultra-high end powerhouses? I remember when I demoed the dCS stack it was producing guitar harmonics more fully than my Denon DVD-5910 with regular redbook CD playback (in this case on Steve Vai's "Sisters").

I'm asking because I was offered a stellar deal on a dCS stack demo model (since the new models are coming out). Has anyone else experienced that little bit of extra harmonic content with the dCS stack? I'm going to go back and demo it again to make sure I remember it correctly, and hopefully demo it at home first as well, but I am curious what other people have experienced with these models, or even just one of them.

Thanks.

To answer your question 2 years ago our audio club (BAAS) did that very demo between the dCS stack, the Meitner stack as well as the theta Gen 8. Phillip O'Hanlon who at that time was both the Meitner and Halcro Distributor in the USA drove all the way from San Juan Capistrano where he lives to demo the Meitner gear. Fellow AVS and BAAS member Tzucc held the demo at his house as he owns the dCS. Also fellow AVS and BAAS member Jeffmac brought his Theta Gen 8. IMO all three were simply spectacular and as Ron Party who was also there described the findings pretty simple. He said it was all a matter of flavors. Pick the one you like. You would be hard pressed to call any of the three bad. Of course I am partial to the Meitner, Tzucc to the DCS and Jeff to the Theta. There were probably 30 people there that day and I bet that the vote was equally split amongst the three

Hi

Just grab the DCs stack. Superior to the Denon in every parameter that matters.. as simple as that..

Which dCS models? Things have changed a lot since EMM Lab released their latest products.

- Steve O.

Hi

Just grab the DCs stack. Superior to the Denon in every parameter that matters.. as simple as that..

Frantz--I respectfully disagree

BTW Frantz I meant to suggest that all are better than Denon

Which dCS models? Things have changed a lot since EMM Lab released their latest products.

- Steve O.

I'm still waiting for the dealer to respond, but since they were actively selling them, I would assume (though I could be wrong) it was up to date... dCS does offer upgrades right? If so, then their unit is probably the last upgrade version. I'll call them on Monday and find out ofr certain. I definitely want the model that upconvgerts redbook to SACD, but considering the sound quality of my Steve Vai CD on that unit, I have to assume it was being upconverted. I haven't heard those kinds of harmonic details on any other player I've heard... I do want to double check and see if I imagined it, but I don't hear that kind of content I remember hearing then on my current players and setup. Albeit, that setup also had Halcro amps and the dCS was run directly to the amps.

I really need to try it in my system...

The other thing is, I've never heard the Meitner, so perhaps I need to find one to demo. No one in my area that has those units lets you demo in home as far as I know... :(

Hi

Just grab the DCs stack. Superior to the Denon in every parameter that matters.. as simple as that..

I'm using an Ayre C-5xe for my two channel setup right now. The denon I use as a transport for my Meridian 861 DAC, and as a surround sound player.

I agree with Frantz to say goodby to the Denono and to consider one of the other three that I mentioned

I'm still waiting for the dealer to respond, but since they were actively selling them, I would assume (though I could be wrong) it was up to date... dCS does offer upgrades right? If so, then their unit is probably the last upgrade version. I'll call them on Monday and find out ofr certain. I definitely want the model that upconvgerts redbook to SACD, but considering the sound quality of my Steve Vai CD on that unit, I have to assume it was being upconverted. I haven't heard those kinds of harmonic details on any other player I've heard... I do want to double check and see if I imagined it, but I don't hear that kind of content I remember hearing then on my current players and setup. Albeit, that setup also had Halcro amps and the dCS was run directly to the amps.

I really need to try it in my system...

The other thing is, I've never heard the Meitner, so perhaps I need to find one to demo. No one in my area that has those units lets you demo in home as far as I know... :(


The latest version of Meitner upconverts to 2X DSD

Although I have to say that dCS DAC is really good, but use the Esoteric master clock via WORD, and also use the Esoteric transport. Scarlatti transport is basically the Esoteric second line transport drive.

The latest version of Meitner upconverts to 2X DSDSometime this is more prone to jitter, cause everything is so much closer and faster....

Sometime this is more prone to jitter, cause everything is so much closer and faster....


Not for my ears.

i wouldn't trade my Meitner stack for anything BUT remember that the other two are equally as good. Just pick your flavor as Ron Party says

Esoteric Transport and master clock, and dCS Scarlatti (Ring) DAC. That's a good combo.

Rene,
As you know we both discussed this subject a lot. I would even say "In-depth" as possible...

I fully agree with you regarding multichannel setup.

Back to stereo units... There are three current choices from dCS-Scarlatti and Paganini as three units combos(transport, clock and dac) or Puccini(single unit SACD/CD player). AFAIK all are better then old dCS units. I also got the chance to audition Scarlatti and Paganini and they sounded better then Elgar+ based combo...

Esoteric is my current reference: D-03/P-03U/G-0Rb combo, it is really as good as R.Harley said in his TAS review. I like the fact that D-03 with AD1955 sounds little bit more powerfull in bass then BB1704 based D-01. Build quality of Esoteric is excellent, much better then EMM Labs player that I briefly had a chance to audition.

EMM Labs... Good sound but, not my cup of tea... Little bit too thin sounding for me...

QueueCumber,

Try to audition them all if possible. Your taste could be different then OBs, Renes or mine...

Why not just run a digital output so you don't have to play around with different sources?

Why not just run a digital output so you don't have to play around with different sources?
blueray,

The components under discussion here; dCS stack, and Meitner/EMMLabs units are
basically SACD units. Both the dCS and the Meitner gear have SACD DSD DACs; and
Redbook data is upsampled to DSD and fed to the DSD DACs in the units for conversion
to analog.

If you are going to limit yourself to Redbook - i.e. ordinary CD; then you might as well
get units that have DACs that directly convert Redbook to analog; which is not what
the dCS and Meitner units do.

So if one is going to use either the dCS stack, or the Meitner units; then one is most
likely going to be playing SACD software.

The SACD licensing doesn't allow the output of unencrypted DSD data. Both the dCS
and Meitner units, because they are multi-box units, have proprietary interconnects so
that they don't expose the uncrypted DSD data. [ Redbook digital data can be output
without violating the license]

Because of the proprietary interconnect; these front end units should be considered
"matched sets". You don't "mix and match" them.

Just curious, has there been a review of any of the Meitner gear where measurements such as distortion, clock jitter etc were performed?

As far as I know, I have never seen a Stereophile review of any EMM Labs gear. This is surprising since DCS is regularly reviewed. I am sure they would measure well as the professionals are using them but I would still be interested in seeing them. Thanks.

http://www.emmlabs.com/html/press/awards.html

http://www.emmlabs.com/html/press/index.html

http://www.emmlabs.com/html/press/articles.html

I would say, a double blindtest and levelmatched to 0,1db. It can be very cheap then ;)

As far as I know, I have never seen a Stereophile review of any EMM Labs gear.
euryd,

I don't remember seeing Stereophile reviewing EMM Labs gear.

However, "The Absolute Sound" has reviewed EMM Labs gear; and in fact, TAS's
Harry Pearson claims that the Meitner gear is the best he has heard:

Harry Pearson, Golden Ear Award
"Quite simply, the best two-channel CD (and two-channel SACD) playback device of the
many, many we've tested in Sea Cliff over the past year. ...you can listen with pleasure,
and for hours and hours."

--The Absolute Sound February/March 2005

euryd,

I don't remember seeing Stereophile reviewing EMM Labs gear.

However, "The Absolute Sound" has reviewed EMM Labs gear; and in fact, TAS's
Harry Pearson claims that the Meitner gear is the best he has heard:

Harry Pearson, Golden Ear Award
"Quite simply, the best two-channel CD (and two-channel SACD) playback device of the
many, many we've tested in Sea Cliff over the past year. ...you can listen with pleasure,
and for hours and hours."

--The Absolute Sound February/March 2005
It is certainly my choice

I disagree with Kreso who finds it somewhat thin sounding--not sure if he has heard the SE versions

It is certainly my choice

I disagree with Kreso who finds it somewhat thin sounding--not sure if he has heard the SE versions
OB,

Yes - I wouldn't call the EMM Labs units "thin". Perhaps Kresno hasn't heard them with
amplifier and speakers that are up to the task of properly exhibiting the capabilities of
these units.

I've heard the EMM Labs units through OB's Lamm 2.1 driven Wilson X-2 Alexandrias.
I've also heard the EMM Labs at Music Lovers on Halcro-driven Wilson X-2s.

Finally, I've heard the EMM Labs along side the dCS stack and the Theta Gen 8
through Krell-driven Wilson X-1s in the "shootout" that the BAAS did.

If anything, the EMM Labs are perhaps the most "detailed".

http://www.emmlabs.com/html/press/awards.html

http://www.emmlabs.com/html/press/index.html

http://www.emmlabs.com/html/press/articles.html

Oneobgyn,

Could you please point me to an article which has made measurements of jitter and distortion in your list above? Don't get me wrong, I love their sound and I own them as well. It is just that I have seen many reviews of DCS, Esoteric etc with measurements. Many were done by Stereophile whose reviews are two fold. There is a section by an expert listener and also a measurement section. I just can't seem to find one for the Meitner gear with measurements.

euryd,

I don't remember seeing Stereophile reviewing EMM Labs gear.

However, "The Absolute Sound" has reviewed EMM Labs gear; and in fact, TAS's
Harry Pearson claims that the Meitner gear is the best he has heard:

Harry Pearson, Golden Ear Award
"Quite simply, the best two-channel CD (and two-channel SACD) playback device of the
many, many we've tested in Sea Cliff over the past year. ...you can listen with pleasure,
and for hours and hours."

--The Absolute Sound February/March 2005

The Absolute Sound review does not provide any measurements as far as I know. I just find it a bit unusual that Stereophile has never reviewed the Meitner gear which many of us consider to be the cream of the crop. Like I said, I love their sound. I would like to see a Stereophile review because they provide measured as well as an expert listener review.

The SACD licensing doesn't allow the output of unencrypted DSD data.

You can use FireWire or i. Link and HDMI, so again why not use a digital connection?

You can use FireWire or i. Link and HDMI, so again why not use a digital connection?

Hmm, I will wager a guess. Perhaps because those particular units don't use that method to output the encrypted SACD signal?

http://www.sa-cd.net/faq#playback9

i.LINK, also known as FireWire and IEEE1394, is a high-performance serial bus used for connecting peripherals to multimedia computers. It can carry DSD audio in a secure way

HDMI supports DSD audio from version 1.2 up.

Even if you can not use DSD why not just use PCM?

http://www.sa-cd.net/faq#playback9





Even if you can not use DSD why not just use PCM?

