California Audio Show 2013

[1audio]

I'm looking forward to meeting Peter and being on a panel with him. This should be interesting.

Demian
Auraliti (and others. . .)

[PeterSt]

pedal ...

?

[pedal]

PCM versus DSD

I don’t expect any improvement from DSD, because high quality PCM recording already is “perfect” or near-perfect.

The subject can be seen from two sides: The RECORDING phase and the PLAYBACK phase.

RECORDING
Here, we have reliable sources stating that recording at PCM 24/192 or 24/352.8 kHz is identical to listening to the live feed in the studio control room. -Switching back and forth between the live mic feed and the PCM recording, the engineers struggles to hear any difference. That is, when using high quality equipment of course. Not some off-the-shelf $999 gear.

My most reliant source in this matter is world renowned producer and recording engineer, Morten Lindberg at www.2L.no. He records the most demanding music (close miked classical orchestra and choir). Doing most of the job himself, he is at the venue from start to end, and he spends weeks/months in is studio afterwards preparing the various formats and mixes. I have visited his studio facilities and listened to his equipment. -I can assure you the man is 100% serious about State Of The Art sound reproduction.

He uses modern top-level microphones and equipment. Some years ago he chose DXD as his recording and mixing format, because it performs equally well with PCM and SACD post production/releases (the latter being the most relevant format for multichannel releases at that time, back in 2006). Read more here: http://www.sa-cd.net/showthread.php?page=1


PLAYBACK
Here, I don’t trust any listening reports, unless the Phasure playback technology is involved… 

The Achilles heel of PCM is the inferior impulse response, due to the low pass filtering. This area is where DSD excels, due to its much higher sampling frequency. 

However this area is exactly where I see NOS1/XX as a game changer. Utilizing the Arc Prediction function + NoOverSampling, restores the high frequency square waves! Achilles heel is healed, in other words. -Rather than chase DSD, people should adopt the Phasure technology already working with PCM.  

--------------

Apart from this, I do wish for DSD playback functionality within XX, in order to rip and play ISO images from certain treasured (remastered) SACD titles not available as PCM.  
 

[juanpmar]

Apart from this, I do wish for DSD playback functionality within XX, in order to rip and play ISO images from certain treasured (remastered) SACD titles not available as PCM.  

Hi pedal, 

Juan

[1audio]

I think this whole issue is really blurred today. Most commercial recording are made with delta sigma ADC's (have been for over 10 years now) and the current generation of ADC's have better measured conventional performance that anything before.

What makes this interesting is that the delta sigma processor is the same one that generates the DSD stream out a different set of pins on the chip. I can argue (with lots of had waving) that DSD and PCM are just different transports of the same captured data between the same ADC and DAC (also delta sigma).

In the obscure niche that is the audiophile world there may be better alternatives but once commercial content is mixed in then PCM vs. DSD may not be too meaningful. DXD for example is PCM at 384 KHz sampling. The Pyrimix DSD editor converts the DSD to DXD (384 PCM) and edits it using PCM algorithms and then converts back to DSD (just like the ADC/DAC).  In the end what is it? What happens if a DSD low pass filter (50 KHz) is added to a PCM 192KHz stream? Would it sound like DSD?

Execution of the original recording and the boxes at each end is far more important that whether is DSD or PCM.

[pedal]

Sony/Philips launched DSD way back in the 90s, at a time when PCM still was in a “low-rez” state. (At that time most PCs featured an Intel 486 processor and homes didn’t even have an Internet connection).

But 20 years is an eternity in digital technology, and PCM recording/playback has developed enormously. And it will continue to develop rapidly, due to its huge momentum. Studios started out recording at 48kHz sampling frequency. Then doubled to 96kHz. Then they doubled again, to 192kHz. Now, some have moved on to 24/384. Here at Phasure.com, PeterSt has pushed his PCM playback technology as high as 768kHz sampling frequency.

To my eyes, the original deed of DSD – the extra bandwidth – has now been accomplished by PCM, too.

I never heard a 100% pure DSD record/playback system, so I can’t comment on its absolute SQ. But like its cousin PCM, it comes with theoretical handicaps; the waste amount of noise shaping and high frequency noise. Probably neither DSD nor PCM are 100% perfect/transparent medium, but when utilized through the best present/future technology, I guess the differences in SQ will be of academic nature.

What’s left is the fact that DSD occupies one third the storage space of PCM 24/352.8, which might be a practical factor for online distribution. On the other side Bytes are cheap and PCM is light years ahead in market share, functionality and price.

To me, it seems like DSD is a waste of time.

[acg]

I am also of the opinion that DSD is a waste of time.  There seems to be a lot of energy being wasted on this format within audiophile circles but where are the new recordings going to come from?  If you believe Charles Hansen DSD was nothing more than a tool for Sony to make up for lost income when CD patents expired and was not about advancing sound quality, and that is especially true now that PCM has matured as Pedal stated above.

When I started to read about the "fantastic DSD sound" I did some research and could not make myself a case to go down the DSD path.

