I want to know the best native PCM DACs for use with HQPlayer. So, I guess that is a new thread! 
2 Likes
Since any digital/ADC/DAC conversion process has finite accuracy, it means it has some error process. Without dither, this error would be correlated with the signal and thus create distortion. With dither we replace this error process with an uncorrelated random process.
For example R2R has limited linearity, but we can correct it using such process.
If you can represent only integers, but your wanted value is for example 2.25, we can instead use 8 samples like:
2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2
And when we average (low pass filter) these (2+3+2+2+3+2+2+2)/8 = 2.25
When you use different distribution of the values every time, the result is the same, but it doesnât in itself create a recognizable pattern. But statistically it is always correct. We can also noise-shape this, which means adjusting the patternâs frequency distribution.
A non-dithered one would just keep doing value 2 all the time, and would thus always induce error of 0.25.
2 Likes
Native DSD DACs is very confusingâŚ
ESS/AKM/CS/BB etc⌠are all Native DSD DACs, i.e. they can process DSD stream natively.
DSD Direct is a different animal.
If you are talking DSD Direct, you basically elimate a few DAC chip makers (e.g. ESS).
All the DACs that claim DSD Direct should be DSD Direct. Are we going to verify every single one to confirm that they are in deed DSD Direct?
If we have a look of the title of this thread again, it is not âto verify DSD DIrect DACs are indeed DSD Directâ. It just happens that we noticed some DSD Direct DACs may be questionable regarding if they are in deed DSD Direct.
âBestâ is another thing that we need to quantify.
If we consider only DSD Direct DACs can be candidates for the âBest native DSD DACs for use with HQPlayerâ (the title of this thread), then we need to define what is the Best.
- Best: A DSD Direct DAC with the best measurements? or
- Best: A DSD Direct DAC with the best sounding?
For 1, we can have objective measurements.
For 2, we donâtâŚ
Moreover, if you confined your Best native DSD DACs to only DSD Direct DACs, you can only find the Best DSD Direct DACs for use with HQPlayer.
If you include all Native DSD DACs, then you may find the Best native DSD DACs for use with HQPlayer (our thread title).
Sounds like to me, it is a difference between finding the best pre-amp for our music vs the best âby passâ (aka âDirect Onâ) pre-amp for our music.
PCM DACs are a fad. DSD is where itâs at.
I have tried to introduce the concept of âhop-by-hop bit-perfectâ before. First, anyone using HQPlayer needs to throw away the general use of the word âbit-perfectâ. I have, but moving on. Letâs talk about bit-perfect between the DAC and the digital transport (streamer).
IF Iâm using something like the PS Audio DS or a Chord DAC I want absolute bit-perfect between the digital transport and the DAC. WHY? Youâre paying good money for custom filters, dithering, oversampling, modulators, etc. and, in order to get the exact output the designer was intending, probably best to feed it the source material directly. In this case Iâm only bit-perfect from transport to DAC. The DAC itself is certainly not bit-perfect to what I fed it.
IF Iâm using HQP then I want absolute bit-perfect in the DAC + transport to DAC and, in the case of my preference for DSD, that means I need a DSD direct DAC (not just NOS) because Iâm feeding it DSD from transport to DAC. WHY? Because I paid good money for the custom filters, dithering, oversampling, modulators, etc. in HQP.
Reality⌠The bitstream output by HQP influences the bitstream of a non DSD Direct / non-NOS DAC to create something unique between HQP and that model DAC. Thatâs not bad if it sounds good. We just kind of have no idea exactly whatâs happening and those combinations are endless which makes testing or even reviewing difficult. Youâre no longer really chasing the general, or commonly accented definition, of bit-perfect as soon as HQP enters the chat.
OK, now back to finding more native DSD DACs being fed bit-perfect 1-bit SDM bitstreams from transports after HQP does its thing (or even not HQP if you have DSD source material and, for unknown reasons to me, you want to feed that directly into a native DSD DAC).
Thanks for your further detailed explanation. It helps a lot. Meanwhile, I checked out the wiki page too. It also have a lot of useful info. Very interesting.
Thanks again to correct my mis-concept about it.
What is your definition of ânative DSD DACâ? What would non-native DSD DAC?
I think thatâs the topic of this thread. But maybe Iâd rather talk about bit-perfect DACs. And Iâd like to get rid of that âDSDâ marketing term too. And âDSD Directâ sounds a bit funny, because âDSDâ already has âDirectâ included. My guess is that it was originally âDirect Sigma-Deltaâ or âDelta-Sigma Directâ, but then marketing department told engineers that none regular people understand this âSDMâ aspect so it became âDirect Stream Digitalâ in marketing materials.
