Jump to content
IGNORED

Offline Upsampling


Jud

Recommended Posts

Jay-dub, makes absolute sense for your goals. "Of course phase-linear" is interesting, since there is a lot of discussion of minimum phase filters and a number of good ones out there.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
- My mid-2009 MacBook Pro does not have sufficient CPU resources to convert PCM inline to DSD128 via HQPlayer without audible defects. It will convert inline to DSD64 via HQPlayer without identifiable audible defects, but the result doesn't sound as good as HQPlayer upsampling to 352.8/384kHz PCM. Perhaps this is due to the CPU operating near its limits, because most DSD files sound superb. - I always use dither when upsampling 16 bit word length files to 24. When going from 24 bit to 24 bit I have tried both with and without dither, but haven't really paid attention to determine whether I think there's an audible difference. - Please note Miska's response in this thread where he says that for a given filter offline conversion will sound better, but use of an NAA or particular DACs such as the exasound can make up a good part of the difference. - AuI does not currently do offline conversion to DSD, but I think Yuri may be open to adding that capability if he sees a demand. If you think you'd be interested, let him know in this thread or via private message (member name audiventory). - For me AuI is more useful than Sample Manager or Triumph, and perhaps even the more costly RX3, for two reasons: (1) Sample Manager and Triumph are limited, as far as I am able to tell, to 24/192kHz max. That would leave me still having to use inline filtering to get to the "native" rates of my DAC chip (and the "native" rate of most other folks' DAC chips as well), 352.8/384kHz. So I would not get the benefit of eliminating inline filtering. (2) For all three, Sample Manager, Triumph, and RX3, I would be using my own filter settings and thus not taking advantage of the expertise of someone who really knows about filters.

 

I tried it out yesterday and the results were quite impressive when listening to up-sampled PCM.

 

There does appear to be a greater ability to listen into the music. The sound is richer with more detail than up-sampling PCM inline.

 

When I take redbook and convert it to DSD using HQPlayer though, I still prefer this method. Now the music flows more naturally.

 

With offline PCM upsampling played back as PCM I am impressed with the level of detail and really admire the sound. It's a bit more like "looking into" rather than "listening into" the music for me though. I can see why someone who listens to PCM as PCM would prefer this method to inline upsampling.

 

With redbook converted to DSD in HQPlayer, when listening to Monty Alexander's, Montreux Alexander, the music took me by the hand and made me want to get up and dance. This sound is more nimble and really swings. I also compared several Holly Cole tracks from her best of album. Offline upsampled PCM played as PCM allowed me to hear more of Holly's chest and words were more clearly articulated.

 

Redbook converted to DSD placed more emphasis on lips and teeth :) Which was more enjoyable? Well, again, I had a preference for Redbook to DSD.

 

What if I combine both? Offline upsample to 352.8 and have HQPlayer convert this to DSD256.

 

Now I felt I had the best of both worlds, except I would say the PRAT factor is slightly reduced when more information appears to be added. This reminds me of comparing native DSD to plain unadulterated redbook. It's usually clear the native DSD is richer in information; but often there is still something to be said for plain redbook, in terms of how I respond to the music.

 

My feeling is the up-sampled version, converted to DSD, is closer to native DSD, whereas Redbook converted to DSD walks a line between the two. It makes huge improvements over redbook, in terms of intruments sounding far more natural, and allowing the music to flow, without overwhelming the senses with too much detail.

 

All of these comparisons were made with HQPlayer. When Redbook was converted to DSD it was to DSD256 with either poly-sinc or poly-sinc-mp filters and the DSD7 modulator.

 

HQPlayer is running on Win 8.1 pro, Mac 2013 pro to an Exasound e20 Mkiii. Then NCore monos driving KEF Blades.

 

When playing offline upsampled PCM no filters were selected.

 

It's interesting that when converting redbook to DSD it's necessary to wait several minutes before playback begins. There are no delays after that for subsequent tracks in a playlist.