I'll wager a guess at that as well... It defeats the purpose of DSD to switch it over to PCM. Then you have two layers of digitization as well.

I'll wager a guess at that as well... It defeats the purpose of DSD to switch it over to PCM. Then you have two layers of digitization as well.


But going from DSD to PCM will not affect the signal, same as going from a hi def lossless bitstream to LPCM.

But going from DSD to PCM will not affect the signal, same as going from a hi def lossless bitstream to LPCM.

I'm not sure about that. If I remember correctly, when you stack multiple layers of digitization (sampling/quantization/coding/decoding/etc) the anomalies that weren't quite perceptible at one point start to aggregate and as such their potential for audibility is raised. You have to remember, when you reconstruct a digital signal, it isn't that anomolies don't exist, it is that they are kept below human perception thresholds (BTW, this is actually contentious too at certain sampling rates and bit levels). At high enough levels it may not be an issue, but it does defeat the purpose of using those formats to convert it to another format a long the way IMO. You might as well not use that format if that is your goal IMO.

Of course, if you go high enough, such as 96KHz/24bit it likely won't be an issue, but then you are still adding even more to the transport end. You would need something that converts the DSD to PCM (like Esoteric did in some of their systems - not sure if they currently do it in their newer systems any more).

LPCM is a hidef lossless bitstream from my understanding of it.

I'm not sure about that. If I remember correctly, when you stack multiple layers of digitization (sampling/quantization/coding/decoding/etc) the anomalies that weren't quite perceptible at one point start to aggregate and as such their potential for audibility is raised. You have to remember, when you reconstruct a digital signal, it isn't that anomolies don't exist, it is that they are kept below human perception thresholds (BTW, this is actually contentious too at certain sampling rates and bit levels). At high enough levels it may not be an issue, but it does defeat the purpose of using those formats to convert it to another format a long the way IMO. You might as well not use that format if that is your goal IMO.


Ah I don't think so, this sounds like the typical high end mumbo jombo. We know that you can send a DSD SACD signal through firewire/ilink and HDMI 1.2 or greater. So we now need to see what players do this and what processors/receivers and accept a DSD SACD signal.

So if PCM works for DVD audio and hi def audio why would SACD be any different.

Ah I don't think so, this sounds like the typical high end mumbo jombo. We know that you can send a DSD SACD signal through firewire/ilink and HDMI 1.2 or greater. So we now need to see what players do this and what processors/receivers and accept a DSD SACD signal.

So if PCM works for DVD audio and hi def audio why would SACD be any different.

You didn't read what I wrote. It sounds like mumbo jumbo because you don't know much about the topic and only parrot things you read elsewhere... :rolleyes:

You didn't read what I wrote. It sounds like mumbo jumbo because you don't know much about the topic and only parrot things you read elsewhere...

The only thing we need to find out is if the process of DSD to PCM is lossless.

It isn't lossless, and there's no way that it can be, strictly speaking. However, that doesn't mean it necessarily sounds bad. John Kotches, I believe, has fed DSD converted to PCM (24/96kHz, I believe) (EDIT: actually probably 24/88.2kHz) to his Meridian, and is pleased with the results.

Besides, if you want to do any signal processing---bass management, matrixing (Logic7, PLIIx), etc. on the signal, you have to convert it to PCM. Furthermore, if your D/A converters don't support DSD natively, then you'll have to convert it to PCM instead.

Frankly DSD is a pain in the butt.

It isn't lossless, and there's no way that it can be, strictly speaking.

Why not, why would DSD be different over every other format?

We can get a lossless compression of DSD to DST so can we now go with lossless DST to PCM?

It isn't lossless, and there's no way that it can be, strictly speaking. However, that doesn't mean it necessarily sounds bad. John Kotches, I believe, has fed DSD converted to PCM (24/96kHz, I believe) to his Meridian, and is pleased with the results.

Besides, if you want to do any signal processing---bass management, matrixing (Logic7, PLIIx), etc. on the signal, you have to convert it to PCM. Furthermore, if your D/A converters don't support DSD natively, then you'll have to convert it to PCM instead.

Frankly DSD is a pain in the butt.

I do the same with my Meridan 861 as well. Though I commit even worse crimes, I feed it to the Meridian as analog output! :eek: Really though, it is probably the same exact thing as converting it to PCM before outputting the signal, except I open the door for signal pollution as it travels from my source (Denon DVD-5910) to my preprocessor. My Meridian converts it to 96/24 PCM. The results are good enough for my surround setup (I don't hear anything to complain about), but if I were to spend the kind of money that these other components cost, I would expect the setup to maintain the same form (in this case DSD) up until analog conversion.

At this point, I found out the dCS unit he is selling does not have the firewire, so I lost interest anyway (it isn't worth the price for version 2 IMO). At some point I want to try out some of these units in the two channel portion of my system. I don't care that those ring DACs have proprietary algorithms that may alter the sound. As long as they alter the sound so I hear more of the music in a revealing and pleasant way, and not less of it...

A component that decompresses the crappy sound put on CDs nowadays and makes it sound natural is worth a lot of money to me... So if I find that any players do that, I'm sold (of course I realize that is impossible :().

Plus most DAC's now days are capable of PCM/DSD so using high end high priced players for SACD is going out much like it did for CD. Can anyone provide a link that states converting DSD to PCM will affect the sound, otherwise when using a digital connection it would all sound the same.

Why not, why would DSD be different over every other format?Because it is. DSD has a sampling rate of 2.8224MHz (yes, that's megahertz), but only 1 bit per sample per channel, and a heck of a lot of noise shaping. You can't losslessly convert that to PCM because PCM implementaitons top out at 192kHz.We can get a lossless compression of DSD to DST so can we now go with lossless DST to PCM?No, DST is just a compressed version of DSD. You can only decompress it back to DSD in a lossless way.

Yes, DSD is weird, like many formats Sony has developed. But there was some rationale for it. It turns out that many analog-to-digital converters these days actually digitize in a DSD-like 1-bit format. So instead of converting to PCM, you could instead just store that 1-bit bitstream. But of course, this only works if you plan to go directly from live recording or analog tape to SACD! If you need to do any sort of digital processing you have to go to PCM, in which case you might as well STAY in PCM.

You can't losslessly convert that to PCM because PCM implementaitons top out at 192kHz.

But SACD is maxed out at 96/192 anyways.

What? No it's not. SACD uses DSD format: 1 bit per sample per channel, 2.8224MHz sampling rate. You're confusing it with DVD-Audio which is 24 bits, 192kHz sampling rate.

Basically it works as follows: DSD being a 1-bit signal means that every bit represents a sample - a measurement of the amplitude of the sound wave at a certain time. Since a bit can only have two values, every bit in a DSD stream only tells weather the amplitude of the sound signal was higher or lower than the previous sample. Because it doesn't tell how much higher or lower the amplitude is, you can imagine you need a lot of samples to accurately describe the signal.

And because of the 1 bit signal it has to be sampled 64 times, but as you said DSD is a pain in the butt and the more I read the more I wonder why people use it.

The signal to noise ratio of a DSD signal is actually less than 0dB---there is more noise than signal. Fortunately, by design nearly all of that noise is shifted into the inaudible range; so from 0-20kHz, the SNR is very, very high---I've seen numbers up to 127dB. You're recording air movement at that point. It's a very interesting format intellectually but my goodness it's a pain.

bluray, you should check out what it looks like on paper, simplified drawings of how it works. It is pretty neat. The waveforms are modulated using distances between bits, and whether the bits are positive or negative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PCM-vs-DSD.svg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/PCM-vs-DSD.svg/480px-PCM-vs-DSD.svg.png

So if we can send a DSD SACD signal through a digital connection and since most DAC's now days do decode DSD why would people spend huge amounts on a SACD player when you can with the digital connection take the player out of the chain and rely on your receiver/processor.

I could never hear the difference between CD/SACD so I never got involved in it that much. When I used a hybrid CD/SACD I could not hear anything different from switching between the two.

bluray, depending on the album, it is often mastered differently. I've given up on everything except LPs at this point though, since none of them aren't taking off, and most new CD releases are compressed to crap nowadays, at least in the genres I enjoy most.

My enthusiasm for the music industry is at an all time low... Thankfully, a lot of good albums ruined by the "loudness war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_wars)" on CD are being released without all the compression on vinyl. I just have to burn it to CD and remove any pops and clicks...

A problem with DVD-A, is they can do the same thing they did on CD there as well, and they have on some albums... :( Like when you notice a huge jump in sound level between the different sampling rate tracks.

I do however like surround sound, at least some albums...

But because of the low 1 bit rate SACD DSD needs the extreme sample rate, but since PCM has a high bit rate it does not need to have a sample rate nearly as high. So when converting a DSD signal to PCM does the sample rate play a role yet if it is still in the digital domain?

Not sure what you mean here. It's meaningless to talk about PCM without a sample rate, so of course it "plays a role." The higher the target sample rate, the more of the original DSD information you can "keep". The practical question is, of course, how high you need that sample rate to be to keep the conversion perceptually lossless. It seems to me that 176.4kHz (16x downsample) would be a virtual guarantee, and probably even 88.2kHz (32x). There are arguments that 44.1kHz (64x downsample) isn't quite enough.

But because of the low 1 bit rate SACD DSD needs the extreme sample rate, but since PCM has a high bit rate it does not need to have a sample rate nearly as high. So when converting a DSD signal to PCM does the sample rate play a role yet if it is still in the digital domain?

I would guess that the DSD is converted to analog first then to PCM in a chip that converts one to the other. I'm not sure though, I've never researched that far into it. They are apples and oranges if you understand how digital signalling works and look at the very simplified diagrams I posted. In order to translate one bit at such a high speed into a multiple bit window at a lower speed (sampling rate) you would need a large buffer if you use an algorithm instead and didn't change it to analog and just resample... One end of the buffer (likely a FIFO queue of some sort) would have to be designed to input DSD stream and store it so the other end could pull it out in a manner condusive to conversion to PCM. There are of course, multiple ways to design such a thing...

The only time the sample rate comes into play with the DSD signal is when the DAC decodes the information right? So can you up the bit rate of the DSD signal before so you do not to sample it so many times.

I would guess that the DSD is converted to analog first then to PCM in a chip that converts one to the other.

Then that is one more thing we have to find out because if you can keep it in the digital domain that might change things.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6982662-description.html

So does a DSD signal have to be converted for any manipulation?

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6982662-description.html

So does a DSD signal have to be converted for any manipulation?

I'm on an iPhone right now, watching Heroes on DVR, so I can't read the link ATM, but with what I know about digital circuit design, network signal encoding transposition and computer architecture I would say, yes it can be done.