Cheers,

Anthony

[Flecko]

I have a DAC that can stream and convert DSD (DoP). At the moment I have no good sounding software that can stream DSD. I use JRiver to do so but the problem is, it still sounds like JRiver. Plus, I do not have much records because I just started to show interest in DSD and to be honest, I already lost interest because of the player problem. PCM over a decend software player still sounds better than DSD over JRiver. So XXHE supporting DSD (DoP) would be very welcome indeed.

[Flecko]

There seems to be a lot of energy being wasted on this format within audiophile circles but where are the new recordings going to come from?

PS.: I think DSD is worth playing with. It could be a way out of the reclocking and oversampling problem for a lot more people than just the NOS1 owners.
One could use XXHE to convert PCM to DSD in realt ime, much better than JRiver does and so provide high quality music playback without ringing and so on for everyone having a DSD DAC.
JRiver can convert PCM to DSD but the improvement doesn't compensate the loss in quality by using JRiver. I gues this could be done much better...

[manisandher]

Any reports from people who managed to visit the show in person?

I'm especially interested in the discussions Phasure helped to organise...

Mani.

[manisandher]

Hmmm... not exactly a glowing report: http://www.stereophile.com/content/cas-2013-day-one-scaling-heights

I suppose this is the risk one takes when exhibiting in a show environment. It'd be interesting to hear back from others who attended as to whether they agree with Jason Victor Serinus's description of the sound. (Jason seems to blame the speakers.)

In any event, Peter looks pretty happy with himself

Mani.

[juanpmar]

"Output to the Phasure NOS1 DAC was via an active USB cable provided by Synergistic Research."

Mmmmmm...

Juan

[PeterSt]

Hi,

I think the way Jason put things as he did was very fair to us. Actually I finally found a partner in him and the end of day one, who confirmed what I said the whole day long. As a matter of fact *still* many people visiting the room said that it was one of the better, while I myself regularly just did not want to be in there.
All is a matter of what we are used to and what is our reference; In my opinion there is one way only to do this right and this is bringing your own speakers and amps and everything. So this is what will happen the next time ...

But no worries; It was to be expected, although you try your best to have it arranged the best at the distance.
Anyway, Jason described it just how it was, and nothing is more worthwhile for the audience, right ?

Regards,
Peter

[PeterSt]

Btw, I don't recognize a thing about that Zalman box driving the NOS1. The Zalman just provided the music as a (music) data server and the XXHighEnd PC drove the NOS1.

Peter

[smilemakr]

Well, I for one attended the Audio Show on Friday, getting to the show hotel just a few minutes after 10 AM.  I zipped up to the Phasure room, as I wanted to meet Peter before he got sucked out of the room to attend to other responsibilities (or, as we now know, left the room because he didn’t want to be there!).  I found Peter, along with Lee Mincy (North American distributor for Phasure), feverishly stuffing foam padding into the tweeter of the Surreal speakers!  They clearly knew that they had a problem on their hands, but Peter was pretty cool about the whole thing. 

Peter and Lee were amiable hosts, and Peter was happy to chat with me about how to get this whole Phasure NOS1 DAC and XXHighEnd computer and software conglomeration working together (I got my NOS1 just a couple of weeks ago, and the computer was waiting for me on my doorstep when I got home from the show—wish me luck).

Yes, the tweeters in the Surreal speakers were pretty aggressive, and I think Jason Serinus was fair in his assessment and didn’t blame the Phasure products.  The hotel room acoustics were a problem too, of course, and I really didn’t find a system/room that sounded as good to me as what I have at home.  This brings up a question:  how is the typical Audio Show listener to tease out the relative contributions to the sound from more esoteric components such as DACs and computer software, in an unfamiliar room with unfamiliar speakers, amps, etc.?  As Peter suggests, everyone could bring their own speakers, amps etc. to the show, but this seems a bit, uh, cumbersome (Peter, what the heck did you mean when you wrote “…this is what will happen next time”?).

Perhaps a better assessment of Phasure products in a Show setting would be to use generally-accepted-as-excellent speakers (such as Magico, Raidho, TAD, one of the usual suspects) , amps, cables, and so on, with A/B comparisons between a computer playing music through a well-regarded software player such as JRiver, and a high-end DAC such as the Berkeley Alpha, then play the same track through the same exact system, but played through XXHIghEnd software and the Phasure NOS1.  I love to hear comparisons like this at audio shows! The folks at JRiver and Berkeley would not love it, I suppose.  But if the Phasure products are as good as everyone on this forum says they are (and I should find out for myself soon, once I get it all set up in my own system), such a demo should make reviewers like Jason really sit up and take notice of this little company in the Netherlands.

Lurking behind and between the computer and Phasure NOS1 was not the $1, el-cheapo USB cable previously recommended by Peter, but instead a fancy-pants, wallet-slimming USB cable provided by Synergistics.  Oh no, must we now be tempted to upgrade?!  I should have asked Peter about this, but didn’t.  Perhaps Peter can explain the relative merits of a USB cable “upgrade”.  But I don’t expect much in the way of lengthy replies from Peter for the next week and a half or so, as Peter was just beginning a 2-week vacation here in the States—let the man get some rest!

Mark
Santa Cruz, California