 

When taking the already offline up-sampled 352.8 PCM tracks and converting those to DSD, there is no initial delay.

 

I suspect much of the initial delay has to do with the need to up-sample redbook PCM before conversion. If not some calculations must be taking place, that I don't understand.

 

The already up-sampled PCM is probably the technically superior file to start with and closer to the final resulting DSD. Then the DSD conversion process is relatively simple. Perhaps Miska will comment on this.

 

I've been trying to persuade Miska to get HQPlayer working with Qobuz. Perhaps this would be a problem with that initial processing though, unless an entire album/playlist could be grabbed from Qobuz and read into memory at one time.

 

geoff

Owner of: Sound Galleries, High-End Audio Dealer, Monaco

Link to comment
I tried it out yesterday and the results were quite impressive when listening to up-sampled PCM.

 

There does appear to be a greater ability to listen into the music. The sound is richer with more detail than up-sampling PCM inline.

 

With offline PCM upsampling played back as PCM I am impressed with the level of detail and really admire the sound. It's a bit more like "looking into" rather than "listening into" the music for me though. I can see why someone who listens to PCM as PCM would prefer this method to inline upsampling.

 

I also compared several Holly Cole tracks from her best of album. Offline upsampled PCM played as PCM allowed me to hear more of Holly's chest and words were more clearly articulated.

 

geoff

 

This describes well what I hear with offline PCM upsampling. As for upsampling to DSD, I think it, too, may sound better if done offline; and of course with my present audio computer I don't really have a choice, since it doesn't have quite the CPU resources necessary for good inline conversion to DSD. I therefore hope to start a mini-groundswell of support for Yuri to include this capability in AuI, or Miska to go through the additional hassle of making offline conversion available, or both. :)

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

Thank you, my friends, for so many useful info and warm replies about my work.

 

I'm not once thought about DSD encoding. Until last time many people (include audio pro) said me what DSD encoding is interest, but is not quite useful for instant releasing. May be will useful voting with discussion for research demand to converting PCM to DSD? Possible DSD encoding lead to increasing of the software price (due buying of DSD encoding patent license) - new "supercharged" :) version with DSD, as example. By same reason fine hardware intreface HDMI don't used for hi-end DAC (no big number of sales) as wrote some time ago in CA.

 

 

- I always use dither when upsampling 16 bit word length files to 24. When going from 24 bit to 24 bit I have tried both with and without dither, but haven't really paid attention to determine whether I think there's an audible difference.

 

Dithering applying in AuI ConverteR:

 

1. "16 bit" to "any bit-depth" - user set dither ON or OFF (general recommended ON or by better sound. May be it depend on dithering appliyng to source record in studio, may be other reason.)

 

2. "any bit-depth" to "16 bit" - user set dither ON or OFF (recommended ON)

 

3. "24 bit and more" to "24 bit and more" - dithering automatically OFF. Led (on main window of the software) lights anyway by reason files in source file list may have different bit-depth.

 

Yuri

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
Thank you, my friends, for so many useful info and warm replies about my work.

 

I'm not once thought about DSD encoding. Until last time many people (include audio pro) said me what DSD encoding is interest, but is not quite useful for instant releasing. May be will useful voting with discussion for research demand to converting PCM to DSD? Possible DSD encoding lead to increasing of the software price (due buying of DSD encoding patent license) - new "supercharged" :) version with DSD, as example. By same reason fine hardware intreface HDMI don't used for hi-end DAC (no big number of sales) as wrote some time ago in CA.

 

Yuri

 

This is what we call a "chicken and egg" problem. Hard to gauge interest without any current offline upsampling to DSD available (Korg Audiogate did so before the recent increased popularity of DSD, but has now changed its licensing so you need to buy Korg's DAC), but hard to spend the money on a license before knowing what the interest level is!

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
This is what we call a "chicken and egg" problem. Hard to gauge interest without any current offline upsampling to DSD available (Korg Audiogate did so before the recent increased popularity of DSD, but has now changed its licensing so you need to buy Korg's DAC), but hard to spend the money on a license before knowing what the interest level is!