I'm on an iPhone right now, watching Heroes on DVR, so I can't read the link ATM, but with what I know about digital circuit design, network signal encoding transposition and computer architecture I would say, yes it can be done.

I could write a program to do it if I had the means to get DSD bits into a computer RAM location. I would need to know the algorithms for DSD (and for cleaning it up) to convert it to PCM though.

Anything can be converted to anything else, it is a question of time and costs based on complexity. DSD is capable of having signal processing done to it like anything else, but I don't think anyone has put the time and effort into it. Processing has taken off with PCM because of the pervasiveness of surround sound on video media which use compressed forms of PCM that are uncompressed to PCM for processing. To do such things with DSD wouldn't be worth anyone's while because of the small market. Video soundtracks are a much larger market than just DSD.

http://www.oppodigital.com/dv981hd/dv981hd_index.html

The OPPO DV-981HD does convert the SACD DSD to PCM before it outputs it over HDMI, we should try and see how a player of this price does it.

To do such things with DSD wouldn't be worth anyone's while because of the small market.

Indeed.

Sampling an analog audio signal into a DSD signal may be performed by a sigma-delta modulator. A sigma-delta modulator includes analog circuitry that captures the analog audio signal and converts it into a single bit stream. Because of its single bit format, DSD signals can be converted back into the analog audio signal using minimal hardware. However, manipulation of the single bit DSD stream representing the analog audio signal can be very difficult. For example, tasks such as increasing the volume, adjusting treble or bass, etc., is very difficult because the DSD signal cannot be easily processed using existing digital filters and digital signal processing techniques. One solution is to convert the DSD signal into a PCM signal using a Finite Impulse Response (FIR) digital filter. PCM signals can be processed using digital filters and DSP techniques to allow manipulation of the PCM signal to accomplish tasks such as increasing the volume or adjusting bass and for more complex tasks such as surround sound effects.

http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/filters/FIR_Digital_Filters.html

I have no experience with a Finite Impulse Response (FIR) digital filter.

Conversion of the DSD signal to a PCM signal may require a high quality and expensive FIR digital filter containing large quantities of complex hardware. The DSD to PCM converter may have an odd sized binary multiplier for multiplying 1 bit by the number of bits needed to encode the PCM signal (i.e. 1 by 16 bit multiplier, 1 by 24 bit multiplier, 1 by 32 bit multiplier, etc.). The DSD to PCM converter may also include a sign controller and an N-coefficient buffer to implement the FIR filter.

Digital signal processors (DSPs) that do not contain the dedicated hardware described above for DSD to PCM conversion are not capable of efficiently performing this conversion. Thus, there has been a longfelt need for an improved and low-cost method implemented in software or firmware and apparatus for efficient conversion of DSD signals to PCM signals in a (DSP).


So if a DSP can do this then it would be in the digital domain?

http://www.oppodigital.com/dv981hd/dv981hd_index.html

The OPPO DV-981HD does convert the SACD DSD to PCM before it outputs it over HDMI, we should try and see how a player of this price does it.

No, "you" should see how they do it. I already have a setup that does those kinds of conversions. I also have a setup that does straight up DSD.

The issue I'm interested in, is which proprietary algorithms and DACs output better sound, not discussing DSD vs. PCM or researching equipment options I already use. This has been entertaining though...

So if a DSP can do this then it would be in the digital domain?

If you need to ask, then you are in the deep end of the pool and can't swim.

not discussing DSD vs. PCM

And why not? If PCM sounds the same and is lossless then as a CD player all SACD players over a digital connection would sound the same.

If you need to ask, then you are in the deep end of the pool and can't swim.

It also seems that no one would know? So if a DSP can convert a DSD to PCM in the digital domain then it would not matter and sound the same.

And why not? If PCM sounds the same and is lossless then as a CD player all SACD players over a digital connection would sound the same.



It also seems that no one would know? So if a DSP can convert a DSD to PCM in the digital domain then it would not matter and sound the same.

Assuming there is no loss of integrity during conversion (which is a bad assumption to make without validation since it is not a one to one conversion, or even a multiple of a whole number conversion) and the sampling/bit rates are high enough on the PCM output... Then your question was answered already earlier in the thread by Michael Grant.

I suggest if you need more help with this, you start a separate thread on the topic. I'm sure people would be more than happy to help you.

I'm responding to both of you here.I would guess that the DSD is converted to analog first then to PCM in a chip that converts one to the other.Perish the though! No, it is done entirely digitally.The only time the sample rate comes into play with the DSD signal is when the DAC decodes the information right?No. The sample rate is part of the information content and can never be ignored or "put off."DSD is capable of having signal processing done to it like anything else, but I don't think anyone has put the time and effort into it.This isn't the case. You can do all sorts of signal processing to DSD if you want to---but it necessarily becomes PCM as a result of you doing so. And since nobody wants to build PCM processing engines that operate at 2.8224MHz (at least not for music!) it is simply a matter of practicality to downsample to standard PCM sample rates before you do any processing.

Guys, I don't know how to put this gently, but there are certain conceptual issues here that are apparently beyond your current understanding. I am not saying you're not smart enough to learn it; on the contrary! Just that you do have a fair amount to learn to really appreciate what's going on. Even once you have the concept of PCM mastered, DSD in particular is a step more esoteric than that! I myself am still not comfortable, for example, with just how to analyze and/or design the noise shapers in sigma/delta and delta/sigma DACs, which use the same 1-bit ideas.

No. The sample rate is part of the information content and can never be ignored or "put off."

Even if the bit rate can be increased?

Yes, even if.

Yes, even if.

Ok, I have some more reading to do since I thought the high sample rate was only needed when you did the DAC since it was only a 1 bit signal and if you increase the bit rate the high sample rate would not be needed much like a PCM signal.

Yes, I think some more reading is in order, because your last sentence did not even make sense :)

Yes, I think some more reading is in order, because your last sentence did not even make sense

Why not, the high sample rate is only needed because of the 1 bit signal. In a PCM signal of 24 bits you do not need a high sample rate becuase the bit rate is higher.

I do not know maybe I have read to much new information tonight and need a break.

Assuming there is no loss of integrity during conversion (which is a bad assumption to make without validation since it is not a one to one conversion, or even a multiple of a whole number conversion) and the sampling/bit rates are high enough on the PCM output...

I think this depends very much on the perceptual cues that are important to the human hearing system. For example, there is conjecture that sharper time domain response than can be gotten from a brickwall at 22.05 kHz is perceptibly important. The HDCD system switches its low-pass filter shape for its downsampling to 44.1 kHz from 88.2 kHz depending on what kind of transient it sees, and encodes this information in its hidden channel so the decoder can apply the correct inverse filter on playback. Meitner had a similar algorithm in the BiDAT except it worked on base 44.1 kHz signals and would do the analysis in realtime.

Given that DSD can record much sharper transients because of its higher sampling rate, there could be many different downsampling schemes (all of which could possibly sound different) depending on the kind of analysis the downsampler does.

Personally, I think DSD is technically bankrupt. Encoding a snapshot of technology at one point in time into a standard that you expect to last for years and use for archival purposes (as Sony intended DSD to be used initially) is just plain dumb. ADCs have moved well beyond 1-bit sigma-delta.

--Andre

Bluray, now that makes more sense. OK, let me try and explain. This is a long one.

In uniformly sampled digital signal processing (which includes both PCM and DSD), a given signal format is described by its word size and its sample rate. The word size effectively governs how much quantization noise is present in the digital signal---the more bits, the less noise. The sample rate determines the frequency content of the signal---the higher the sample rate, the wider a frequency range the format can represent (specifically, from DC/0Hz up to half the sample rate). You need both quantities at your disposal in order to properly interpret and process the signal.

That's the traditional way of looking at signal processing---and when you look at it that way, DSD seems rather stupid. For one thing, it has only one bit, so the signal to noise ratio is LOUSY---in fact, there is more noise than signal. And secondly, the sample rate is 2.8224Hz, so it can carry frequency content up to 1.4112MHz, but that's something like 70 times higher than even the most pristine human ears can hear, so why bother?

The answer is called noise shaping. In traditional A/D conversion, quantization noise gets spread out evenly from 0Hz all the way to the Nyquist frequency. But in fact, it is possible to shape the spectrum of that noise---move it around so that there is less in some frequency bands, and more in others. The total amount of noise can't be reduced, just where in the frequency range it sits. And there are practical limits on how much shaping you can do before it starts to affect your signal, too. Noise shaping can also be performed in certain digital->digital processing steps, too---for example, when downconverting high-resolution digital content (say, 24/352.8kHz) to RedBook (16/44.1kHz).

Why do noise shaping? As you probably know, we are more sensitive to some frequencies than others. So, using noise shaping, you can push some of the quantization noise out of the most sensitive frequency bands and into bands where it matters less. The total noise is the same, but it's now in bands we don't hear as well. In this way, we can take the 16=bit/44.1kHz RedBook PCM format and squeeze something like 18-19 bits of apparent resolution out of it. I'm not sure what the popular wisdom is about this kind of noise shaping in the mastering world, though---that is, whether or not it has other undesirable audible consequences I don't appreciate. I'm not a sound guy, just a signal processing guy :)

Now, when you have a format with a higher sampling rate like 96kHz or 192kHz, you have the opportunity to move some of that noise completely out of audible range. To be honest, though, since DVD-A already has 24 bits of resolution, I am not entirely sure that people bother to do noise shaping at those sample rates. The noise floor for 24-bit signals is already quite low---no analog circuitry is that clean.

But DSD is an interesting combination. It takes the concept of noise shaping to its absolute extreme. Again, DSD is ridiculously noisy: there is more noise than signal. Using noise shaping, however, nearly all of that noise is pushed way up into the ultrasonic frequencies that we cannot hear. So down in the 0-20kHz range, there is very little noise left, on par with 24-bit PCM.

Alas, there is a fair amount of noise left in, say, the 25-50kHz range, whereas 24/96 and 24/192kHz PCM without noise shaping is clean out to 48 and 96kHz, respectively. There is some study suggesting that ultrasonic content might have a subtle impact on our listening experience even if we can't hear it per se. To the best of my knowledge the evidence either way is not yet conclusive. But if it turns out to be true, then PCM is going to be clearly preferred.

Again, note that the only reason we can get such clean content out of DSD that is because the sample rate is so high! If it weren't, then we wouldn't have anywhere to push the noise. So you really cannot ignore sample rate when doing digital processing, whether you're dealing with DSD or PCM. Indeed, in this enhanced conceptual framework, it should be clear that DSD is just an extreme form of PCM anyway.