But âDSD Directâ opened up is like âDirect Sigma-Delta Directâ or âDelta-Sigma Direct Directâ, or just âDirect Stream Digital Directâ which sounds just hilarious.
So Direct SDM DACs, or SDM Direct DACs, or bit-perfect SDM DACs or just bit-perfect DACs (which cover set of NOS R2Râs too).
1 Like
If the purpose is to find which DACs are indeed DSD Direct, we can simply elimate all ESS DACs.
For other DACs, we have to check one by one (even they claimed DSD Direct).
Even for the exact model, different firmware versions would make a difference. e.g. SMSL D6 DSD512 DSD Direct support is buggy. It was only fixed in the latest firmware.
IFIâs support for DSD with 48k base is broken when they update the firmware for MQA supportâŚ
I understand you want to listen to the pure music processing from HQPlayerâs own oversampling, modulation, etc with DSD Direct (i.e. you want bit perfect from HQPlayerâs output to the final d/a process in the DAC).
For me, I have a different viewpoint, I just want to hear the best music with the help of HQPlayer.
With cooking analogy, you want to taste the exact dish from the 5-start chef. You donât want anyone else to touch your dish. You need the best DSD Direct DAC in this case. However, please remember that you are indeed touching your own dish youself (by selecting different filter/modulation) that you cannot avoid.
For me, I want the best tasting dish (and the 5-start chef is the main chef in making it). In this case, I look for best Native DSD DAC.
1 Like
My understanding of these terms are (in the companiesâ marketing sense)
-
Native DSD support: means DAC can take DSD data stream natively (i.e. raw DSD data stream) for processing. It has nothing to do with how the DAC handles the DSD data stream internally. This usually requires ASIO driver for Windows and Mac does not support it
-
DoP (aka DSD over PCM) support: means DSD data stream is packed in PCM packets for sending to the DAC (as all the DACs support PCM flow). As it requires larger PCM packets for sending the DSD data, it usually supports lower DSD bitrate under DoP. i.e. DACs support DSD512 (DSD Native) may only support DSD256 (DoP). Moreover, I think most people / companies consider DoP as not âDSD Nativeâ (even it can transfer bit perfect DSD data to the DAC). Again, it has nothing to do with how the DAC handles the DSD data stream internally in the D-to-A process. Windows can support it without any driver installed.
-
DSD Direct: means the DAC would by pass all the DACâs internal oversampling / Delta-Sigma modulation / etc and would only use very simple / direct way to convert the 1-bit DSD datastream to final analog signal. It could happen or not with the âNative DSDâ or âDoPâ flow (i.e. non âNative DSDâ flow) depends on if the DAC support this DSD Direct option.
Some chips do not support DSD Direct option at all (e.g. ESS)
Some chips only support DSD Direct (e.g. BBâs DSD1793)
Some chips make it optional (e.g. AKM). It depends on the indivdual maker / DAC design
NON-Native DSD DACs (in marketing terms) is DoP
Of course I do test/measure a lot of such, like ESS chips in combination with HQPlayer.
And we know well, that using DSD input to ESS chips can correct some issues that ESS chips have with PCM inputs.
And we also know well, that ESS is never bit-perfect, no matter what you feed it.
Combinations as such are not endless, because there are not so many applicable DAC chip vendors and models on the market. Thatâs why I have gathered several units with each of the chip models. Part of my daily work as usual is to make best out of pretty much any DAC.
It doesnât mean though that it wouldnât be possible to improve the performance by using HQPlayer as front-end. For example instead of Chordâs M-Scaler. In the end, M-Scaler is just an expensive digital filter. And passing 705.6/768k PCM to a Chord DAC bypasses the built-in WTA1 stage.
There are a lot of people using HQPlayer to feed Chord DACs. They get more choice choice on the digital filters. And spend less money than with M-Scaler. It still makes complete sense. Of course you still have the Chordâs modulator in play, so it is kind of half-way solution.
This thread is of course about complete solutions, not partial ones.
Similarly people use HQPlayer to feed DSP speakers at their native internal processing rate, or Devialet amps with native internal processing rate of those, or AVRs with native internal processing rate of those.
4 Likes
OK, I see. But instead we could talk about DACs that support raw DSD instead of DoP.