 

Yes, exactly.

 

So... this does rather look like a case for a small Kickstarter program, no? if enough people are interested to pony up some money, the whole problem goes away. No?

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
This describes well what I hear with offline PCM upsampling. As for upsampling to DSD, I think it, too, may sound better if done offline; and of course with my present audio computer I don't really have a choice, since it doesn't have quite the CPU resources necessary for good inline conversion to DSD. I therefore hope to start a mini-groundswell of support for Yuri to include this capability in AuI, or Miska to go through the additional hassle of making offline conversion available, or both. :)

 

I follow your logic Jud, because if offline PCM up-sampling sounds better than inline PCM up-sampling, it seems to follow that offline conversion to DSD would too.

 

Consider the following though: I've carried out extensive listening with some of my audiophile and musician friends here and the consensus we've come to is that conversion to DSD64 is not necessarily an improvement over Redbook. It sounds very different, yes and to some listeners quite nice, to others a little "soft and fuzzy". The softness makes some people feel it's more "analogue like" and they prefer it to Redbook CD for that reason. Others will prefer the greater apparent clarity and precision of Redbook, left alone.

 

DSD64 is, of course, the limit for SACD's and I've ripped a number of them using a PS3. I never play them back at DSD64 now that I've ripped the files though. I think the softness of DSD64 is what has got DSD a bad name among a lot of listeners. Although there is obviously more information on a native DSD64 file than redbook CD, that softness has stuck in some people minds and they've decided they don't like DSD as a result.

 

Fast forward to modern DSD sound where the softness (that is the result of noise which has not been adequately filtered out) disappears, and the situation changes dramatically.

 

DSD128 sounds as though a blanket has been lifted to reveal far more detail, which includes ambient cues of the recorded space.

 

DSD256 is even better; not as dramatic as DSD64 to DSD128; but still quite significant improvements in the same direction as above.

 

These improvements hold true for both PCM converted to DSD and DSD64 upped to DSD128 and DSD256.

 

It is even possible to do this with lossless flac streams from Qobuz and other internet streams, as I've posted about here.

 

Where to stop though? … and that brings me to the problems I have with the idea of converting to DSD offline. You can do it now, with free software using the foo_sacd plug-in on Windows, or using J River Media Center on Mac or Windows. I believe Audiogate will also allow offline conversion of PCM to DSD. If you go to DSD256 though, the resulting files will be huge. Just look at the sizes of the native DSD256 files on NativeDSD.com.

 

… and although DSD256 might seem like the holy grail now, it won't be long before DSD512 becomes common and then beyond that to PWM or "muti-bit DSD".

 

In the meantime you've gone to all the trouble and expense of creating offline conversions from PCM to DSD at whatever DSD level, only to find it's all obsolete and needs to be done again.

 

I think offline up-sampling PCM to 352.8 may well be worth doing and then playing it back with a player that can convert that file to DSD at the max level your DSD DAC can support.

 

For the music collection stored on your hard drive though, I really feel something special is going on with HQPlayer when converting PCM to DSD128 or DSD256, today.

Owner of: Sound Galleries, High-End Audio Dealer, Monaco

Link to comment

Re: Audiophile Inventory ... Having fun with it. Thanks for all the info...

HQ Player (#1) & Audrivana (#2) (wow! love the Apple w/music!!) .. these two software make my system "Amazing!", Purist USB- Benchmark DAC2 HGC (love it!), Purist Audio XLR , ATC SCM25A's (To Die For!) & Focal sub6 . Triode Power Cables with Uber Buss (Yes!) Also enjoy Audeze LCD3 w/"fat pipe cardas."

Link to comment
I follow your logic Jud, because if offline PCM up-sampling sounds better than inline PCM up-sampling, it seems to follow that offline conversion to DSD would too.

