Thread: PS Audio DirectStream DAC

Deleted site is acting wonky for me.

Originally Posted by wisnon

Does the new FW improve the DSD playback of the DStream?

Wasn't able to get you answer.

Did pick up however for review, the new Mainframe Music Processor music server. Should be here just before or after RMAF.

Originally Posted by mauidan

From PS Audio?

They're suppose to have their new hybrid amp on didplay at RMAF.

Sorry for the confusion Dan. No the Mainframe Music Processor is designed by Sunny Umrao from Scaena.

Originally Posted by JDLaudio

Actually, the DSD performance alone, makes the DirectStream a keeper. But I would love to have the "earlier" PCM voicing. Guess after getting the Berkeley, I can choose which format I want the DirectStream to be best at !!!! Definitely nice to have a choice.

You need to hear the S1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Alrainbow

Jd .

Ya know I got knocked for saying the dsd got better and PCM got worse . Nice to read someone else hears it that way. I honestly do not know why they just cannot get them together . What we need here is a simple firmware rolling from the main screen or perhaps from the chip kept incerted in the back . It could hold many firmwares. Another cool feature would be a striped down FPGA frimware . Anything that can improve the sound is fine by me.

Lastly myles I would loan you like my DS for a review . I would very much like to set you up for one.

We can figure it out for sure.

Myles your view in this is very important , as you being a vinyl guy. As I hear the difference too , I think you hear it much more. So your view tells an even better detailed experience.

Reg the berkely. When ever I upsample PCM to dsd . It looses its bite and smooths it out.

down sampling dsd from 128 to 64 . Was not good as it lost its air around the music , seemed more flat.
Nkw I never tried to downssampled to PCM .

I convert DSD to PCM 176.4 with JRiver on the fly to my Bel Canto DAC and it sounds extreamly outstanding! I think it sounds as good as DSD DACs I've heard. Mind you my system is setup for optimum PCM playback.

No way the conversion sound as good as Native DSD playback on primo DSD Dacs. The conversion alone is lossy due to decimation.

Originally Posted by Alrainbow

Now this is my immediate thought but I honestly have not tried it. Maybe tonight lets see. Is there any reason to not use 14/192 or even 384 pcm ?

Yes, quad rate…Integer multiple math, no need for rounding errors.

Originally Posted by Audioseduction

I convert DSD to PCM 176.4 with JRiver on the fly to my Bel Canto DAC and it sounds extreamly outstanding! I think it sounds as good as DSD DACs I've heard. Mind you my system is setup for optimum PCM playback.

Curious if you tried converting your DSD to PCM first offline to hear if it sounds better than on the fly conversion?

Originally Posted by Alrainbow

Nice read but the truth is every one has version they think is best. Look at os audio and chord electronics
For me listening is always the best proof. But I am going to try the pcm down sample I do not know of anyone doing that so a worth while try.
Has anyone else here down samples DSD to pcm ???

I plan to try this tonight to see if it makes a difference.

So guys, what's the verdict on the update? Some like, some don't it seems. Thoughts?

On the bright side, at least there is an option.

Bag the DSP Jerry - it's the audio devil.

Glad its working great for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by tboooe

Curious if you tried converting your DSD to PCM first offline to hear if it sounds better than on the fly conversion?



I plan to try this tonight to see if it makes a difference.

I’m extremely satisfied with the current process. Just fyi, I have it process the music file entirely and load the entire music file be that FLAC or DSD and all music files into memory before it starts playing. When I monitor the CPU and network traffic they both ramp up while it process the music file and after it’s done both CPU and the network traffic falls back down to nearly 0. After that it starts playing the music. This all happens in about 5 seconds. I have enabled memory play back feature which allows it to play from memory and does not have to access the source after the file has been totally processed. The memory buffer is capped at one gigabyte, and rolls as needed for extremely large files. Works fantastic!

Originally Posted by Audioseduction

I’m extremely satisfied with the current process. Just fyi, I have it process the music file entirely and load the entire music file be that FLAC or DSD and all music files into memory before it starts playing. When I monitor the CPU and network traffic they both ramp up while it process the music file and after it’s done both CPU and the network traffic falls back down to nearly 0. After that it starts playing the music. This all happens in about 5 seconds. I have enabled memory play back feature which allows it to play from memory and does not have to access the source after the file has been totally processed. The memory buffer is capped at one gigabyte, and rolls as needed for extremely large files. Works fantastic!

Thank you for the reply! How are the specs of your music PC? I only have an i3 processor so not sure if it has enough horsepower for on the fly conversion.

Do you Jriver for conversion and playback? If so I didnt realize you could specify the memory buffer. At least this wasnt a feature in version 19.

Originally Posted by tboooe

Thank you for the reply! How are the specs of your music PC? I only have an i3 processor so not sure if it has enough horsepower for on the fly conversion.

Do you Jriver for conversion and playback? If so I didnt realize you could specify the memory buffer. At least this wasnt a feature in version 19.