Anyway I hope that helps to flesh things out for you and QC. I am done for the night as my daughter finally went back to sleep.

I'm not sure what the popular wisdom is about RedBook noise shaping in the mastering world, though---that is, whether or not it has undesirable audible consequences I don't appreciate.


In general, I think they like it, but apparently different schemes work better depending on the recording. Pop music likes certain forms of noise shaping, while natural acoustic music likes others. What I worry about noise-shaping and other forms of processing built into delivered content (like perceptual coding such as MP3, DD, etc.) is that DSP on the consumer side is going to increase: room EQ, bass management, etc. What are the consequences of interactions between these forms of processing? Are things which were masked when played straight going to be audible when the consumer does some kind of processing on it?

There is some study suggesting that ultrasonic content might have a subtle impact on our listening experience even if we can't hear it per se. To the best of my knowledge the evidence either way is not yet conclusive. But if it turns out to be true, then PCM is going to be clearly preferred.


It has unsubtle effects as well: certain expensive amplifiers made in Connecticut have been known to go unstable when presented with high-amplitude ultrasonic signals on their inputs. Their choice of amps when Sony did their SACD dog-and-pony show when SACD first came out, was very deliberate (Pass), because some others would have issues.

--Andre

Again, note that the only reason we can get such clean content out of DSD that is because the sample rate is so high! If it weren't, then we wouldn't have anywhere to push the noise. So you really cannot ignore sample rate when doing digital processing, whether you're dealing with DSD or PCM. Indeed, in this enhanced conceptual framework, it should be clear that DSD is just an extreme form of PCM anyway.
Michael,

Thank you for a very well written explanation of the concept here.

It's a very good explanation why sample rate is not a "separable" part of the problem.

Sample rate, word length.... are all part of the specification of the encoding technique.

Trying to separate the sampling rate from the rest of the technique is like trying to
consider frequency response and transient response as two completely independent,
separable quantities - when they are not.

Again, it's why we have the Uncertainty Principle in Physics. Some things are so
intertwined that even Mother Nature doesn't know how to separate them.

Hi

The more I read about DSD the less I understand the reasons for its existence.. What are its advantages over PCM (if any)?

Hi, my advise: don't go into all these techno details but have a listening experience yourself. Very convincing! DSD can give you extra resolution/aso over PCM (redbook).

Be carefull that you use SACDs that are recorded in DSD, not in PCM and than converted to DSD to put it on a DSD disk (as many cheap/mass labels do). Check out for example www.sa-cd.net where you can see this per label/title.

I agree Rene

Hi

The more I read about DSD the less I understand the reasons for its existence.. What are its advantages over PCM (if any)?

1. lower noise floor.....a very big deal.
2. smoother, more analog as the conversion process is much more benigne to the musical waveform.
3. less phase problems from the digital filter so the high frequencies are less harsh....it is absent the broken off rough transients of PCM.
4. multi-channel can be awesome.
5. as a system improves DSD/SACD has more and more advantages.
6. classical music is much more enjoyable.
7. the SACD's mastered on a Meitner and played back thru a Meitner are supreme.

recorded in DSD

Do they use 1.5 bit DSD recorder instead of 1bit? There are some papers about the PCM vs DSD from AES. One PCM supporter said even Sony use 1.5bit DSD recorder.

Kudos to Michael. A superb summary.

Here are my notes on the subject. Please note that I am a complete amateur that just enjoys the research. I have many gaps in my knowledge and would look forward to your comments.

Noise shaping can also be performed in certain digital->digital processing steps, too---for example, when downconverting high-resolution digital content (say, 24/352.8kHz) to RedBook (16/44.1kHz).


Volume control and most DSP in some pre/pros is done at a bit rate higher that 24. I believe my Meridian uses 48 and 72 bit. Since no DAC operates at higher than 24 bits the 48/72 bit signal must be downsampled to 24 bit or less. Whenever a signal is downsampled it is highly recommeded that dither/noise shaping be added.

Thus whenever you use a digital volume control that operates at greater than 24 bit the component is most likely using dither/noise shaping when it downsamples to 24 bit for the DAC. There is interestingly a magic gain number, 6.01...dB, that does not require dither/noise shaping because the signal in is the same as the signal out except for the gain.

The most frequent use of dither/noise shaping is, I believe, when a 24 bit recording is downsampled to 16 bit to make a CD.

The noise floor for 24-bit signals is already quite low---no analog circuitry is that clean.


Because of the noise floor of the components (resistors, etc) no digitial circuit can approach 24 bit. I believe 22 bit is considered exceptional and that 20 bit is more normal.

I'm not sure what the popular wisdom is about this kind of noise shaping in the mastering world,

As Andre stated the noise shaping used can depend on the type of music. A few of the high end DACs even allow you to choose your own noise shaping curve. My lowly $500 (used, $2k new) Meridan 518 mastering processor allows me to choose dither, noise shaping, and bits in and out. It is interesting to play with it and hear the differences or not.

My friend has a dCS stack which, as you know, can play CDs as straight PCM or as PCM converted to DSD plus one can choose among various sampling rates. It is interesting to hear the differences which sometimes can be quite dramatic. I find it ironic that so many people think there is only one "perfect" digital sound. Playing with these variables show that there a several perfect sounds.

Hi

My DAC/Transport do not play DSD, I have had the opportunity to compare the dCS top of the line (3 years ago) to a Burmester "stak" and the Burmester was the better... I have heard several DSD recording on other machine and am not convinced... Different? Maybe.. Better? clearly not.. At this point in time, the 2 best digital supports I have heard are HDCD and the JVC SRCD... I have not heard a top of the line DVD Audio machine .. To me DVD-A is potentially better than DSD or CD...

This isn't the case. You can do all sorts of signal processing to DSD if you want to---but it necessarily becomes PCM as a result of you doing so. And since nobody wants to build PCM processing engines that operate at 2.8224MHz (at least not for music!) it is simply a matter of practicality to downsample to standard PCM sample rates before you do any processing.

Why is that?

It is a signal encoded in bits. Perhaps no one has done it or created new paradigms for manipulating DSD, but saying it can't be done without turning it into PCM doesn't seem to make much sense to me. I can understand that it wouldn't be practical because all the current research is done in PCM, and because not enough consumers use it to make it worth while. Saying it can't be done at all without turning it into PCM seems incorrect to me.

To me it would seem logical that DSD specific algorithms would need to be created for changing the signal (perhaps Sony uses some in their studios). Research would need to be put into it; it would be cost prohibitive. It would have to be approached in a completely different way and new processing techniques would need to be derived from PCM techniques so they can be applied to a DSD signal type. Yes, the techniques would be convoluted and difficult mathematically compared to the easy grid layout of PCM (and consequently easy matrix manipulation). With all due respect, it is a digital signal after all, so there has to be a way to manipulate it digitally, even if no one bothered creating a technique so far because of other reasons mentioned...

So what was wrong in my thinking?

Guys, I don't know how to put this gently, but there are certain conceptual issues here that are apparently beyond your current understanding. I am not saying you're not smart enough to learn it; on the contrary! Just that you do have a fair amount to learn to really appreciate what's going on. Even once you have the concept of PCM mastered, DSD in particular is a step more esoteric than that! I myself am still not comfortable, for example, with just how to analyze and/or design the noise shapers in sigma/delta and delta/sigma DACs, which use the same 1-bit ideas.

So, because you can't conceptualize it as possible, I don't understand it? That seems like an illogical assumption to make. I admit, I don't know a lot about DSD, but I can look at the simplified encoding picture I posted and get a sense of how one would go about creating such an algorithm to manipulate the signal in DSD form. I could be wrong though, it wouldn't be the first time, but I haven't seen anything posted so far that would indiciate that I am incorrect in my thinking.

BTW, I understand PCM, I specialized in networking and PCM is a foundation in the digital phone networks I studied, so I had to learn it as a part of my undergrad curriculum... I was working on a MS at Columbia University before my father almost died from sepsis and I had to take too long of a leave of absense. I'm hoping to go back (I haven't reapplied yet), but this time as a MSEE student rather than MSCS student, since they just jump started their distance MSEE program and that is the only way I can do it now with all the things going on in my life.

Anyway I hope that helps to flesh things out for you and QC.

That's nice information, and I've read it before, but what does it have to do with what I had said? :confused:

OK, about the advantages of DSD versus PCM. I have to take issue with the technical reasons that mike l. stated---not the subjective ones! Just the first couple which are objective:1. lower noise floor.....a very big deal.This really isn't correct. 24-bit PCM has a noise floor of -143dB from DC all the way to the Nyquist frequency (half the sample rate). Again, the noise floor is so low that frankly no analog electronics achieve it. Even with the cleanest of analog signal chains you're recording a couple of bits of noise.

DSD doesn't even come close, though it is still quite good. DSD's noise floor isn't flat, either. It can approach the same noise floor as 24-bit PCM in the audible band, but many noise shapers top out at -120 to -130dB in that range. And above 20kHz, things get worse rapidly: according to the article I cite below it's already up to -60dB or so by 50kHz. And other sources I've seen show much worse noise performance (but again, to be clear, it's still good---much better than 16-bit RedBook). So 24/192 PCM is strictly superior in terms of noise floor.2. smoother, more analog as the conversion process is much more benigne to the musical waveform.This is true, particularly compared to RedBook CD. Because the sample rate is so high, you can use a more benign analog filter after the raw D/A stage. To be fair, however, this is true of high-rate PCM as well. In fact, even though the SACD sample rate is much higher than even 192kHz PCM, you still have to filter it pretty aggressively above 100kHz.3. less phase problems from the digital filter so the high frequencies are less harsh....it is absent the broken off rough transients of PCM.I'm honestly not sure what this means. I will say that one thing DSD can do better than even 192kHz PCM is preserve the sharpness of transients. This is entirely do to its super-high sample rate. I question whether you really get any improvement over 192kHz or even 96kHz PCM, but it certainly makes sense that it's better than 44.1kHz PCM.

Here's an advantage that Mike didn't mention but Rene-L alluded to. It's great for doing live recordings direct to DSD, or direct-to-disc conversions of old analog sources---at least it was; more below. The reason is that many high quality analog-to-digital converters are actually 1-bit, with a conversion from 1-bit to PCM performed in the digital section of the DAC chip itself. With DSD, you can just take that raw 1-bit stream and put it right to disc and get a more direct and clean transfer. If you in turn play it back with a DSD-capable DAC, you're getting an incredibly clean signal chain from analog recording to analog playback.