 

Consider the following though: I've carried out extensive listening with some of my audiophile and musician friends here and the consensus we've come to is that conversion to DSD64 is not necessarily an improvement over Redbook. It sounds very different, yes and to some listeners quite nice, to others a little "soft and fuzzy". The softness makes some people feel it's more "analogue like" and they prefer it to Redbook CD for that reason. Others will prefer the greater apparent clarity and precision of Redbook, left alone.

 

DSD64 is, of course, the limit for SACD's and I've ripped a number of them using a PS3. I never play them back at DSD64 now that I've ripped the files though. I think the softness of DSD64 is what has got DSD a bad name among a lot of listeners. Although there is obviously more information on a native DSD64 file than redbook CD, that softness has stuck in some people minds and they've decided they don't like DSD as a result.

 

Fast forward to modern DSD sound where the softness (that is the result of noise which has not been adequately filtered out) disappears, and the situation changes dramatically.

 

DSD128 sounds as though a blanket has been lifted to reveal far more detail, which includes ambient cues of the recorded space.

 

DSD256 is even better; not as dramatic as DSD64 to DSD128; but still quite significant improvements in the same direction as above.

 

These improvements hold true for both PCM converted to DSD and DSD64 upped to DSD128 and DSD256.

 

It is even possible to do this with lossless flac streams from Qobuz and other internet streams, as I've posted about here.

 

Where to stop though? … and that brings me to the problems I have with the idea of converting to DSD offline. You can do it now, with free software using the foo_sacd plug-in on Windows, or using J River Media Center on Mac or Windows. I believe Audiogate will also allow offline conversion of PCM to DSD. If you go to DSD256 though, the resulting files will be huge. Just look at the sizes of the native DSD256 files on NativeDSD.com.

 

… and although DSD256 might seem like the holy grail now, it won't be long before DSD512 becomes common and then beyond that to PWM or "muti-bit DSD".

 

In the meantime you've gone to all the trouble and expense of creating offline conversions from PCM to DSD at whatever DSD level, only to find it's all obsolete and needs to be done again.

 

I think offline up-sampling PCM to 352.8 may well be worth doing and then playing it back with a player that can convert that file to DSD at the max level your DSD DAC can support.

 

For the music collection stored on your hard drive though, I really feel something special is going on with HQPlayer when converting PCM to DSD128 or DSD256, today.

 

Time to do offline conversion (not really "trouble," it's clicking a button and you can do an entire directory/album at once if you like) and storage space are indeed issues, same for PCM as DSD, as PCM files can be comparable in size to DSD, converted or un-. What I've decided, and others may want to consider, is that I won't keep nearly all the converted files, for just the sorts of reasons you give: What if there are improvements to the conversion filtering, to my DAC's capabilities (currently limited to DSD128), etc.? Why should I try to "push the envelope" on my storage space right now, when it's as easy as clicking a button next time I want to do another conversion? So it's likely I'll keep the converted files for those tracks I know I'll want to return to frequently, while zapping those I probably won't get around to again for a while. (It's convenient for this purpose that AuI puts converted files in their own separate folder within the directory/album where you're doing the conversion - just send that folder to the trash and everything's back to the way it was.)

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
I always use dither when upsampling 16 bit word length files to 24. When going from 24 bit to 24 bit I have tried both with and without dither, but haven't really paid attention to determine whether I think there's an audible difference.

 

I thought that dither was only used when downsampling.

 

- Richard.

LMS on Odroid XU4; HQPlayer on i7-8700; iFi iGalvanic; T+A DAC 8 DSD; Benchmark AHB2; Quad ESL 2805s + two Acoustic Energy subs.

