jazznut said Got it, Audiogate really does a direct DSD conversion without -6dB, great!By the way, you all might know the following page, I just found it now (offering a comparison of DSD256, 128, 64). Havent tried it yet.
Could someone verify my fundamental understanding please?
In order to listen to DSD128 files I need to go through USB input instead of BridgeII over the network, which only supports DSD64?
Thanks.
The BridgeII only supports DSD 1, as you suggest. USB support depends a lot on the program you’re using to serve it.
I’ll let others with more knowledge help answer the obvious follow-up questions.
I have played DSD128 over USB without any problems (but I only have a couple albums). I2S also supports DSD128. As noted, the Bridge 2 is limited to DSD64.
My experience is, that the bridge II with DSD64 sounds clearly better than USB with DSD128. That’s why I store the DSD128 and DSD256 files for later use with bridge III or IV and downconvert them to DSD64 for bridge use.
For downconversion you can use:
Jriver, Foobar or other similar programs (you’ll get -6dB lower level in the converted file)
Tascam Hires editor (free, downconverts DSD128 and DSD256, preserved level, no -6dB, but you have to convert each track in a single process)
Korg Audiogate 4 (commercial, downconverts DSD128 not DSD256, preserved level, no -6dB, converts many tracks in a batch)
Paul McGowan saidThe BridgeII only supports DSD 1
| Data rate (DSD) | Standard (2.8MHz) or Double (5.6MHz) DoP on all inputs as well as raw DSD on I²S inputs |
Good point. You also won’t get double rate DSD over TOSLINK, and maybe not even single rate.
I suppose that the detail is that the DirectStream DAC accepts 24/352.8 PCM or DSD 128 on all I²S inputs, but it does not specify what the input interfaces themselves are capable of accepting. Indeed, the I²S input that the Bridge II is connected to is capable of accepting input greater than the Bridge II is capable of processing. The same is true for the Toslink input. Perhaps an exercise in semantics, but the input selector and the the input interface tend to be thought of as the same when this is not necessarily true.
J.P.
I am listening to a double rate DSD recording right now and it is blowing away every single rate I have. The recording is Bill Evans (Some other time). The piano and bass is more full body with incredible presence. I don’t know if it’s because it’s double rate or it’s just better mastered. It will be interesting to see with the new Sunlight firmware if quad rate will even be better. We’ll see.
That is one of the 5 DSD downloads I bought when I tried DSD. It is an excellent analogue master. It did not convince me to stick with DSD and still sounds great when converted to PCM. It also shows that the dynamic range of analogue recording/mastering is more than sufficient. The last Octave DSD release was mastered analogue so limits the dynamic range, to no ill effect.
Are you sure a tape transfer is used during analog editing?
I think there is a lot of confusion here as to what “analog mastering” means. All it has to mean is that the mastering processing is done with analog equipment. This is all Octave Records releases.
In the wild, almost all mastering is done with predominantly analog processing, with a few tools like limiters etc left to the digital realm. There are plenty of PCM recordings that are mastered entirely in analog, and outside of dance music, comparatively few major releases done entirely in digital. An analog processing environment places no limiting effect on the dynamic range at all, unless the mastering engineer chooses to do so.
Where DSD is concerned, the mastering process from tape or the DSD two track recording is the same. Source->analog console, eq, compressor, etc-> DSD ADC. The only unique thing here is that there is no PCM digital limiter at the end, or specialized PCM tools. Nothing about this signal chain limits dynamic range, except if the source is tape. I also would not lament the absence of extra PCM processing which is usually used only to maximize loudness or fix major problems in the source.
Some digital recordings may be mixed to 1/4" or 1/2" tape in order to add warmth or tape signature, especially if they are tracked to PCM and sound a little cold. Then the mastering engineer can use the tape as a source. IMO, tape can sound excellent and this is no loss if done for stylistic enhancement.
With regard to vinyl “analog mastered” has a specific meaning that the tape was processed and cut direct to disc without a digital stage. This is actually somewhat complicated and requires using a second tape to provide lookahead for the cutting lathe. But in the end it is a recording that was kept in analog mediums the whole way, AAA.
That’s interesting…although I guess this doesn’t mean it’s limited to the DR of tape, it seems to be limited. Not that (as an analog nut) I’d disagree with Paul, that analog editing of DSD is probably better than digital editing (inspite of the dynamic limitations), but due to the repeated explicit showcasing of the dynamic range argument of digital, this is somehow funny.
Regardless of format or mastering tech, if Hi-Fi News gives a record 90% or 95%, I consider it a good sounding one.
That’s it…some things matter, others not so much…and the ones most often talked about are not always of the first kind it seems.
The most interesting thing is, that it seems not possible yet to produce the best sounding DSD releases fully digital. According to what we learned from Paul, analog edited DSD sounds better than both, fully digital produced PCM and fully digital produced DSD…inspite of the above mentioned DR limitation. I know similar things from somewhere 
I used to look for CDs that were marked AAD and ADD because they sounded better. Not sure if the same thing is carried over into the DSD world!
AAD or DAD seems to be the ticket there
The dynamic range of CD was one reason 99% of music listeners dumped their vinyl collections in the 1980s and 1990s. All of a sudden now CD isn’t good enough. 2-channel DSD is an audiophile niche product and that will remain the case, if it survives at all. There is no point arguing about the merits, if there are any. Octave is doing what Linn did 20 years ago and having been the largest producer of SACD/DSD recordings they abandoned it. The still use DSD and DXD, but release everything in 24/192 PCM. If there is a reissue of an analogue tape, whether or not remastered, I’d rather buy it on vinyl. The crazy thing is that DSD downloads are often more expensive than high quality vinyl reissues.
I don’t think I will even consider buying another Octave download until the price is reduced to $20. That’s the most I will pay for a download. There is no reason to charge more.
The best sound I’ve heard off vinyl are some digital recordings using DMM by TelDec in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
HIGHRESAUDIO | home of high-resolution audio
These folks offer optional: HRA-Streaming + Downloads* 12 months subscription for £ 199,99 GBP
I am not clear if downloads are limited or open
