Can anyone explain this?

[Reid Malenfant]

Do we have any digital experts in the house? If so please take a read of this (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showpost.php?p=255116&postcount=152) & see if you can work out what the heck is going on :eyebrows:

Hopefully Mr Beresford might have some ideas :scratch:

Anyone else please feel free to comment as the door is open to all who may have any idea at all :smoking: I have a few ideas but obviously nothing conclusive as i know next to nothing about this in all honesty :doh:

[Reid Malenfant]

This is one reason i'm confused, DSD on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital).

Now something doesn't make a lot of sense there to me as it states that it is stored on an SACD at 64 x the CD sampling rate of 44.1KHz & yet has a bandwidth which can extend to nearly 100KHz :scratch:

Or am i reading that wrong & i should really be looking at the 64 x 44100 = 2.8224MHz bit?

If only i knew how all this worked :lolsign:

Stuff it, time for another bevvie :cool:

[Macca]

This is one reason i'm confused, DSD on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital).
l:

Ho - I was just looking that up too...I was wondering if it was converting the upsampled PCM signal to DSD somehow but then can your DAC decode DSD?
If not it makes no sense.

Maybe DSD on the display does not stand for Direct Stream Digital? You could always consult the manual, desperate I know :lol:

Bevvy time? - My God your right! Down to the offy for me!

[Reid Malenfant]

Hi Martin, yes i have the Delius DAC which is decoding the DSD stream :) Sorry for not mentioning this :doh:

I still can't work it out though even knowing that's the case :scratch:

[Macca]

Hi Martin, yes i have the Delius DAC which is decoding the DSD stream :) Sorry for not mentioning this :doh:

I still can't work it out though even knowing that's the case :scratch:

I'm lost then - What exactly is the mystery? You have to spell it out for some of us dunderheads you know ;)

[Reid Malenfant]

I might as well have a stab at what i think is happening...

The Purcell would normally be fed a 16bit word, but is now being fed a 24bit word. The 24bit word should be "much more accurate" (ducks flying chairs), so even on the 48KHz sampling frequency it made a noticeable difference to the DSD stream that's sampled at 44.1KHz 64 times oversampling...

I can't explain the difference going to a 96KHz sampling frequency in the DIP though, unless it's something to do with the filtering taking place at a frequency vastly above the normal (even at 48KHz) frequency.

It doesn't make a lot of sense, but i'm not going to get cut up about it :)

I'm just going to enjoy the music a lot more from now on :lol:

[Reid Malenfant]

I'm lost then - What exactly is the mystery? You have to spell it out for some of us dunderheads you know ;)
The mystery is how come this little box (another upsampler) makes so much difference to the sound the dCS kit produces which is vastly more expensive & already superlative in performance...

I can understand that it may have better jitter performance than the original DIP 24/96 i was using previously, but it doesn't go on to explain how come things improve (on quite a noticeable level) when it's set to 96KHz :eyebrows:

[Macca]

I see - well maybe Stan or Mr C will have the answer,,,

[DSJR]

Don't some people hate the whole upsampling thang as a principle? I thought in my ignorance it was something to do with the ultra-sonic filters, being able to move them much higher on frequency.

[theabbot]

Hi
I'm not sure if this will be of any help or just confuse matters but over on Computer Audiophile there is an article regarding dcs putting DSD over USB perhaps what is happening with your setup is related to what they are doing, the interesting part for you is part way down this article.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/dCS-Does-DSD-over-USB

sorry if this is not relevant

Mike

[sq225917]

Either
A. The new DIP is better, in terms of interface jitter, or better rejection of noise on the spdif input.
B. The DCS is better up-sampling from this frequency.
C. You are imagining it.

[drrd]

44.1 -> DSD employs an interpolation filter. With the current generation gear (and I'm fairly sure with Purcell too) 48 or 96 -> DSD doesn't employ a filter. The filters do affect the sound, the apodizing filter for 44.1 on current gear sounds rather better than the standard filters. Just increasing the data rate (upsampling) even though you don't change the content does seem to make dCS gear sound better. I know people debate the pros and cons but it works for dCS stuff.

[Reid Malenfant]

Either
A. The new DIP is better, in terms of interface jitter, or better rejection of noise on the spdif input.
B. The DCS is better up-sampling from this frequency.
C. You are imagining it.
A. Yes i believe this DIP probably does have better jitter rejection due to the very accurate quartz oscillators. Actually even though i'm using the S/PDIF input it's actually balanced (AES/EBU 110 ohm) up to the phono plug. There is a balanced to unbalanced transformer inside the plug ;)

B. Possibly as something is seriously improving things :)

C. :lol:

44.1 -> DSD employs an interpolation filter. With the current generation gear (and I'm fairly sure with Purcell too) 48 or 96 -> DSD doesn't employ a filter. The filters do affect the sound, the apodizing filter for 44.1 on current gear sounds rather better than the standard filters. Just increasing the data rate (upsampling) even though you don't change the content does seem to make dCS gear sound better. I know people debate the pros and cons but it works for dCS stuff.
Ah, so i might not have been a country mile out with my guesses then :eyebrows:

Cheers for the post Russell :) Well i'm a convert no matter what is actually going on in the real world, to say i was a bit shocked at the difference is putting it mildly.

[Butuz]

Changing the output on my macbook pro from 16/44.1 to 32/384 via asynch USB into young dac made a noticable and significant difference in the sound and thats using the MAC OS's own upsampling which I wouldnt expect to be fantastic.

I have no doubt whatsoever that a dedicated and quite expensive jitter reducer/upsampler would make an even bigger difference.

I cant explain it, but like you, I know it's there nonetheless :)

Butuz

[WAD62]

Like Butuz I'm doing some upsampling, but on a windows platform using SoX...

http://sox.sourceforge.net/

FLAC(16/44.1) -> FFSoX (SoX resampler) -> PCM (24/96) -> Winamp -> ASIO out -> M-Audio ASIO -> SPDIF out -> Beresford TC-7510(Mk6/4)

It sounds noticably better, enough so for me to have spent quite some time messing about with buffer settings etc. in order for it to work properly (gapless etc.). A KBPS figure of 4608 (over 1411) takes some additional throughput...;)

Is this because the DAC works better with a 24/96 source, or because the SoX algorithm is improving the sound? :scratch:

I don't know, but it certainly sounds better with the SoX resampling in place...;)

[Reid Malenfant]

Cheers for popping in Butuz & Will ;)

The only thing that is slightly puzzling is i'm feeding an upsampler the Purcell which normally coverts 44.1>DSD via another upsampler :eyebrows:

Anyway, it's going to continue reading 96>DSD as there is no way i'm changing it back!