DSD DAC

[Dusty Chalk]

the vast majority of online video isn't really downloading whole, nice, HD files, it's highly compressed streaming.  bandwidth isn't free, especially on the delivery side, and with margins being quite small, every cent matters.  this is why "HD" streams on Netflix look like crap.  it doesn't matter, however, because for the vast majority of users it's good enough.  same with audio.  Apple makes plenty of money on iTunes, but the margins are fairly small and most people don't give a shit.  even if bandwidth suddenly cost 1/10th what it does now, through some magic wand, there is precisely no reason for Apple to do anything about it, because most consumers are listening through Beats, or the bundled headphones, or the speakers built into their USB cereal bowl.  

Depends on the transfer, how Netflix ripped it (they ripped a lot of the early rips in low res, so more recent rips are typically better rips at least), time of day, etc.  I've seen some pretty good videos in the middle of the  night, for example.

 

But my point stands -- bandwidth won't be the problem forever.  And your point about "most people" is basically agreeing with my other point -- the market.  I don't think HDTracks.com targets  "most people", though.  If your point could be extrapolated to all lossless tracks, then HDTracks wouldn't be able to continue to stay in business.

[morphsci]

... USB cereal bowl.

For some reason this made me fall out of my chair laughing.

[blessingx]

So Pono is "Soul Quality" then. Cool.

 

[morphsci]

Agreed. Beats cereal bowl FTW!

[blessingx]

Just a probably obvious note: there's a difference between streaming and progressive streaming (sometimes called progressive download). One maintains a constant stream across network bandwidth changes (through bitrate adjustments) and one maintains a constant bitrate across stream changes (often through buffering). Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, etc. often uses a combination, but the relationship between the two can be used to get to a target even faster than you technically could with just bandwidth. If general quality expectations rise quicker than buffering irritations for instance.

Not that any of this has to do with pure music file downloads now. That said increasingly files with wrappers and codecs with metadata at the start of the file can be decoded on the fly. So would people care if an album took hours to download if they could listen to it during? May be some synergistic progress along with bandwidth increases coming.

Edited May 29, 2013 by blessingx

[Hopstretch]

I still kinda want a DSD DAC to connect to my cereal bowl even though I can't justify it 1 bit.

 

:jazzhands:

[swt61]

I heard that the Pono Team is planning on using Yoko Ono as their first release. Pono Ono should be amazing. Then the next album scheduled is U2, so Pono Bono should be something to look forward to as well. After that they're going further back to do some 50's albums, and I can't tell you how much I'm looking forward to Pono Mono. I certainly hope they'll consider applying this technology to vinyl. Pono Phono would be incredible!

[cutestory]

I was going to get the Pono Dodo, but that shit was hunted to extinction.

[morphsci]

I'm waiting for the Pono porno.

[blessingx]

If you Google image search 'Pono' you may not have to wait. 

[jpelg]

This thread has turned hilarious!

[guzziguy]

If we go back to the late 60's and early 70's, we can have Pono Poco.

[Grahame]

And if Punk's not Dead, we can have Pono Pogo!

[blessingx]

In breaking news Antelope comes out swinging with a 256xDSD DAC (err... is that triple or quadruple DSD?).

[Voltron]

Quadriple.  And Charlie Hanson told me to tell them to fuck off and die.

[Torpedo]

Oh come on, this is the same as the upsampling wars in the early 2Ks

[Voltron]

Come on, Antonio, face facts.  If your DAC doesn't have 64-bit Acoustically Focused Clocking and an ultra-low jitter oven-controlled crystal oscillator, with 256 X DSD mode, 768 kHz sample rate, quad DAC architecture, and the 64-bit upsampler, with an atomic input, then your DAC ain't shit.

[Torpedo]

 all my DACses are garbage. I need another turntable 

[Dusty Chalk]

Where does DXD come in?

 

And you shouldn't call it 256xDSD, that makes it sound like it's 256-uple.  It's DSD256.

 

And:  want.

 

Also, "oven-controlled" is actually brilliant, in the old days, oscillators used to drift at different temperatures...although a crystal oscillator shouldn't drift.

[Grahame]

Does that make them 246 Louder ?

[Voltron]

DXD is on the recording side, not playback side.

 

Digital eXtreme Definition (DXD) is an alternative audio encoding scheme for professional use that was developed for editing high-resolution recordings recorded in DSD, the audio standard used on Super Audio CD (SACD). Because the 1-bit DSD format used on SACD is not suited for editing, alternative formats such as DXD are often used during the mastering stage. Contrasted with DSD-Wide or DSD Pure which offers level, EQ, and crossfade edits at the DSD sample rate (64fs, 2.822 MHz),^[1][2] DXD is a PCM signal with 24-bit resolution (8 bits more than the 16 bits used for Red Book CD) sampled at 352.8 kHz – eight times 44.1 kHz, the sampling frequency of Red Book CD. The data rate is 8.4672 Mbit/s per channel – three times that of DSD64. DXD utilizes the vast array of plugins also available to PCM based digital audio workstations, such as Cubase, Logic, Digital Performer, etc.

DXD was initially developed for Merging’s Pyramix DSD workstation.

[blessingx]

... but if you have the files there are commercial DXD DACs to play them. 

 

DXD is usually 352.8/24

DSD is usually 2822.4/1

Edited May 30, 2013 by blessingx

[swt61]

Come on, Antonio, face facts.  If your DAC doesn't have 64-bit Acoustically Focused Clocking and an ultra-low jitter oven-controlled crystal oscillator, with 256 X DSD mode, 768 kHz sample rate, quad DAC architecture, and the 64-bit upsampler, with an atomic input, then your DAC ain't shit.

 

I guess that means that my DAC ain't shit, but I dare you to say that to the builder!

[Hopstretch]

Boop boop.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Hopstretch

[Dusty Chalk]

DXD is on the recording side, not playback side.

 

Digital eXtreme Definition (DXD) is an alternative audio encoding scheme for professional use that was developed for editing high-resolution recordings recorded in DSD, the audio standard used on Super Audio CD (SACD). Because the 1-bit DSD format used on SACD is not suited for editing, alternative formats such as DXD are often used during the mastering stage. Contrasted with DSD-Wide or DSD Pure which offers level, EQ, and crossfade edits at the DSD sample rate (64fs, 2.822 MHz),^[1][2] DXD is a PCM signal with 24-bit resolution (8 bits more than the 16 bits used for Red Book CD) sampled at 352.8 kHz – eight times 44.1 kHz, the sampling frequency of Red Book CD. The data rate is 8.4672 Mbit/s per channel – three times that of DSD64. DXD utilizes the vast array of plugins also available to PCM based digital audio workstations, such as Cubase, Logic, Digital Performer, etc.

DXD was initially developed for Merging’s Pyramix DSD workstation.

I know what DXD is, I was asking when it was going to hit the mainstream and/or if it had started to hit already -- it's a logical progression from DSD, except in bit depth rather than frequency speed.  DSD was originally a pro-side only archival format that just happened to cross over into the consumer realm.