However, this advantage is diminishing over time. 2.8224MHz (64*fs, where fs=44.1kHz) 1-bit DACs are not necessarily considered the best choice for analog recording anymore. The noise shaping issues are part of the reason---people want to push the noise further away from the audible band. So they're looking at 128*fs 1-bit converters, or to multi-bit A/D converters. There's no way to put those formats directly on an SACD, so you have to do a digital conversion process of some sort---and now you've lost the pristine signal chain.

I think Rene-L has it right when he says that if you can find direct-to-disc SACD recordings you should get them! I just don't know how long you'll be able to. A great second choice is going to be 24/192kHz PCM and even 24/96kHz PCM. I don't think fans of high-resolution audio would be disappointed by a well-executed recording in one of these formats; indeed, I have pointed out, they have certain technical advantages over SACD. DSD is certainly not a slam dunk.

Here is an interesting article that discusses the origins of DSD, its advantages and disadvantages, and a new format DXD that is being proposed for digital mastering. For marketing reasons, they don't want to admit that DXD is actually just PCM---but that's exactly what it is: 24 bits per sample, 352.8kHz sample rate.
http://www.digitalaudio.dk/technical_papers/axion/dxd%20Resolution%20v3.5.pdf

That's nice information, and I've read it before, but what does it have to do with what I had said?QC, it honestly has less to do with what you said than with what Bluray said. But I was trying to give you both an introduction to PCM vs. DSD, and how they are closely intertwined, because your posts indicated you lack that background. Perhaps I was wrong (since you read it before) but the questions you're asking suggest that there are some gaps. Perhaps no one has done it or created new paradigms for manipulating DSD, but saying it can't be done without turning it into PCM doesn't seem to make much sense to me.At this point you're just going to have to take my word for it, I guess! If you actually did the math surrounding basic signal processing functions you'd see why. The minute you do any sort of computation you're in a multi-bit regime, which means PCM. It cannot be avoided. Even adding two DSD signals together at equal gain levels requires multiple bits! (OK, two, but that's still multiple.)So, because you can't conceptualize it as possible, I don't understand it?I can't conceptualize a lot of things that aren't possible. I don't consider that a shortcoming on my part. Furthermore, I'm not the only one who can't conceptualize it, just about every signal processing expert around can't. So I'm in good company. For example, consider the article I cited above:Sampling in DSD128 does make a significant improvement in the noise of the recording. However, it is still necessary to format convert the signal just as with DSD64 to do editing...Are they just having trouble conceptualizing, or do you think maybe you can take their word for it if not mine? The DXD PCM format was invented by Sony and Philips, the inventors of DSD.

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, QC. You are clearly quite intelligent. But you're bumping up against the limits of your knowledge and there is a difference.

If you actually did the math surrounding basic signal processing functions you'd see why.I can't conceptualize a lot of things that aren't possible. I don't consider that a shortcoming on my part. Furthermore, I'm not the only one who can't conceptualize it, just about every signal processing expert around can't. So I'm in good company. For example, consider the article I cited above:Are they just having trouble conceptualizing, or do you think maybe you can take their word for it if not mine? The DXD PCM format was invented by Sony and Philips, the inventors of DSD.



I don't consider you to have a shortcoming, I just haven't seen sufficient information to validate the posititon that it can't be done. If every expert said something wasn't possible because they couldn't conceptualize it, we wouldn't have the technology we have today. It wouldn't be worth the effort to develop those tools because of other reasons, but if you can convert one signal to the other kind of signal, then you can certainly derive formulas from the PCM that would be applicable to the DSD. There would probably be a relationship between these two things at a fundamental level connected with the mathematics of the conversion process.

All the sites I visited recently don't say it isn't possible, they only say tools have never been developed. Even those quotes you listed don't say that it isn't possible.

If you can show me a link to a site that explicitly proves it can't be done, I'll happily read it. Right now, and yes I am at the limits of my knowledge concerning DSD, I don't see how it would be impossible. I'm sorry if I'm not satisfied with taking people at their word. I actually like to grasp why something isn't possible before I blindly believe it. I'm not just trying to be a pain in the arse. Also, I know that you can't believe everything you read on this topic, even from the AES papers, because there is a lot of contention between the two camps (PCM and DSD) used in order to one-up each other.

To be fair, the idea I was envisioning (that I described in an earlier post) does convert the signal into smaller sampling rates with bit windows, so perhaps I am just ad hoc converting it to PCM and didn't realize it.

If you can show me a link to a site that explicitly proves it can't be done, I'll happily read it.There will be no such paper, because that is simply not something that one proves. To anyone in the field it is so obviously not possible that it is incumbent upon the dissenter to prove otherwise.

Above I cited what is perhaps the simplest possible example. I have two DSD signals, A and B. I want to mix them together and produce DSD signal C. They will be mixed at equal volumes, which effectively means I want to perform A + B or (1/2)(A + B). If you can even vaguely describe how this can be done while remaining entirely within the DSD regime, I am all ears! But it cannot be done; inevitably you're working with 2-bit signals at some point. So let us not even consider processing steps that require any sort of filtering, because addition is a fundamental building block of filtering.

Honestly, one of the reasons why you're finding this so difficult is because the DSD camp is so determined to tell the layman that DSD isn't PCM. Well, poppycock. Of course it is PCM. It's just 1-bit PCM. The paper I cited, for instance, employs some careful wording in an attempt to suggest that DXD is not PCM---and yet DXD is just 24-bit, 352.8kHz PCM! They just seem to want to concede that PCM is the medium of choice in any intermediate stage of mixing and processing. We engineers have a lousy tendency sometimes to exaggerate what makes our work unique. It's a job security thing I guess.

There will be no such paper, because that is simply not something that one proves. To anyone in the field it is so obviously not possible that it is incumbent upon the dissenter to prove otherwise.

Above I cited what is perhaps the simplest possible example. I have two DSD signals, A and B. I want to mix them together and produce DSD signal C. They will be mixed at equal volumes, which effectively means I want to perform A + B or (1/2)(A + B). If you can even vaguely describe how this can be done while remaining entirely within the DSD regime, I am all ears! But it cannot be done; inevitably you're working with 2-bit signals at some point. So let us not even consider processing steps that require any sort of filtering, because addition is a fundamental building block of both of these.

Honestly, one of the reasons why you're finding this so difficult is because the DSD camp is so determined to tell the layman that DSD isn't PCM. Well, poppycock. Of course it is PCM. It's just 1-bit PCM. The paper I cited, for instance, employs some careful wording in an attempt to suggest that DXD is not PCM---and yet DXD is just 24-bit, 352.8kHz PCM! They just seem to want to concede that PCM is the medium of choice in any intermediate stage of mixing and processing.

I think I see what you are saying now. I have been envisioning a process of temporarily encoding the signal into an arbitrarily sized PCM window (in hardware or software) in order to analyze and alter the bits. I just wasn't thinking of it as PCM formally. So basically, any time you try to look at the signal and understand it as simply more than a one bit signal, it has to be taken out of that one bit context and turned into another format (a variation of PCM)? So basically, it is either one bit (and as such can't be analyzed), or PCM (and can be analyzed)?

I think where my confusion lay, was that it is PCM in way (as you mentioned), but its bit window (dynamic range) is time related (through the rhythm pattern of off and on bits) instead of window related as it is in PCM.

OK, I see, I think you have it. Incidentally your use of "windowing" has been throwing me off. The term "bit window" is more properly thought of as "word size". In DSP parlance "windowing" is usually refers to something done across time, not across bits.

Also, it's not signal analysis that is the problem, it's signal manipulation (mixing, filtering, matrixing, etc. etc.) None of that can be done in a strictly one-bit context.I think where my confusion lay, was that it is PCM in way (as you mentioned), but its bit window (dynamic range) is time related (through rhythm the pattern of off and on bits) instead of window related as it is in PCM.In a way, yes. But again, DSD is just an extreme version of PCM with noise shaping. When you say its dynamic range is "time related" that's true, but it is enabled by noise shaping. PCM can take advantage of noise shaping for the same purpose as well.

OK, about the advantages of DSD versus PCM. I have to take issue with the technical reasons that mike l. stated---not the subjective ones! Just the first couple which are objective:This really isn't correct. 24-bit PCM has a noise floor of -143dB from DC all the way to the Nyquist frequency (half the sample rate). Again, the noise floor is so low that frankly no analog electronics achieve it. Even with the cleanest of analog signal chains you're recording a couple of bits of noise.

DSD doesn't even come close, though it is still quite good. DSD's noise floor isn't flat, either. It can approach the same noise floor as 24-bit PCM in the audible band, but many noise shapers top out at -120 to -130dB in that range. And above 20kHz, things get worse rapidly: according to the article I cite below it's already up to -60dB or so by 50kHz. And other sources I've seen show much worse noise performance (but again, to be clear, it's still good---much better than 16-bit RedBook). So 24/192 PCM is strictly superior in terms of noise floor.This is true, particularly compared to RedBook CD. Because the sample rate is so high, you can use a more benign analog filter after the raw D/A stage. To be fair, however, this is true of high-rate PCM as well. In fact, even though the SACD sample rate is much higher than even 192kHz PCM, you still have to filter it pretty aggressively above 100kHz.I'm honestly not sure what this means. I will say that one thing DSD can do better than even 192kHz PCM is preserve the sharpness of transients. This is entirely do to its super-high sample rate. I question whether you really get any improvement over 192kHz or even 96kHz PCM, but it certainly makes sense that it's better than 44.1kHz PCM.

Here's an advantage that Mike didn't mention but Rene-L alluded to. It's great for doing live recordings direct to DSD, or direct-to-disc conversions of old analog sources---at least it was; more below. The reason is that many high quality analog-to-digital converters are actually 1-bit, with a conversion from 1-bit to PCM performed in the digital section of the DAC chip itself. With DSD, you can just take that raw 1-bit stream and put it right to disc and get a more direct and clean transfer. If you in turn play it back with a DSD-capable DAC, you're getting an incredibly clean signal chain from analog recording to analog playback.

However, this advantage is diminishing over time. 2.8224MHz (64*fs, where fs=44.1kHz) 1-bit DACs are not necessarily considered the best choice for analog recording anymore. The noise shaping issues are part of the reason---people want to push the noise further away from the audible band. So they're looking at 128*fs 1-bit converters, or to multi-bit A/D converters. There's no way to put those formats directly on an SACD, so you have to do a digital conversion process of some sort---and now you've lost the pristine signal chain.

I think Rene-L has it right when he says that if you can find direct-to-disc SACD recordings you should get them! I just don't know how long you'll be able to. A great second choice is going to be 24/192kHz PCM and even 24/96kHz PCM. I don't think fans of high-resolution audio would be disappointed by a well-executed recording in one of these formats; indeed, I have pointed out, they have certain technical advantages over SACD. DSD is certainly not a slam dunk.