Link to comment

Jud and Geoffrey:

 

I am very much in agreement with your last few posts--though my current R2R DAC set up is not for DSD (just prototype pure DSD DAC sessions and some Audiogate files)--so my opinion does not count for much here. However, as a semi-outsider I feel compelled to point out a couple wrinkles to caution against coming to definitive conclusions about the topic at hand:

 

a) It is highly likely that the "magic" (to use shorthand for all that's good) you hear with realtime PCM>DSD playback is the result of the extraordinary algorithms and filters built into HQPlayer, and I doubt that an offline converter just adding that capability is going to equal or exceed Miska's years of work too easily. (Though I do admire what Yuri has done so far.). It seems to me that convincing Miska to add offline conversion to HQPlayer would be the biggest step towards the grail.

 

b) I suspect that you both are approaching the limits of your DACs with both high-rate PCM and high rate DSD, and that further judgements of the formats will become increasingly difficult. What lies beyond is likely a DAC topology which blurs the line between true multi-bit and true DSD (as a 1-bit format). Of course any of us with sigma-delta based DACs (most but not all of us) are already listening to hybrid intermediary formats from some SD modulators. What I am talking about (fumbling about really) is an eventual move towards an ultra-fast, multi-bit/multi-level unary-coded transport scheme. The only reason HQPlayer has to modulate everthing down to a one-bit (DSD) stream is because there are no DACs or computer interface/driver schemes for running multi-level unary data. We know Miska and others would like move in that direction, and he has already said his software could easily be set up for that if the hardware existed. Look at the DAC design he put out for public DIY. If the transport means from the computer existed, it could readily be fed mult-level data instead.

I think this is the real frontier beyond both PCM and DSD (1-bit), but serious DACs implementing this discretly are not likely to be cheap.

 

Sorry to drag the thread off topic. Again, my personal impressions of DSD64 and 128 (all I have heard) are very consistent with what Geoffrey describes, and I too hear some benefits with offline PCM SRC--provided the filter closely matches what I tuned with A+/iZotope.

 

Best,

--Alex C.

Link to comment

Richard

 

Necessity of dither using is not depend relation of source and target sample rates. Only if source or target has 16 bit resolution. For 24 bit level of noise (below -140 dB) low than own noise of recording (about -120 dB). Noise of recording appear due analog-digital converter own electrical noise and external noises.

 

32-bit integer and 32-bit floating point and above recommended use for files consigned for further processing.

 

All internal processings into AuI ConverteR calculated in 64-bit float point format only. It allow low lossing audio information and avoid overflow when sum many big values.

 

Yuri

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
Re: Audiophile Inventory ... Having fun with it. Thanks for all the info...

 

Steve, thank you for kind words.

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment
Time to do offline conversion (not really "trouble," it's clicking a button and you can do an entire directory/album at once if you like) and storage space are indeed issues, same for PCM as DSD, as PCM files can be comparable in size to DSD, converted or un-. What I've decided, and others may want to consider, is that I won't keep nearly all the converted files, for just the sorts of reasons you give: What if there are improvements to the conversion filtering, to my DAC's capabilities (currently limited to DSD128), etc.? Why should I try to "push the envelope" on my storage space right now, when it's as easy as clicking a button next time I want to do another conversion? So it's likely I'll keep the converted files for those tracks I know I'll want to return to frequently, while zapping those I probably won't get around to again for a while. (It's convenient for this purpose that AuI puts converted files in their own separate folder within the directory/album where you're doing the conversion - just send that folder to the trash and everything's back to the way it was.)

 

You're right of course, it's really no trouble. With a license and the ability to do batch conversion of more than one file it would be even more convenient.

 

In terms of file sizes, I've been using AuI to produce flac files. If I further convert those to DSD128 using J River (DSD128 is the limit) a 352.8 up-sampled flac file at a size of just under 100mb becomes a DSD128 file of just under 246mb. I prefer DSD256, so if I could do that offline it would come to a whopping 500mb for a 3 - 4minute song. Yikes!

 

Back to sound quality: I chose to start with Holly Cole's "I want you" from her best of album. If you're going to listen to the same song over and over, it's a good idea to listen to a young woman (at that time) singing such a song :)

 

All listening was done with HQPlayer using the poly-sinc filter and DSD7.