This DoP aspect has only to do with the USB controller / digital interface part, not the actual D/A conversion.
For example RME ADI-2 supports only DoP, but it doesnât pose any restrictions or such.
Totally agreed but the problem is in the DAC makersâ marketing materials.
They use the term âSupport Native DSDâ to indicate their DACs support raw DSD input (due to historicial reason?). Nowadays, I think there is no DAC that does not âsupport native DSDâ
In this case, we should also cover non-DSD Direct DACs. Correct?
SureâŚ
And almost none say anything about DSD Direct. Cirrus Logic uses term âDirect DSDâ and AKM âDSD Directâ. So Iâve been using the most common term as well.
Not in this thread at least. You would be sending PCM to those.
ahhhh definition of âweâ. By âweâ I mean the utopia seeking hifi consumers. I know you test. But where is the results of that testing? Is ESS thrilled with you putting together a data sheet that identifies which combinations of HQP config âfixâ what errors in ESS chips? If possible, Iâd love a copy. It sounds like excellent marketing for HQP (because itâs accurate and reproducible) but Iâve never seen this on your website. So, âweâ, donât have access to it (but Iâd love to be corrected, and without having to search 2+ different community forums where you post some of this).
Absolutely⌠My first dive into HQP was sending it towards a Schiit Yggdrasil OG. I was really surprised how HQP influenced the megacomboburrito filter. I wouldnât call it âbetterâ just different. But, absolutely you could hear differences. I donât have the NOS version of this DAC⌠maybe I should go do that. But, this is my favorite âmake a CD sound like a CD from when I was a teenagerâ DAC so I leave it alone.
It took me about a year, once I decided to jump on the ADI-2 FS, to find an AKM version (I wanted one new). Knowing whatâs in the box is fun and part of the hobby. The AKM fire has had some interesting ripples when looking for âbit-perfectâ DACs. My understanding is their new 2-chip solutions are blurring the lines but Iâve not had time to really dive in.
I thought somewhere, at some time, you recommended a HQP config you thought would come close to m-scaler. Yes, using HQP to âemulateâ other DACs is a feature! Again, might be fun to document this in a single location for reference.
Thatâs been said, more than once, in this thread.
I can live in two worlds. Sometimes I want to know exactly how the filter impacts the music and sometimes I just want to enjoy the music and sometimes I want the best from the music. The first one requires the truest signal path. The second requires a generic configuration that doesnât call out any 1 things across different kinds of music. The third requires a combination of everything to extract the essence of the recording and that could be air, space, transients, pace, timbre, etc.
1 Like
Sorry for my ignorance, could you share how they use HQPlayer to feed Chord DACs?
Is it like this?
44.1k ====> upsampled to 768k with HQPlayerâs filter/dithering? ====> (to Chord) Chord DACâs own SDM ===> analog output
Iâve always enjoyed this read to understand the philosophy behind the m-scaler and why âone million filter tapsâ was chosen as the end-game target. HQP can run a similar filter saving you the cost of an m-scaler. Of course, âone million filter tapsâ is probably more a limitation of the hardware they choose within m-scaler rather than any end-game target. With HQP you can go well beyond one million taps.
1 Like
A few people at ASR have also confirmed this, and thereâs a thread or two about it there. (without me being involved in any way)
They did it years after Iâve talked about it, but still eventually some other people discovered it too.
I doubt anybody at ESS has ever heard about HQPlayer.
I donât want to post tons of technical jargon on my website. I think it is more important people listen to it, than look at numbers and graphs. I do the dirty work of developing, testing, measuring, repeat.
Iâve had some fun with the new ES9039 chip too. And can be improved with HQPlayer front-end as well.
Issue that it limits the maximum operational rate of the D/A section to 192k, because their USB interface cannot do more. If theyâd had more capable USB interface it would be much better option. Maybe some day.
I think you get pretty close this way:
sinc-Ll = M-Scaler
sinc-Lm = Dave
sinc-Ls = Hugo/Mojo
And sinc-L is like 2x M-Scaler (double the length).
2 Likes
And I donât agree with their reasoning. In fact I disagree on quite many aspects. Content that makes HQPlayerâs Apod-counter increment is rather bad fit for those⌠Depends on the content you listen how frequent that is and what kind of counter figures you hit.
Yes, thatâs the way, but usually it is better to use fixed 705.6k output rate always. Also remember that Chord DACs have just single clock inside and they use the same clock for both rate families.
1 Like