Here is an interesting article that discusses the origins of DSD, its advantages and disadvantages, and a new format DXD that is being proposed for digital mastering. For marketing reasons, they don't want to admit that DXD is actually just PCM---but that's exactly what it is: 24 bits per sample, 352.8kHz sample rate.
http://www.digitalaudio.dk/technical_papers/axion/dxd%20Resolution%20v3.5.pdf

since almost no one listens to hi-rez PCM music (DVD-A sales are miniscule) i was referring to redbook. i agree that 24bit/96khz and above PCM is in many ways in the ballpark to SACD....BUT THERE IS NO MUSIC SOFTWARE...just movie (foley stage) soundtracks.

ince almost no one listens to hi-rez PCM music (DVD-A sales are miniscule) i was referring to redbook.My apologies for misinterpreting you! Both high-res formats are considerably better than RedBook.

Michael Grant

As far as I can see 1bit DSD is dead and was flawed from the start, the more I read the more I question why it was used in the first place and why they are still trying to use it today.

The more I read about DSD the less I understand the reasons for its existence.. What are its advantages over PCM (if any)?

Now days, none.

My apologies for misinterpreting you! Both high-res formats are considerably better than RedBook.


Michael, the mistake was mine for not being specific. i read Frantz's question to be about music listening......which from my viewpoint does not include any non-redbook PCM. i should have been more clear.

the real problem is the lack of workable copy protection for any PCM...whereas SACD has it built in without affecting content. this is very attractive to content providers.

as always...blame it on the lawyers.

As far as I can see 1bit DSD is dead and was flawed from the start, the more I read the more I question why it was used in the first place and why they are still trying to use it today.



Now days, none.

Blueray, if you really don't see the value of DSD/SACD come down here and i'll do a quick comparison for you......the sonic difference is easy to hear. DSD does space better, individual instruments are much more real and complete, transients are more natural. listen to any hi-hat or cymbal.....PCM redbook simply cannot seem to get those correct. there is an ease and harmonic completness with SACD that is easy to hear.

i have many hybrids as well as 50 to 100 cd and sacd duplicates to listen to.

OTOH you can look at the math of DSD and draw lots of conclusions......DSD is not perfect.....but as a real format with real music being released weekly and monthly it is sonically the best digital consumer format.

Mike, I think there is a misunderstanding here too... I suspect bluray was asking why DSD was selected over high-resolution PCM. You're still comparing RedBook and DSD.

Mike, I think there is a misunderstanding here too... I suspect bluray was asking why DSD was selected over high-resolution PCM. You're still comparing RedBook and DSD.

ok. i only read the last few posts so my context is flawed.

still......my answer to you actually answers that question anyway.....along with the terrible DVD-A interface compared to the more user-friendly SACD interface. SACD has commercial viability which hi-rez PCM lacks as a music-only format.

SACD is still a niche product....not mainstream....but it has market momentum. so however we want to view it......it works. it matters not whether hirez PCM may or may not sound better (i don't think it does.....maybe because the hardware side has not had sufficient attention from manufacturers compared to SACD).

Mike, I have to admit I don't have much experience with DVD-A. But can you explain more what you mean by the differences in interface? DVD-Audio is a music-only format just like SACD, and its copy protection (much better than DVD-Video) is on par with SACD. I can't help but think that the main reason SACD did better than DVD-Audio was its ties to Sony, but that's about it.

Hi

This is certainly OT.. The discussion has however veered toward the validity of DSD.. From my point of view... I do not see much going for DSD... In subjective terms my experience with it is limited, I have not heard however anything compelling that will make me go toward it, least of them , its scarcity (SACD).
To me DSD represent one of the numerous attempts by Sony to have a control over a medium.. The last in that series is Blu Ray... Toshiba royalties on DVD for example makes up a sizable part of their yearly profit, it is reported that Royalty payment makes up to 10 percent of a DVD player cost... Sony and Phillips collected royalties on CD as well but CD sales has been declining so... next, something else, altogether, DVD-A was not theirs.. PCM tend to be too.. well. mainstream..

On pure technical term Hi-Rez PCM/DVD-A/DXD have the potential to really surpass what we have come to expect from analog ... I am not citing him verbatim but the late Robert Fine of the great Mercury vinyl recording, thought that the ultimate medium would be 24 bits PCM sampled at 2 MHz...
We do have almost everything to make his dream reality.. The technology is there , the will and the market apparently not...

The reason I prefer DSD to DVD-A, is because I've already gotten recordings where the "loudness war" has transferred to the DVD-A format. I've never seen a SACD with over-compression destroying the dynamic range used in order to raise the loudness level higher.

Because of DSD's nature, you cannot put highly compressed material on DSD, otherwise it overloads. While this is a good thing in this instance, it also shows the inflexibility of the system.

--Andre

Well heck, in that case, give me inflexibility ;)

Mike, I have to admit I don't have much experience with DVD-A. But can you explain more what you mean by the differences in interface? DVD-Audio is a music-only format just like SACD, and its copy protection (much better than DVD-Video) is on par with SACD. I can't help but think that the main reason SACD did better than DVD-Audio was its ties to Sony, but that's about it.

Michael, i will do my best to answer given my limited technical knowledge.

SACD is a closed system; you need to have Pro Audio tools to be able to even copy it bit for bit onto a hard drive (the 'Scarlett Book' does not allow any way for an unencrypted DSD data stream to be output from an SACD transport).......and even then (if you find someone who will sell you the proper 'card' for your computer) there is no way to put your data onto any sort of shiney disc. there are fairly easy ways to record with DSD.....but not to burn any discs. in addition; there is a hard etched watermark on SACD discs.....to identify any clones.....i'm not sure how it works. this watermark does not affect the data in any way.

all PCM is basically an open book for any sort of copying.....and so far all copyprotection schemes both compromise performance and usability to some degree.....and are marginal in their effectivness. honestly; i am not familiar with the specific copy-protection used on DVD-A......it may be effective. whatever is used still resides imbedded into the data on the disc....which is certainly more vulnerable and potentially problematic than the SACD approach.

SACD/DSD was created to protect the content provider without compromising the performance.

regarding the DVD-A interface......my impressions may be outdated.....but my understanding is that accessing most hirez content on DVD-A requires some sort of monitor screen and the various interfaces for specific discs vary as to how they work. in addition; multi-channel DVD-A is limited to 24/96 as far as i know. which is quite a bit below the optimal performance of 24/192.

you simply pop an SACD into the player and use one 'mode' button to select the CD, Stereo DSD, or multi-channel DSD (each channel always full 2.8mhz) layer. that is it. easy.....and most players can be set to default to whichever layer you designate....so it is plug and play.

there are DAD's, Dual-Discs, DVD-A's and now TRUE HD on movies......which all use HI-REZ PCM to some degree and each have their issues. none have had any success as music formats at all.

all in all.....DVD-A has simply not worked on many differtent levels for the music lover. since the hardware follows the software there has been little SOTA hardware built for it......mostly Universal players only.

Redbook 44.1/16 needs to be decoded via it's own channel and slaved hardware, independent of any other hardware..IF the given player is a SACD capable unit.

The hardware used in most SACD/CD units is singular in and ruins the sonics of pure redbook.

If you go to buy a given SACD and CD capable unit, please ask this question and you must recieve a direct and truthful answer. If the unit used the SACD Sony (chip) decoder to decode CD, then it is sonically compromised. This is why a given pure redbook unit can outperform a SACD unit on CD.

Looking at the SACD hardware and chips illustrates this clearly. It is far more expensive to create two channels for these differing tasks..but it is essential. If you buy an SACD unit for SACD, that's fine. But keep a pure redbook player handy. Do not expect premium performance on CD from the vast majority of SACD units.

Combined DVD units are guilty of this sin as well. Ask the manufacturers of this same question when buying. The chips in use are designed for $100 DVD players and 'combination' and 'universal' capacity, which means they don't do spectacular performance anywhere, merely good.

The given manufacturer does what they can, at the given price point....but excellent performance does not creep in until dedicated 'switched into use' hardware is implemented for each specific decoding task.

If you are into the high multi-kilobuck purchase range, or are careful with where and how you wish to spend your $2-5k..then call the manufacturer and ask directly.

Redbook 44.1/16 needs to be decoded via it's own channel and slaved hardware, independent of any other hardware..IF the given player is a SACD capable unit.

The hardware used in most SACD/CD units is singular in and ruins the sonics of pure redbook.

If you go to buy a given SACD and CD capable unit, please ask this question and you must recieve a direct and truthful answer. If the unit used the SACD Sony (chip) decoder to decode CD, then it is sonically compromised. This is why a given pure redbook unit can outperform a SACD unit on CD.

Looking at the SACD hardware and chips illustrates this clearly. It is far more expensive to create two channels for these differing tasks..but it is essential. If you buy an SACD unit for SACD, that's fine. But keep a pure redbook player handy. Do not expect premium performance on CD from the vast majority of SACD units.

Combined DVD units are guilty of this sin as well. Ask the manufacturers of this same question when buying. The chips in use are designed for $100 DVD players and 'combination' and 'universal' capacity, which means they don't do spectacular performance anywhere, merely good.

The given manufacturer does what they can, at the given price point....but excellent performance does not creep in until dedicated 'switched into use' hardware is implemented for each specific decoding task.

Ken,

i see you take lots of flack for some of your posts......but i really don't pay attention to why that might be.

your above post makes some quite specific generalizations. i wonder if you could list the SACD players and dedicated CD players you used to support your position.

i have listened to many many State of the Art SACD players and CD players and do not share your viewpoint. in fact; SACD players that convert PCM to DSD have typically superior performance to most stand alone CD players.

when talking about any subjective performance question; everyone has a right to their own opinion..........i am simply interested in your specific listening experiences.

Mike, just a couple more comments:all PCM is basically an open book for any sort of copying.....and so far all copyprotection schemes both compromise performance and usability to some degree.....and are marginal in their effectivness. honestly; i am not familiar with the specific copy-protection used on DVD-A......it may be effective. whatever is used still resides imbedded into the data on the disc....which is certainly more vulnerable and potentially problematic than the SACD approach.I think there is some logical contradiction here.

First of all, SACD has several layers of copy protection, just like DVD-A. Indeed, the data is encoded with an 80-bit encryption key, and that key is encoded on a special area of the disc that is readable only by licensed SACD devices. Furthermore, the DSD data is not only encrypted, but it is compressed. So both DVD-A and SACD employ two stages of data manipulation---compression and encryption---above and beyond the standard error-correction codes used in all optical discs.