 

I compared Redbook to DSD256 in HQP, then Redbook Up-sampled to 352.8 using AuI to DSD256 in HQP and finally Up-sampled to 352.8 file further converted to DSD128 using J River, then played at DSD256 via HQP.

 

The results of all three of these using HQPlayer were so good, I could easily live with any one of them.

 

Just comparing the first two; each time I went back to HQPlayer doing all the work from Redbook to DSD256, the word "expressive" came to mind. The AuI up-sampled then converted to DSD256 inline by HQP definitely had some things going for it though. For me these were more in audiophile terms of inner details being revealed; but that expressiveness of the music and emotion in the words, was not quite there to the degree it was when HQP did all the heavy lifting inline.

 

Then to the upped to 352.8 by AuI and converted to DSD128 by J River. This just left HQP to make the further DSD up-sampling from DSD128 to DSD256. Well, I have to admit that this was the best result for me overall. The backing vocalist now stood out more clearly in her own right (maybe it was Holly backing herself, I don't know). So those kinds of details were more apparent; but there was no lack of that expressiveness.

 

I also compared the Pinchas Zuckerman and the New York Phil's interpretation of Beethoven's Violin Concerto in D, just the Larghetto, recorded live at Avery Fischer Hall. Well, now the superiority of upped to 352.8 then converted to DSD128 offline and finally played and upped to DSD256 inline by HQP was clearer still. All those subtle details combined with that expressiveness is almost enough to make me invest in another huge hard drive :(

 

So Yuri I want to add my vote for a version that does offline to DSD as well, as long as you can do it at least as well as J River, that would be great.

 

AuI seems to be a very high quality offline sample rate converter at a fairly reasonable price. If you could do conversion to DSD as well as the, not affordable for mere mortals, Saracon that would be very cool.

 

We could then add some crown jewels to our file vaults.

 

If the future is streaming though, as Chris and many others feel it is, it makes sense to keep the originating file as small as possible. Redbook in the form of lossless flac is good enough for now, if it can be improved so much by HQP. DSD64 may also be good enough to keep file sizes reasonable for downloading or streaming, when they can be improved so much by upping to DSD256 in HQP.

 

When HQP does all the work, the results really are not that far behind what can be achieved by doing these offline processes first imo.

Owner of: Sound Galleries, High-End Audio Dealer, Monaco

Link to comment
Jud and Geoffrey:

 

I am very much in agreement with your last few posts--though my current R2R DAC set up is not for DSD (just prototype pure DSD DAC sessions and some Audiogate files)--so my opinion does not count for much here. However, as a semi-outsider I feel compelled to point out a couple wrinkles to caution against coming to definitive conclusions about the topic at hand:

 

a) It is highly likely that the "magic" (to use shorthand for all that's good) you hear with realtime PCM>DSD playback is the result of the extraordinary algorithms and filters built into HQPlayer, and I doubt that an offline converter just adding that capability is going to equal or exceed Miska's years of work too easily. (Though I do admire what Yuri has done so far.). It seems to me that convincing Miska to add offline conversion to HQPlayer would be the biggest step towards the grail.

 

b) I suspect that you both are approaching the limits of your DACs with both high-rate PCM and high rate DSD, and that further judgements of the formats will become increasingly difficult. What lies beyond is likely a DAC topology which blurs the line between true multi-bit and true DSD (as a 1-bit format). Of course any of us with sigma-delta based DACs (most but not all of us) are already listening to hybrid intermediary formats from some SD modulators. What I am talking about (fumbling about really) is an eventual move towards an ultra-fast, multi-bit/multi-level unary-coded transport scheme. The only reason HQPlayer has to modulate everthing down to a one-bit (DSD) stream is because there are no DACs or computer interface/driver schemes for running multi-level unary data. We know Miska and others would like move in that direction, and he has already said his software could easily be set up for that if the hardware existed. Look at the DAC design he put out for public DIY. If the transport means from the computer existed, it could readily be fed mult-level data instead.

