Jonalogic

HenSch Hi Thanks. This is very interesting. I also use v 0.37 of Ripper. And I use an Auralic Aries and Vega. Plus iso2dsd for the ISO to DSD extract. So, much in common! And, yes, the SQ achievable is startling. Thanks, Ted! But I have not experienced the glitching you describe. I wonder if something else might be at work. The only occasion that I observed something like this was a single period where the sound was degraded by an effect sounding like analog domain overload distortion at peaks - but which wasn't. This was actually caused by a known Vega 'issue' due to filter initialization/stability problems. A manual change of filter setting and then back to the original will resolve this. I am informed that this bug will be fixed in the next firmware update. Could that possibly be it, I wonder? It may be worth a try, at least. Yes, I know it doesn't explain why you hear it on commercial downloads, though. But it's still something that is easily testable. Hope this helps. Good luck! Cheers

Chris Hi I bet we must have run into each other without knowing it... the late 70s and 80s was the time when I too listened to just about everything live, either in the Proms or RFH in London. Then I buggered off to Hong Kong, but that's a whole other story. We all know about the characteristic differences between PCM and DSD-flavours of playback. DSD 64 can get a bit thick and warm to my ears (almost like intermod?), but seems to become more transparent, focussed, tonally neutral and transparent as you go to 128. 256 I know nothing about - yet - as my Vega can't do it. But my gut feel is that DSD and PCM will converge in SQ as sampling/data rates increase further. I bet that DSD256 and DXD might sound sound pretty similar.... But of course I might be totally wrong on this. I often am. To answer your final Q, I am using a hacked and reversioned PS3 CECHO3, using Ted's inimitable ripping guide. Damn me if the rips don't sound way better than my original SACDs. That stands to reason, as all the spinning disc rubbish, laser reading, jitter, error correction and other garbage is gone. Plus my Vega DAC is way better than that even in my trusty Esoteric X-O3SE SACD player. But the real shocker is how much better the rips sound than some commercial-domain downloads I could mention - but won't. Glad you liked the Callas recordings. Before she slimmed down too much and her wobble got endemic. Give me fat opera singers every day! Cheers Jon

Chris Hi Sorry I was bit coy in my earlier response. I didn't realise that you can safely mention SACD ripping in this fine Forum without an angry lynch mob with flaming torches appearing on your doorstep. Actually, I have been busy ripping a goodly selection of my SACD collection - for personal use only, naturally. The results have been startling and somewhat ear-opening. But this might be better discussed - if you're interested - in the thread on CA devoted to SACD ripping. Cheers Jon

Ted Hi. Many thanks for this. Happy to contribute. Great test! Cheers Jon

Folks I would like to thank Mr Wicked for his sterling efforts. I took the PS3 route, and this has transformed my listening. As a classical listener, I see 1) many companies not releasing downloads of the irreplaceable material in their archives and 2) some companies - that must remain nameless - releasing downloads that are technically and sonically appalling. I have been ripping much of my SACD collection, for personal use only of course, and this has enabled my download collection to grow by leaps and bounds. It's also shown me how much that's in the commercial arena is slipshod and not very good sounding. Frankly, my straight ISO and then DSF rips are often way better than the stuff you can buy from the US. And the difference is not subtle. Nice one, Mr Wicked. Great technology! Cheers

Chris Hi! Nice to hear from you. Still bouncing around Asia, I see! Well, I can't say the Mendelssohn results surprised me until I checked what tracks I'd been playing, and in what order. Yes, I randomised them, took notes and only checked at the end what was going on - all on the good scientific principle of blind testing... I was surprised in the first round of tests at how the down-sampled Horus tracks sounded; it appears that extra processing step from its Native 256 files may have made the difference. When the Signalyst came in, it really seemed to equalise up the sonics of the Horus and Grimm. OK, there are still differences, but not as marked, and not apparently musically destructive ones. I see many folk in the first round of tests preferred the Horus. How much of all of this may be due to equipment sweet spots and personal preference of listener ears is an open question... To answer your last Q, frankly, not too much in the download arena has rung my chimes lately, But I have been doing some other things that are best discussed off-thread, perhaps, until I figure out whether they can be discussed in CA! Cheers Jon

My first post, folks… be gentle, please! Many thanks to Ted and Tom for the opportunity to listen to these tracks and beat up some of my preconceptions. As a scientist, I always welcome the chance to trash my ideas and have a re-think. Herewith my feedback on these excellent tracks with Grimm 64, Horus 64 and Horus 128 recordings of the same excerpt from ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’. My Auralic Vega DAC meant I couldn’t evaluate the Horus 256, though. The Mendelssohn is a piece that’s relatively easy to reproduce well, with good space, feather-light orchestration and nothing above mezzo forte. Playback equipment was my normal system for hi-res digital downloads: An Auralic Aries bit cruncher, fed data from a high-speed Samsung 1Tb SSD; Auralic Vega DAC; Goldmund Mimesis 9 power amp and Martin Logan CLSIIz electrostatic speakers. Cabling in digital domain was by CAT, and Siltech monocrystal silver cable in analogue domain. Anyway, my expectation was something like this: 1) that the Horus and Grimm would basically offer a different flavour but would not be radically different in overall SQ and 2) that the difference between the Horus 64 and Horus 128 would be quite subtle. I was wrong on both counts. This was what I actually heard: 1) The Grimm 64 sounded markedly superior (IMO) to the Horus 64 – better focus, air, stage depth and timbral accuracy. Instruments sounded like the real thing. 2) The Horus 64 sounded more smeared in focus, less transparent, flatter in perspective and less musically accurate. I would hazard a guess that its time domain performance is/was not as good as that of the Grimm. 3) Horus 128 lifted the veil somewhat in focus and resolution, and also opened up some of the air and space. The difference between Horus 64 and 128 was more marked than I had expected. 4) However, I still preferred the Grimm overall. I’m not a Grimm groupie, but I have to say it impressed me mightily in these tests – mostly for musical reasons. Live music is my reference, and it simply sounded more to my ears like that! And then Ted and Tom had to go and add two further tracks– respectively, the Horus DSD 256 downsampled to DSD 64 with Signalyst, and then the Signalyst-processed Grimm 64, with 0.34dB level tweak. And here is where things started to get trickier. It would have been pretty easy to keep listening until I heard something but – in truth - comparing the two new tracks with the straight Grimm 64 these three seem to me, with my ears and playback equipment, now to be very much in the same ball-park, sonically. Yes, there are differences, but these seem much smaller than the large discrepancies that were pretty obvious between the straight Grimm 64 and downsampled Horus 64 and 128 tracks. If this is valid, it suggests that the artefacts consequent on downsampling in the Merging DSD Converter software are sonically significant, whereas the Signalyst appears more transparent. I would be happy musically with the straight Grimm or Signalyst tracks, less so it seems with those downsampled using Merging’s own software. I hope this all makes sense!