Network Player Description:
Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro Ultrabook with Intel Haswell 4th Generation Core i5-4200U, 4GB of DDR3L RAM, 120GB SSD, Windows 8.1, JRMC v20

The 1GB memory is a fixed size. You can't adjust it. Don't need to it's way more then enough.

The BL here is that DSD rules and PCM drools

I've got the SHM SACD version of Eagles Hotel California and the 24Bit 192Khz Re-Release from the set that just came out at HDTracks. {I ripped the SACD to DSD using my "special" PS3}. I use this as a demo to my friends to show just how much better DSD can sound vs PCM (at least via my DCS Debussy). DSD is like you're on the other side of the mastering board -- it's smooth, crisp, snappy when needed and very, very analog-like -- and I'm talking the good analog not the bad -- just the good (I have no hiss or other issues). "Life In The Fast Lane" starts up with that guitar riff and on DSD it's just soooo good. With PCM, the guitar riff is shrill and makes you cringe a bit. I even took that same .dsf (DSD) file converted it to 24/192 via both Saracon and Audiogate to make sure this wasn't a case of a different master, but the result was always the same shrillness to the PCM. I could go on, but that's off topic.

There's a lot of good things here that are being overlooked about this DAC:
1. I'm glad to see designers (specifically PS Audio) of DAC's finally embracing DSD. Even if the Direct Stream DAC isn't king of the hill, it's more than mid-fi that can kick some DSD butt And it's approachable (affordable) to those that take this hobby serious enough but don't have $100K setups.
2. Good on you Paul for keeping your DAC current and even offering an upgrade path for your customers.
3. It also shows PS is serious about improvement to what's their standard. From the upgrade path, to the new firmware. Not all companies are doing that.

Sounds like they're keeping up with the Jones' very well.

Originally Posted by radioactive

The BL here is that DSD rules and PCM drools

I've got the SHM SACD version of Eagles Hotel California and the 24Bit 192Khz Re-Release from the set that just came out at HDTracks. {I ripped the SACD to DSD using my "special" PS3}. I use this as a demo to my friends to show just how much better DSD can sound vs PCM (at least via my DCS Debussy). DSD is like you're on the other side of the mastering board -- it's smooth, crisp, snappy when needed and very, very analog-like -- and I'm talking the good analog not the bad -- just the good (I have no hiss or other issues). "Life In The Fast Lane" starts up with that guitar riff and on DSD it's just soooo good. With PCM, the guitar riff is shrill and makes you cringe a bit. I even took that same .dsf (DSD) file converted it to 24/192 via both Saracon and Audiogate to make sure this wasn't a case of a different master, but the result was always the same shrillness to the PCM. I could go on, but that's off topic.

There's a lot of good things here that are being overlooked about this DAC:
1. I'm glad to see designers (specifically PS Audio) of DAC's finally embracing DSD. Even if the Direct Stream DAC isn't king of the hill, it's more than mid-fi that can kick some DSD butt And it's approachable (affordable) to those that take this hobby serious enough but don't have $100K setups.
2. Good on you Paul for keeping your DAC current and even offering an upgrade path for your customers.
3. It also shows PS is serious about improvement to what's their standard. From the upgrade path, to the new firmware. Not all companies are doing that.

Sounds like they're keeping up with the Jones' very well.

That's interesting. I also have the 192 version from HDTracks and on my system it sounds excellent like if you were there. The guitar sounds so natural and smooth. The vocals are just to die for. I guess some systems plays PCM better then others.

Originally Posted by Audioseduction

That's interesting. I also have the 192 version from HDTracks and on my system it sounds excellent like if you were there. The guitar sounds so natural and smooth. The vocals are just to die for. I guess some systems plays PCM better then others.

I would call it only partially interesting...why? Because you didn't say whether or not you have the DSD version of the same album and have done a comparison. Before buying the HDTracks version, I had already owned the SHM SACD version of Hotel California. I purchased the HDTracks thinking it might be a remaster or perhaps sound better. I listened to it and like it quite a bit. Then I thought, "humm...wonder how this sounds compared to the DSD version you already have?"

If you don't own the SHM SACD version, you owe it to yourself to find a copy and do a comparison yourself. Trust me, you'll be amazed.

Still, I did not find the guitar riff to be shrill and makeing one cringe. Just saying.

Jeez....just read this entire thread! Clearly there are pros and cons to both formats but I walk away with the following takeaway: there is yet to be found a DAC that can handle both DSD and PCM formats optimally. It sounds like the multibit (PCM) vs. 1-bit (true-DSD) decoding cannot be done optimally without having perhaps two parallel processing sections (one for each format) in a single DAC. Does such a DAC exist? It seems like we are getting bogged down with another format war in the digital domain here with the DSD vs. PCM camps. I hardly have any SACDs (DSD files) so for me it sounds like I should contemplate PCM-optimized DACs for now given the contents of my music library but it seems quite confusing and overwhelming the vast array of options in digital land these days. I may need to go back to school and get me a Comp Sci degree to get all this stuff.

Anyhoo, congrats to the DS owners out there. Clearly it is doing a lot of things right.

