Interesting. How far out is a PWD update accommodating DSD? What might that entail…?
2015
There are a slew of DSD capable DACs at this point. The hardware purveyors either believe a good deal of software will become available or that they need the feature for marketing.
It will be interesting to watch.
@timequest That’s hard to say because we really haven’t firmed up our “skunk works” project to build a DSD DAC yet - I have been able to listen to a few prototypes but so far that’s about it.
Gee, and I was hoping my 2015 guess would provoke a 2013 response. 8->
@admin
So are you saying that if PS Audio ever decides to go “DSD” that the PWD MKII will not be upgradable to include it?
Thanks,
Bob
The conversion process is:
Master Tape > Antelope Audio Eclipse > DXD 24/352.8 > Weiss Saracon Software > DSD …
DXD 24/352.8 is PCM 352.8kHz/24bit.
This means that it’s recorded as PCM, then converted to DSD (what BTW perfectly understandable - it’s very uncommon, run effects or do mastering on DSD). Now the big question is whether the converter wouldn’t pass again DSD -> PCM before the D/A.
I wonder how far we are from the DXD future. The audio industry likes to sell us the same material many times (e.g. using different media and formats), so when 24/96-192 becomes more or less “usual”, they will “upconvert” 16/44 to 24/352.8 and “upscale” the price 
But nevertheless, as we discussed that many times, all modern DACs must support DSD.
valer_valer said: it's very uncommon, run effects or do mastering on DSD).
It is more than uncommon; it cannot be done as DSD is one-bit.
Alekz said: . . . all modern DACs must support DSD.
Most DAC manufacturers continue to disagree, although the number offering DSD is increasing.
Only time will reveal whether the current buzzword marketing of DSD will have any real impact. My expectation is DSD capable DACs and software will go the way of SACDs and exist only as a market niche at best. We will know in three to five years.
DXD is, of course, only high resolution PCM. It may well catch on as enthusiasts are obsessed with numbers, whether it be ultra low distortion measurements or stratospheric sampling rates and depth.
Elk said: stratospheric sampling rates
I wonder if the difference in pulse responses can be heard on transients.
valer_valer said: it's very uncommon, run effects or do mastering on DSD).
It is more than uncommon; it cannot be done as DSD is one-bit.
Of corse it can be done !
DSD is a bitstream, and by using the bitstream, we can applicate
the audio effects on a bitstream. Just search for "DIGITAL AUDIO EFFECTS FOR DSD BITSTREAM" on the WEB.
Here is one of them ...
http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~josh/documents/ReissSandler-DAFX2004.pdf
valer_valer said: Of corse it can be done !
Interesting paper, remarkably devoid of math. I do like the block diagrams, however. At least they are not labeled, "And a miracle occurs." :) More seriously, note that their block diagrams imply a multibit process.
The problem is that a one bit modulated signal contains very limited information; the sample is one higher or lower than the previous. A one bit datastream does not allow any room for mathematical manipulation. By way of contrast, PCM bits are a digital representation of the actual amplitude.
As a practical matter if it could be done, Pyramix, Sadie, Saracon, etc. would have done it. :)
Alekz said:
I wonder if the difference in pulse responses can be heard on transients.
As we have already discussed, DSD has better impulse response only due to the very high Nyquist cut-off. As we all know, the trade-off is a lower effective bandwidth and lesser dynamic range. All three are high enough in both formats (96/24 PCM and DSD) however that the differences are undetectable. Higher sampling rate PCM makes no difference other than generating even higher numbers.
As a result and again, as we also already discussed, a controlled double-blind test between high resolution linear PCM and DSD demonstrated that any claimed differences are undetectable even by trained, experienced listeners.
Yet another reason to ditch DSD
But for now it must be supported by players. It reminds me Internet Explorer version 6. All professional web-sited had to support that @#$% for many years.
valer_valer said: Of corse it can be done !
Interesting paper, remarkably devoid of math. I do like the block diagrams, however. At least they are not labeled, "And a miracle occurs." :) More seriously, note that their block diagrams imply a multibit process.
The problem is that a one bit modulated signal contains very limited information; the sample is one higher or lower than the previous. A one bit datastream does not allow any room for mathematical manipulation. By way of contrast, PCM bits are a digital representation of the actual amplitude.
As I understand the document is not impressed you too much :)
I Agree, direct translation like signal processing on PCM doesn't exist in DSD.
If we want to apply the Volume to future PWD DSD 1bit format :) with gain G = 0.25 the resulting output (1bit signal multiplied by G) is a MultiBit word.
Hence, any signal processing for DSD is always consisting
of a cascade of the actual processing step, followed by a re-quantization.
Alekz said: But for now it must be supported by players.
It will continue to be fun to watch what happens with these products. DSD has become important in a marketing sense, but there are also more sites selling DSD files than before.
Audiophiles are no longer put off by large file sizes with the availability of inexpensive drives and the market for high resolution PCM is certainly growing. Perhaps DSD will tag along.
I see no downside to more music available in more formats. :)
IMO, DSF sounds great, in general the best digital I’ve heard.
Using a Synology NAS and an Auraliti PK90, I am able to stream PCM, DSD64, DSD128 and DXD to an Auralic DAC.
Using an IOS app, MPAD, provides a great way to choose with the one library having all the types of files.
It helps to be able to extract the DSF files from an SACD, of course.
Alekz said: But for now it must be supported by players
99% of the DSD recordings, doubles in the market by differnent types of PCM formats.
And most of the DACs, with DSD input, converts it to PCM prior to D/A conversion.
valer_valer said: And most of the DACs, with DSD input, converts it to PCM prior to D/A conversion.
And xx% of DSD records are upconverts from 16/44 :D
The thing is, the DSD support is one of the marketing musthaves. Usually that satisfies yy% of the customers. But 100-yy% customers will go one step further and ask how the DSD support is implemented ;)
On the other hand, dCS DACs (up)convert PCM to DSD and they claim that this conversion does make an audible difference. Can't confirm, I've heard the dCS stacks (in the PCM-to-DSD mode), but never tested native PCM vs PCM upconverted to DSD.
IMO, DSF sounds great, in general the best digital I've heard.
Using a Synology NAS and an Auraliti PK90, I am able to stream PCM, DSD64, DSD128 and DXD to an Auralic DAC.
Using an IOS app, MPAD, provides a great way to choose with the one library having all the types of files.
It helps to be able to extract the DSF files from an SACD, of course.
Nice :)
Do you have a small latency when adjusting volume from the remote app?
On my Lumin the volume control needs to be toggled on every time I want to adjust volume on the source.
This only counts for DSD.