I don't believe SACD's copy protection has ever been successfully defeated. DVD-A's has, once; a particular version of WinDVD was cracked. But I don't think that crack ever became particularly widespread (perhaps due to lack of interest)!

As for the watermarking you're talking about, yes, SACD employs it, and it's pretty novel, really. I'm not sure if DVD-A does as well. But the watermark isn't actually part of the music content, thankfully, so it shouldn't affect sound quality.all in all.....DVD-A has simply not worked on many differtent levels for the music lover. since the hardware follows the software there has been little SOTA hardware built for it......mostly Universal players only.Well, on this you get no argument from me. If the software is better on SACD, then all of this discussion on the technical merits is moot. All I am suggesting is that the technical measures employed on the SACD layer really aren't all that different in substance from those employed for DVD-A.

So was it ever determined what stack to get and how they stack up to each other?

So was it ever determined what stack to get and how they stack up to each other?

Not in my mind.

The dCS he was offering was overpriced for a version 2 IMO. He wasn't offering full warranty, despite it being a demo model. He also wanted me to pay up front to even demo it in my home system (despite having done so in the past with other equipment without paying up front). I found the combination of those factors to be too annoying to even bother. Perhaps if it was a newer version I would bother selling some investments to demo it... As it stands, it isn't worth it.

I have been listening to a new Bob Marley Legends remaster (Redbook PCM... and a very nice remaster, worth getting) on my DCS Verdi/Purcell/Delius. And it's clear to me that upsampled 176.4k/s is better than the DSD. The DSD seems to have a harsher edge to it. Unfortunately, every time I pop in a CD, the Verdi tells the Delius to bypass the Purcell upsampler and sends it the upsampled DSD bits... so I have to in and go thru the 60 second change over to Dual AES 176,4 mode. PiTA, but worth the sonic improvement.

What I am interested in more than anything, if anyone knows, is what players handle things like over-compression and digital clipping artifacts on modern CD releases and remasters in ways that make the deleterious effects nominal?

Thanks.

I didn't ask EMM Labs until now...

...cause I thought there are so many Meitner lovers here at AVS that for sure someone can give a hint on what (for me the new) "CDSD DAE" actually is, see my post #102 above...

N o b o d y ?

Thanks, Rene

Rene,

I do not have this issue of TAS. When did TAS say they would review the new CDSD DAE? Thanks.

TAS #175 | page 148 | "multichannel gear" review to come...

I know CDSD SE $8k, not the mentioned CDSD DAE $13.5k, nor I do find any info on emmlabs.com

Any can tell something about this "DAE" version?
Thanks in advance, Rene

Rene,

that is a typo by Absolute Sound. it should say.."DAC6 SE, $13,500.

there is no other digital transport from EMM Labs than the CDSD. there are a few versions of the CDSD; of which the SE version (which is identical in every way to the previous non-SE version with the USB port....they just slapped an SE badge on it). if you have a CDSD with the USB port you have the latest one. there were earlier versions of the CDSD with a metal disc tray, and then later ones with plastic trays......both of which were without the USB port.

it is also important to get the latest software version from the EMM Labs website for the CDSD (assuming you have the USB port) this software makes a big difference on redbook performance.

tzucc,

your comments on how DSD upsampling compares to PCM on the DCS stack are interesting. i think it is very important to point out how the hi-rez data interface is totally different for the DCS and the EMM Labs stacks......and how that likely might effect the potential performance of the units while using DSD upsampling.

DCS uses firewire which encrypts DSD (mucks with it)......while the ST Optical of the EMM Labs simply carries an un-encrypted DSD data stream. this un-encrypted data stream of EMM Labs violates the 'Scarlet Book' of Sony-Philips.......which is why no one else does it. However; i also believe it gives the EMM Labs an advantage in performance......both for SACD playback and Redbook. so just because on the DCS DSD upsampling is not the optimal way to go does not mean it is not the best way to listen to Redbook if you have the EMM Labs SE stack.

added note; upon further reflection.....i'm not certain that my thinking above is correct for the reasons i state. i don't think that the PCM to DSD conversion for redbook playback occurs in the transport; it likely occurs on the DAC. i still believe that Firewire is inherently a less 'pure' digital interface than the ST Optical.....even for PCM....which pays dividends for redbook up-sampling to DSD. and the advantage of an un-encrypted DSD interface likely optimizes SACD playback compared to firewire.

both the DCS and EMM Labs latest stack are wonderful SOTA digital players. i have not compared them personally so i cannot say which sounds better. but i love the EMM Labs SE sound both for SACD and for Redbook......and the EMM Labs is also multi-channel......which if you ever get into is pretty amazing.

Hi,

The Absolute Sounds (TAS) | page 148 | heading "Multichannel Gear"

# EMM Labs CDSD SE, $ 8000, "Review to come"
# EMM Labs CDSD DAE, $ 13500, "Review to come"

That's all I saw. The "DAE" model still being unknown to me.

Rene-L,

The EMM Labs CDSD SE is a transport.

The EMM Labs CDSD DAE is a player.

The difference is the inclusion of the DAC - the Digital to Analog Convertor.

The CDSD DAE will output an analog signal that can be fed to your analog preamp.

The CDSD SE is a transport and outputs a digital signal suitable for sending to
the EMMLabs DAC-6e [DAC] or DCC2 SE [ DAC / preamp combo ]

There's no analog output from a CDSD SE, but there is with the CDSD DAE.

Rene-L,

The EMM Labs CDSD SE is a transport.

The EMM Labs CDSD DAE is a player.

The difference is the inclusion of the DAC - the Digital to Analog Convertor.

The CDSD DAE will output an analog signal that can be fed to your analog preamp.

The CDSD SE is a transport and outputs a digital signal suitable for sending to
the EMMLabs DAC-6e [DAC] or DCC2 SE [ DAC / preamp combo ]

There's no analog output from a CDSD SE, but there is with the CDSD DAE.

Greg,

where did you see or hear about the 'CDSD DAE' digital player?

why would EMM Labs have both the 'CDSA' which is a one box player for $9995 described here;

http://www.emmlabs.com/html/audio/cdsa/cdsa.html

...and a CDSD DAE....another one-box digital player at $13,500?

it's not likely that EMM Labs would have a new product i have not heard about.......but i learn new things every day.

Greg,

where did you see or hear about the 'CDSD DAE' digital player?

Mike,

I seem to recall reading about it in The Absolute Sound. I don't recall the specifics.

Only that I recall that "CDSD DAE" was close to "CDSD DAC" - i.e. a CDSD with a DAC.

Mike,

I seem to recall reading about it in The Absolute Sound. I don't recall the specifics.

Only that I recall that "CDSD DAE" was close to "CDSD DAC" - i.e. a CDSD with a DAC.

a CDSD with a DAC is the CDSA i refer to above.

hummmmmm.

a CDSD with a DAC is the CDSA i refer to above.

Mike,

As I recall, I think I first saw the CDSD DAE and thought that was a nice lower cost
version of CDSD / DAC6e or CDSD / DCC2 combo. 13.5k vs about 20k.

Then I remember seeing the CDSA for about $9600 originally, if memory serves.

I remember thinking that was an even better bargain.

hi Mike,

the DCS Verdi transport does upsample redbook to DSD and delivers the 2Mbps stream (or whatever bit rate) to the DAC over FireWire, encrypted as you say. I don't believe encryption has anything to do with why I don't prefer DSD, but who knows.

There is theory, then there is implementation, and the latter can easily mess with the former.

I would take the $10 bet that I could pick the redbook -> 176.4 over the same redbook -> DSD 4 out of 5 times in a double blind test.
(edit... using my current DCS stack... maybe on other stacks, my preference could swing the other way)

However, above and beyond digital, I wish that there was some sort of vinyl UHQR version of Bob Marley's Legends... I would pay dearly for that ear candy. To date, I have not seen any high quality vinyl of his good works.

If I were going to bet and I have no inside information I would guess that the CDSD DAE is a new one box unit which uses the Esoteric and not the Phillips drive.
Just my $0.02

If I were going to bet and I have no inside information I would guess that the CDSD DAE is a new one box unit which uses the Esoteric and not the Phillips drive.
Just my $0.02

OB, you could be right.....but looking at the page in Absolute Sound it is curious why they don't even list the DAC6 SE at all......which they should have if they were recommending the CDSD SE.......it's not likely they would recommend one without the other.

have you actually heard that EMM Labs were bringing out a transport with the Esoteric.....or is that a guess (i'm not giving you a bad time.....just asking the basis for your comment)?

Mike

I have no inside information.

It is just a hunch based on the less than adequate Phillips transport as compared to the most reliable Esoteric transport.Thank goodness mine is doing just fine. This will come at a price and the trend these days is with a one box system so I am just thinking that the "E" in DAE could stand for Esoteric. Not sure what you mean about the DAC6 SE except to say that if my prediction bears out we owners might be looking to sell our combos. Bear in mind that you cannot sell any Meitner gear on Audiogon (unless you are out of country) because EMM Labs is a preferred advertiser.

Mike

I have no inside information.

It is just a hunch based on the less than adequate Phillips transport as compared to the most reliable Esoteric transport.Thank goodness mine is doing just fine. This will come at a price and the trend these days is with a one box system so I am just thinking that the "E" in DAE could stand for Esoteric. Not sure what you mean about the DAC6 SE except to say that if my prediction bears out we owners might be looking to sell our combos. Bear in mind that you cannot sell any Meitner gear on Audiogon (unless you are out of country) because EMM Labs is a preferred advertiser.

thanks.

at RMAF i had dinner with some guys.....and included in the group was 'Arnie'.....the owner of AudiogoN. i asked him about the Meitner thing on AudiogoN......i don't think that will be a problem any more. in any case i don't anticipate selling mine anytime soon (but who knows?).

thanks.

at RMAF i had dinner with some guys.....and included in the group was 'Arnie'.....the owner of AudiogoN. i asked him about the Meitner thing on AudiogoN......i don't think that will be a problem any more. in any case i don't anticipate selling mine anytime soon (but who knows?).

Mike you will be eating humble pie

trust me when I tell you that you will be peeling back another layer of the onion if they go with the esoteric transport.

Mike you will be eating humble pie

trust me when I tell you that you will be peeling back another layer of the onion if they go with the esoteric transport.

The transport will make no difference to the sound. There is error correction to ensure the bits are transfered correctly.

The Esoteric will be more reliable though. And that is very nice.

The transport will make no difference to the sound. There is error correction to ensure the bits are transfered correctly.

The Esoteric will be more reliable though. And that is very nice.

And how do you know that?