I think this is the real frontier beyond both PCM and DSD (1-bit), but serious DACs implementing this discretly are not likely to be cheap.

 

Sorry to drag the thread off topic. Again, my personal impressions of DSD64 and 128 (all I have heard) are very consistent with what Geoffrey describes, and I too hear some benefits with offline PCM SRC--provided the filter closely matches what I tuned with A+/iZotope.

 

Best,

--Alex C.

 

Agreed there are some very special things going on with HQPlayer. I did hear some improvements when up-sampling offline and feeding the result through HQP. When I took the same file though and played it back via J River using the foo_asio plug-in to convert to DSD256, the result was not nearly as good as HQP. I prefer the result of taking the basic Redbook file and letting HQP do all the work to convert it to DSD256 anytime.

 

I also agree that muti-bit DSD has got to be the future. I had an interesting conversation with Bruno Putzeys about this in Munich and he has been thinking along those lines for sometime. So with both Miska and Bruno possibly going in that direction we can expect even greater improvements over the best of what is possible today. The future looks bright indeed :)

Owner of: Sound Galleries, High-End Audio Dealer, Monaco

Link to comment
You're right of course, it's really no trouble. With a license and the ability to do batch conversion of more than one file it would be even more convenient.

 

In terms of file sizes, I've been using AuI to produce flac files. If I further convert those to DSD128 using J River (DSD128 is the limit) a 352.8 up-sampled flac file at a size of just under 100mb becomes a DSD128 file of just under 246mb. I prefer DSD256, so if I could do that offline it would come to a whopping 500mb for a 3 - 4minute song. Yikes!

 

* * *

 

When HQP does all the work, the results really are not that far behind what can be achieved by doing these offline processes first imo.

 

File size - yes, that's why I've decided for the time being to keep only the "crown jewels" (as you put it) in converted form. But storage is getting cheaper....

 

Sound quality - I agree, we are not talking night and day here. For many occasions I will continue to use inline conversion - parties, casual listening while doing other things, etc. On the other hand, when settling down with a favorite piece of music or album for dedicated listening, I want to hear it at the absolute best my system can provide. ("I'll Follow the Sun" from the Beatles For Sale 2009 stereo remaster is less than two minutes, but you've never heard the boys' - as they were then - harmonizing voices so clearly on those old tracks. Just beautiful.)

 

Edit: For those of us who have older computers, offline conversion is the only alternative if we are talking about DSD. Inline's too difficult for the CPU, unfortunately.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
File size - yes, that's why I've decided for the time being to keep only the "crown jewels" (as you put it) in converted form. But storage is getting cheaper....

 

Sound quality - I agree, we are not talking night and day here. For many occasions I will continue to use inline conversion - parties, casual listening while doing other things, etc. On the other hand, when settling down with a favorite piece of music or album for dedicated listening, I want to hear it at the absolute best my system can provide. ("I'll Follow the Sun" from the Beatles For Sale 2009 stereo remaster is less than two minutes, but you've never heard the boys' - as they were then - harmonizing voices so clearly on those old tracks. Just beautiful.)

 

Edit: For those of us who have older computers, offline conversion is the only alternative if we are talking about DSD. Inline's too difficult for the CPU, unfortunately.

 

I do understand the point about conversion to DSD being CPU intensive. If you get a chance to listen to HQP doing all the heavy lifting inline, using its best filters I'm sure you would find it good enough for a dedicated listening session though. I'm sure the rest of your system is revealing enough.

 

In my apartment I'm currently using a mid 2010 Mac Mini. This only involves a slight compromise because I'm forced to use the 2s version of the poly-sinc filters in HQP. These are far more CPU friendly. I can use HQP to take the conversion as far as DSD128, then the DAC does its own further up-sampling to DSD256.

Owner of: Sound Galleries, High-End Audio Dealer, Monaco

Link to comment

All listening was done with HQPlayer using the poly-sinc filter and DSD7.

