The past couple times I updated it, I was using 8GB and I think 32GB Micro-SD (from my Android smart phones) in a Micro-to-SD adapter. I don’t think I’ve ever used 2GB SDs. So if you have some SD cards, it can’t hurt anything to try them; you’ll only waste a little time if they don’t read.
No question, people have used larger cards recently (don’t ask me to define that term) and there is certainly no harm in trying. Indeed it may be well that 8GB cards were supported from the get-go with the DS and it took a while for some of us to catch on to that fact.
So - lining all of the ducks up for quad rate involves new USB drivers, new USB code in the XMOS USB processor in the DS, new controller code in the DS, and cooperation of the playing software (what ever the user is using.) But the FPGA is much closer with Huron.
Wow. While I figured the conversion to 4X would be a lot of work, I didn’t realize the road was so lined with landmines. LOL
I had sort of assumes that the FPGA was the big hunk too, until we were talking directly about it at PS Audio and it started becoming clear that we needed to look at it more carefully for every input…
The thing is that most of the issues aren’t just theoretical issues, we’ve run into all of them already in some more specific circumstances. It’s not as hard if we pick one path (for example including one particular supported source program) and push that thru. But I’d rather that we consider making quad rate a focus of a release rather than trying to slide it into another release which has it’s own logistical problems (e.g. MQA.)
Still every time I’ve worked on any particular part of the FPGA I’ve done what I could to support quad rate if it didn’t hurt audio quality. With Huron there are only a few small places left to fix/debug in the FPGA when the time comes.
Even if time means further development, I’m currently thinking:
Those large files of quadrate can’t be streamed, can’t be put on media and can’t be stored conveniently if they were common to a bigger extent. It’s like with super hires cameras, the whole environment an infrastructure is not ready yet for this load of data.
Somehow I hope I don’t have to bother about that too soon
Magister, if memory serves me right the SD Card size was an issue with the PWD. I recall it being said you could not use anything larger than 2 GB. When the DS came out this “rule” was not explicitly eliminated, so everyone continued to abide by the 2 GB limit. Then some yahoo ignored the “rule” and it worked! Turns out the “rule” did not apply to the DS. Seems like every time there is a discussion the size of the card gets bigger and bigger, i.e., Lonely Raven says 32 BG micro SD works. Next thing you know someone will use a 256 GB card for the few MB of code, seems such a waste … Anyway, the formatting of the card now seems to be the limitation.
Agreed. I honestly don’t think quad rate DSD is worth the hassle since double DSD has marginal improvement over single DSD, IMO. That’s not to say I don’t want to have the bridge III to support double DSD since I do. A lot.
Whereas I can see why folks would shy away from having a lot of very large files to store, I am wondering how being able to upsample to quad rate would sound. I have recently gotten a trial of Roon and have been playing around with some of its upsampling capabilities and have to say I think upsampling redbook to DSD 128 sounds better in my system than not upsampling. I would describe the difference as softer with less glare. Of course now with Huron coming this may change. Nevertheless having the ability to upsample to a higher rates appeals to the “tweaker” side of me. As an aside Paul and company may want to change the description on the products page for the DS to reflect the new capabilities.
Still every time I’ve worked on any particular part of the FPGA I’ve done what I could to support quad rate if it didn’t hurt audio quality. With Huron there are only a few small places left to fix/debug in the FPGA when the time comes.
I, for one, certainly welcome the idea that we might eventually be able to play DSD256, given that the number of recordings in that format is ever increasing.
With the Native DSD releases of the Mendelssohn Session, I heard a definite and worthwhile improvement in ambiance and detail in DSD128 over DSD64 from the Horus AD converter, and would love to hear for myself whether DSD256 is better still.
I don’t blame anyone for wanting to hear for themselves.
I would definitely expect a difference in ambiance going from a DSD64 recording to a DSD128 recording. Things get more complicated past that. A great DSD64 A/D will probably beat a more modest DSD128 or DSD256 A/D. After DSD256 I contend that any differences heard are more from misc hardware differences than from an inherent sample rate advantage - i.e. the differences will likely be more personal preference as opposed to inherently better - this is because at that frequency noise from jitter is rising faster than any gain from a higher sample rate.
DSD256 is right in the middle, any improvement over DSD128 will definitely be smaller than the DSD64 to DSD128 difference. But I wouldn’t tell someone with good ears and good equipment that there’s no difference.
The other thing is that different DACs will show different differences and once again most of those differences in formats DSD256 and up are idiosyncratic to specific DACs and less related to higher sample rates.
I understand. Indeed, with the Mendelssohn Session material, I found the differences between the Horus and Grimm converters at DSD64 was far greater than going from DSD64 to DSD128 with the Horus.
DSD256 is right in the middle, any improvement over DSD128 will definitely be smaller than the DSD64 to DSD128 difference. But I wouldn’t tell someone with good ears and good equipment that there’s no difference.
I think we're on the same page. There seems to be a tipping point (sweet spot, point of diminishing returns, whatever) for DSD, and I really believe 128 is it. I wouldn't mind trying out double that though. ;) It's also why I felt that the Bridge II only doing DSD 64 had it out dated before it was even released. But at the point I was added to the beta, it was far, far, too late for my thoughts on that to mean anything. LOL
Euphonite said
Whereas I can see why folks would shy away from having a lot of very large files to store, I am wondering how being able to upsample to quad rate would sound. I have recently gotten a trial of Roon and have been playing around with some of its upsampling capabilities and have to say I think upsampling redbook to DSD 128 sounds better in my system than not upsampling. I would describe the difference as softer with less glare. Of course now with Huron coming this may change. Nevertheless having the ability to upsample to a higher rates appeals to the “tweaker” side of me. As an aside Paul and company may want to change the description on the products page for the DS to reflect the new capabilities.
Exactly! This is what many people are seeing, not just with the DS, but with any DACs that handle DSD well. It gives a certain analog sound that is the closest I’ve come to master tapes on Reel to Reel that I’ve been fortunate enough to be able to listen too. I think the change might be even more apparent with other DACs that don’t run in the DSD realm like how Ted has the DS designed. Since the DS is DSD 128 internally, I questioned the need to upconvert CD quality to DSD 128 before the DS, but I still do hear an improvement. Maybe it’s just less work for the DAC or something? I have no idea, I just go by what I hear, even if it goes against my theories and expectations.