Mike you will be eating humble pie

trust me when I tell you that you will be peeling back another layer of the onion if they go with the esoteric transport.

actually; while my experience a few years back with the $60k Esoteric 5-box digital system was very negative; i think that Esoteric makes the best digital mechanical transport anywhere......and would be very interested in a transport based on the Esoteric but with the EMM Labs ST Optical output. let's face it......the Philips transport is a pain-in-the-ass. i don't recall ever knocking the Esoteric transport in and of itself. up till now; the cost of using the Esoteric transport had been prohibitive......but maybe........

the cost of using the Esoteric transport had been prohibitive.

hence the big increase in price.

And how do you know that?

I am familiar with the techniques used to build these devices. You can always download whatever is on the SACD disc to memory (RAM). Then play the music directly from the memory, kinda like the way an Ipod or any mp3 player does.

Don't forget, the backend of a SACD player already has buffers which is just memory anyway. So essentially the playback would be completely isolated from the transport.

You can always download whatever is on the SACD disc to memory (RAM). Then play the music directly from the memory, kinda like the way an Ipod or any mp3 player does.

euryd,

I know of NO transport that can read SACD and output the digital data.

In fact, the Sony license FORBIDS the output of the unencoded DSD digital datastream
from an SACD disc.

If someone has / or is producing SACD drives that output the digital data - then they
are in violation of the the Sony licensing agreement; and hence the Digital Millenium
Copyright Act which forbids attempting to foil digital copyright protection.

If someone tells you that they've saved the digital data from an SACD disc; then that
disc is a hybrid disc that has both SACD and ordinary Redbook data on it. The only
digital data they saved was the ordinary Redbook data, not the hi-rez SACD data.

See John Atkinson's post at:

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=May2007Issue&Number=22453&page=0&fpart=all

"In general, I believe the SACD license requires the player's digital output to be turned off
when the DSD layer on an SACD is being played."
-- John Atkinson

euryd,

I know of NO transport that can read SACD and output the digital data.

In fact, the Sony license FORBIDS the output of the unencoded DSD digital datastream
from an SACD disc.

If someone has / or is producing SACD drives that output the digital data - then they
are in violation of the the Sony licensing agreement; and hence the Digital Millenium
Copyright Act which forbids attempting to foil digital copyright protection.

If someone tells you that they've saved the digital data from an SACD disc; then that
disc is a hybrid disc that has both SACD and ordinary Redbook data on it. The only
digital data they saved was the ordinary Redbook data, not the hi-rez SACD data.

actually Greg, the CDSD does output unencrypted DSD off an SACD in violation of the 'Scarlet Book' (so did the 'notorious' EMM Labs modified Philips SACD-1000). if one were to get one's hands on the right computer card; one could then modify or manipulate the DSD data. OTOH.....there would still be no way to burn a disc from that data without first converting it to PCM.

it would be unlikely one would be able get one's hands on that computer card however.

actually Greg, the CDSD does output unencrypted DSD off an SACD in violation of the 'Scarlet Book' (so did the 'notorious' EMM Labs modified Philips SACD-1000). if one were to get one's hands on the right computer card; one could then modify or manipulate the DSD data. OTOH.....there would still be no way to burn a disc from that data without first converting it to PCM.

it would be unlikely one would be able get one's hands on that computer card however.
Mike,

I would not have expected a reputable company like EMM Labs to violate the license.
Are you sure that the digital output of the CDSD - which is sent to either a DAC6e or
DCC-2 is not encrypted?

As you point out, even if one gets the unencrypted digital data out of the CDSD; one
then has the additional problem of needing a computer card with a receiver capable of
receiving the DSD datastream so that the computer could put it in memory.

The process is further complicated by the fact that there are also no legal consumer
SACD burner drives.

As you point out, the data would have to be converted to PCM at some point; which
obviates the whole process anyway.

euryd,

I know of NO transport that can read SACD and output the digital data.

In fact, the Sony license FORBIDS the output of the unencoded DSD digital datastream
from an SACD disc.




All transports read and output data. Yes, you cannot output unencoded DSD stream out of the player but I am not referring to sending it out of the player. I am referring to the storing in RAM and processing of this data within or inside of the player.

Any CD/SACD/DVD player has three main sections. They are:

1. Transport whose purpose is to read data from the disc.
2. Buffers (i.e. RAM) and digital signal processing (i.e. filters etc).
3. D to A Converters.

All three are typically in a single player. The EMM Labs two box setup has the DAC in a separate box.

Provided the buffers (item 2) is large enough, once the data has been transfered to it, the transport is no longer a part of the musical chain.

Provided the buffers (item 2) is large enough, once the data has been transfered to it, the transport is no longer a part of the musical chain.
euryd,

Well that's certainly true.

my guess is that Meitner is going to switch from Phillips transport to the Esoteric because I think that they have always been in violation of the license to Phillips

my guess is that Meitner is going to switch from Phillips transport to the Esoteric because I think that they have always been in violation of the license to Phillips

if that happens and it's a big IF......I wonder how the performance will be affected by having to encrypt the data?

i'm not so sure i would trade an unencrypted Philips drive for an encypted Esoteric drive. i think we should cherish our current CDSD's until we listen for ourselves.

Mike,

I would not have expected a reputable company like EMM Labs to violate the license.
Are you sure that the digital output of the CDSD - which is sent to either a DAC6e or
DCC-2 is not encrypted?

As you point out, even if one gets the unencrypted digital data out of the CDSD; one
then has the additional problem of needing a computer card with a receiver capable of
receiving the DSD datastream so that the computer could put it in memory.

The process is further complicated by the fact that there are also no legal consumer
SACD burner drives.

As you point out, the data would have to be converted to PCM at some point; which
obviates the whole process anyway.

understand that Ed Meitner was employed by Sony to create pro-audio tools for SACD....so Sony likely gave him a 'free-pass' for awhile. all the EMM Labs gear started out as pro audio gear....the interfaces and even the switches are really pro audio stuff. the normal product development approach was never followed. it was easier to just use the pro-audio interface.

if that happens and it's a big IF......I wonder how the performance will be affected by having to encrypt the data?

i'm not so sure i would trade an unencrypted Philips drive for an encypted Esoteric drive. i think we should cherish our current CDSD's until we listen for ourselves.
Mike,

I wouldn't worry about the encryption. When the data is unencrypted - you have to get
back the exact same digital data as the original.

This is done for computer data ALL the time - and if you don't get every last bit of a
computer file unencrypted properly - then your unencrypted data is no good.

If you are sending a program through encryption and the unencrypted file has even one
bit difference - that one bit could be the difference between an "add" instruction and a
"subtract" instruction in the program; and the program wouldn't work properly.

Encryption isn't like "lossy compression" in which data is thrown away. An encrypted
file has to be able to be unencrypted to produce bit for bit that same digital data as went
into the encryption process.

if that happens and it's a big IF......I wonder how the performance will be affected by having to encrypt the data?

i'm not so sure i would trade an unencrypted Philips drive for an encypted Esoteric drive. i think we should cherish our current CDSD's until we listen for ourselves.


Mike I agree completely. We should all buy an extra Phillips drive just in case

understand that Ed Meitner was employed by Sony to create pro-audio tools for SACD....so Sony likely gave him a 'free-pass' for awhile. all the EMM Labs gear started out as pro audio gear....the interfaces and even the switches are really pro audio stuff. the normal product development approach was never followed. it was easier to just use the pro-audio interface.


Morbius....you hit the nail on the head and I believe that the free ride is iver. I knew that it was a problem with the original Phillips SACD 1000 that we all had before Ed made his own boxes but as I understand it they are in violation of license

Mike,

I wouldn't worry about the encryption. When the data is unencrypted - you have to get
back the exact same digital data as the original.

This is done for computer data ALL the time - and if you don't get every last bit of a
computer file unencrypted properly - then your unencrypted data is no good.

If you are sending a program through encryption and the unencrypted file has even one
bit difference - that one bit could be the difference between an "add" instruction and a
"subtract" instruction in the program; and the program wouldn't work properly.

Encryption isn't like "lossy compression" in which data is thrown away. An encrypted
file has to be able to be unencrypted to produce bit for bit that same digital data as went
into the encryption process.

i don't worry about encryption, i worry about performance. and my guess is that it's the ST Optical interface and it's benevolent way of passing a data stream that is more than likely the component that makes the EMM Labs sound so natural. if EMM Labs is able to continue to optimize this interface then i expect them to continue their high level of performance. obviously; i am just guessing about this issue as i don't know the technical side myself. but if the non-encryption is not the big advantage then something must be.

i don't worry about encryption, i worry about performance. and my guess is that it's the ST Optical interface and it's benevolent way of passing a data stream that is more than likely the component that makes the EMM Labs sound so natural. if EMM Labs is able to continue to optimize this interface then i expect them to continue their high level of performance. obviously; i am just guessing about this issue as i don't know the technical side myself. but if the non-encryption is not the big advantage then something must be.

It "is" the optical cable interface because as I understand all other technologies are using antiquated firewire which doesn't sound as good (IMHO)

There's one obvious explanation for diff between optical and wire, and it's jitter. Because as I understand it, a 1 and a 0 are still a 1 and a 0, regardless of if they are sent by light energy or by smoke signals.

With master clocking by the DAC, it shouldn't matter whether light or electricity carries the 1 or 0. Maybe Meitners circuit implementation makes optical sound better, but then that's their particular situation. Perhaps the firewire circuit on Meitner is noisier and is causing some deleterious effects on sound or D/A conversion etc...

i don't worry about encryption, i worry about performance. and my guess is that it's the ST Optical interface and it's benevolent way of passing a data stream that is more than likely the component that makes the EMM Labs sound so natural.
Mike,

It has to be more than the ST Optical interface. I had the ST Optical interface "aka"
the "AT&T glass" interface on the PS Audio Lambda transport. Although the Lamda is
a very good transport - I didn't get anything as magical out of it vis-a-vis the EMM Labs
gear.

After enough guess work by many of us and three attemps myself to get an official answer about a possible "DAE" model, here it is:

"This is a mistake:

CDSD SE - $8,400 US (CD/SACD Transport)
DCC2 SE - $13,500 US (CD/SACD Converter with built in Pre-amp)"

well......it still does not make total sense since the heading of that section on Absolute Sound, Issue #175, page 148.........is "Multichannel Gear"......and the DCC2 is a 2-channel DAC/Pre. which again points to the DAC6 SE as what should have been there.

OTOH.......the jungle drums are actually saying that a switch to an Esoteric drive and a firewire interface just might become reality for the CDSD. my DAC6 SE does not 'currently' accept firewire.

hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

added note; on the same page under "CD Players" they list the EMM Labs CDSA as having a list price of $20,000. (it's $9995 i think).

looks like Absolute Sound needs to get their act together.