 

Great report Geoffrey!

I just got a new 2012 2.3GHz quad-core i7 Mac mini with 16GB CL9 RAM (it's replacing my 2010 unit). Do you think it will be powerful enough to run HQP's best filter going up to DSD256?

If you think Redbook>DSD256 with the poly-sinc filter would be too intensive for my machine, does feeding HQP off-line converted 352.8 make the realtime step (352.8>DSD256) an easier conversion load?

Thanks,

Alex C.

Link to comment

So Yuri I want to add my vote for a version that does offline to DSD as well, as long as you can do it at least as well as J River, that would be great.

 

AuI seems to be a very high quality offline sample rate converter at a fairly reasonable price. If you could do conversion to DSD as well as the, not affordable for mere mortals, Saracon that would be very cool.

 

Geoffrey,

From yesturday I intensive think about including DSD into AuI. Of course, DSD encoding must appear in AuI. Now I try find DSD license owner. Also possible variant creating my own algorithm of 1-bit modulation encoding compatible with DSD (DSD is protected trademark).

 

Now I have rights of using DSF files, but algorithm encoding PCM to DSD is protected by this patent https://www.google.ru/patents/WO2006129215A2?cl=en As I know (while not exact) protected patent formula only - algorithm of converting PCM to DSD, but not sigma-delta modulation.

 

Yuri

AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files

ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac,  safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF,

Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & Windows
Offline conversion save energy and nature

Link to comment

From yesterday I intensive think about including DSD into AuI. Of course, DSD encoding must appear in AuI.

 

Yuri

 

:D

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Great report Geoffrey!

I just got a new 2012 2.3GHz quad-core i7 Mac mini with 16GB CL9 RAM (it's replacing my 2010 unit). Do you think it will be powerful enough to run HQP's best filter going up to DSD256?

If you think Redbook>DSD256 with the poly-sinc filter would be too intensive for my machine, does feeding HQP off-line converted 352.8 make the realtime step (352.8>DSD256) an easier conversion load?

Thanks,

Alex C.

 

I think you're good to go Alex. If you run into playback issues choose poly-sinc-2s or poly-sinc-mp-2s over their non 2s equivalents. I think you'll be ok with poly-sinc or poly-sinc-mp though.

 

Going to 352.8 offline first will ease the load. I would try both methods anyway to hear what sounds best to you.

Owner of: Sound Galleries, High-End Audio Dealer, Monaco

Link to comment
Geoffrey,

From yesturday I intensive think about including DSD into AuI. Of course, DSD encoding must appear in AuI. Now I try find DSD license owner. Also possible variant creating my own algorithm of 1-bit modulation encoding compatible with DSD (DSD is protected trademark).

 

Now I have rights of using DSF files, but algorithm encoding PCM to DSD is protected by this patent https://www.google.ru/patents/WO2006129215A2?cl=en As I know (while not exact) protected patent formula only - algorithm of converting PCM to DSD, but not sigma-delta modulation.

 

Yuri

 

:)

 

Time for me to consider buying a license!

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
Are these the correct settings for the best sound quality? I've downloaded the "Lite" version to try first.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13562[/ATTACH]

 

Looks fine, though if you're doing Redbook you may want to try 352800.

 

What's your DAC's max input resolution?

 

Does the Lite version upsample?

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Looks fine, though if you're doing Redbook you may want to try 352800.

 

What's your DAC's max input resolution?

 

Does the Lite version upsample?

 

It does up-sample but I get clicks for some reason up-sampling to this. My dac can do DSD128.

 

I did the up-sample that I posted with a 16/44 file and it's now shows in JRiver 18432 aiff. What does this mean?

W10 NUC i7 (Gen 10) > Roon (Audiolense FIR) > Motu UltraLite mk5 > (4) Hypex NCore NC502MP > JBL M2 Master Reference +4 subs

 

Watch my Podcast https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXMw_bZWBMtRWNJQfTJ38kA/videos

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...