Cyril - I would argue that the Lumin S1 handles all formats - including Double DSD with flying colors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I apologize if I wasn't clear and my observations were taken too literally. When I said "shrill", etc. one should take into consideration that I'm doing a comparison. So I meant "...it sounded shrill in comparison." for example.

As for my DCS Debussy, I'm still impressed with what I get out of it.

Mike, just curious, if I send you a disk with the DSD version and the 24/192 version of the song I mentioned would you mind giving both a listen and let us know if you can hear a difference between the two? Thinking out loud, I'm not sure that really means anything empirically, other than the Lumin can equally perform on DSD and PCM. I would then submit, how does the DSD performance (or PCM) of the Lumin sound compared with the Debussy. Very interesting.... Thoughts from the gallery?

Bryan

Originally Posted by Mike

Cyril - I would argue that the Lumin S1 handles all formats - including Double DSD with flying colors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by radioactive

I apologize if I wasn't clear and my observations were taken too literally. When I said "shrill", etc. one should take into consideration that I'm doing a comparison. So I meant "...it sounded shrill in comparison." for example.

As for my DCS Debussy, I'm still impressed with what I get out of it.

Mike, just curious, if I send you a disk with the DSD version and the 24/192 version of the song I mentioned would you mind giving both a listen and let us know if you can hear a difference between the two? Thinking out loud, I'm not sure that really means anything empirically, other than the Lumin can equally perform on DSD and PCM. I would then submit, how does the DSD performance (or PCM) of the Lumin sound compared with the Debussy. Very interesting.... Thoughts from the gallery?

Bryan

Sure! I have Hotel California from DVD Audio converted to 24/192. I have Hotel California downloaded from HDTracks - 24/192 for the box set released last year. I have Hotel California on Redbook. I have Hotel California on Vinyl - remastered from the original tapes and the box set (taken from digital source files). But no DSD version.

George can maybe even come down and we will do a comparison.

I find the version from the DVD Audio sounds great. The version for the box set (taken from a digital source) is just ok.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Ok, Bryan was kind enough to send me the high res PCM and DSD versions of Hotel California to compare. As I expected, it wasn't close. The DSD version was miles better. Now, that being said, I have to wonder if we are discussing the same mix here or not. Could the SHM be a remastered version? It is my understanding (and I could be wrong), that the high res PCM version was taken from a digital copy of the original master tape. The SHM version might be direct from the master tape. Don't know.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

SHM also means that the rip was from a higher quality optical material and so is better than even regular SACD?

I have this album in all formats, but recall that the 24/96 totally trumped the 24/192 I had. I know I have the DSD iso version, and should also have the SHM version.

I am re-upping my system, so should be able to test in a couple weeks.

Good question, here's the answer:
The PCM version came from "The hi-res remastering of the entire Eagles box set was done using the original analog master tapes by Bernie Grundman Mastering using a JCF Audio Latte A/D converter." -- At least according to HDTracks. (just go to The Studio Albums 1972-1979 | HDtracks - The World's Greatest-Sounding Music Downloads, and click on the right hand "About This Album")

As for the SHM version, the translation of the Japanese on the outside of the case says: The hi-res remastering of the entire Eagles box set was done using the original analog master tapes by Bernie Grundman Mastering using a JCF Audio Latte A / D converter."

Don't believe me, here's the japanese, just go plug it into Google Translate:

[Warner Premium Sound series ～SACD/CD ハイブリッド仕様～] 20世紀を代表する不滅の最高傑作アルバム。本作よりバーニー・リードンに代わりジョー・ウォルシュが参加 。よりパワフルかつ切れ味のよいサウンドがここに完成。SACD/CDハイブリッド盤。5.1chサラウンド&ステレオ音声収録。解説・歌詞・対訳付き。

So they both come from the same source.

(ps. here's a link to the Japanese (SHM) version http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/product/WPCR-14165 )

Bryan

The DSD version is the same source as the PCM so, yes you would expect them to sound the same. That doesn't mean that HDTracks didn't "fiddle" with the PCM before the released it (lots of people run super-hirez material through filters prior to converting them to other formats --it's pretty standard at least for DSD native conversions, but this is the opposite so I digress). Funny how the DSD sounds so much better though.

Originally Posted by mep

Since both the hi-rez version and the SHM version are PCM and were supposed to be made from the master tapes by the same engineer, I would expect them to sound more alike than the DSD version would sound compared to either PCM version.

Not nessessarily. At the risk of being skewered and ridiculed as on another board, the material used in the manufacturing of the digital disc can significantly impact the sound of the recording. Probably 20 years ago now, David Chesky gave me four CDs made of either Al or Au or different types of polycarbonate ( I want to say the plastic was called Theonex?) to audition. The CDs all sounded very different so pick your flavor. The reason? Got me but we know that polycarbonate plastics, depending upon how well the polymeric chains are oriented, have signicantly different grades of optical clarity. (Polymeric organization may also have an impact on the sound of caps too, but probably a disorganized state so as emphasize faster discharge.) plus there can be issues with diffraction on reflection of the beam.

Here's some comments by Bob Levi on the SHM discs:

shmcd