#Audirvana dsd filter setting software

Room dimensions: 24 ft long x 12 ft wide (13.5 ft at small window bay) x 8.5 ft high Power: Dedicated 10 AWG shielded line (MC 10/2) from breaker box to Furutech GTX-D NCF(R) outlet, 9 AWG ZenWave Clear Bass cable to Furutech e-TP609 NCF 6-way power distributor / 2 x Tripp Lite IS1000HG Isolation Transformer for digital source (Transformer 1: CD transport, reclocker / Transformer 2: DAC) / ZenWave PL-11 power cables for DAC, preamp and amp / ZenWave Clear Bass power cables for all other electronic components (CD transport, reclocker, subwoofers)

Simaudio Moon Neo 260 DT CD Transport / Empirical Audio reclocking system: Synchro-Mesh Reclocker driven by Dynamo Linear Power Supply, 2 x Reference BNC digital cable / Schiit Yggdrasil Analog 2 DAC / Octave HP 700 preamp / Octave RE 320 stereo amp with Super Black Box / Reference 3A Reflector monitors, on Sound Anchors Signature stands / dual JL Audio Fathom 112 v2 subwoofers / Cables: ZenWave Audio D4 interconnects, ZenWave SMSG speaker cables / Diverse Herbie's Audio Lab footers / Acoustic treatment: Tri-panels, window plugs, ceiling diffusers (all ASC), diverse carpets chosen for acoustic properties (wool, polypropylene basketweave)

#Audirvana dsd filter setting software

Material which is sourced in PCM and then converted to DSD for playback (using Miska's software typically) gains in SQ compared to replay of the same material through the PCM interface of the same DAC hardware. This to me speaks of the deficiencies in implementations of S-D DACs rather than any superiority of DSD as a format. The interesting issue for me is that there's no doubt in my mind that when it comes to DACs, S-D DACs playing out DSD do gain more approval for SQ than do S-D DACs playing out PCM. Such an argument plays a lot on the checkered history of digital in that much of it has in the past sounded harsh or aggressive or dull or flat (or all of the above) when compared to good analog. However the proponents of DSD consider the lack of coding to be rather one of DSD's strengths because they say this makes it more like 'analog'. The lack of coding also gives rise to the problem highlighted by L&V that the single bit modulator is constantly in overload when optimally dithered. In my view DSD is clearly not PCM because the 'C' in 'PCM' is the word 'coded' and DSD is not coded in the sense that the raw waveform can be directly converted into analog. The noise shaping though didn't involve feedback in my understanding so perhaps that's one crucial difference. However noise shaping around quantization was used in the first Philips CD players where a 14bit DAC was used with 4X oversampling to give similar performance to a 16bit DAC. Perhaps what the propagandists are wanting to do is say that multi-bit S-D uses some aspects of technology which aren't present in normal PCM. I find myself in total agreement with the BAD response there. I suspect that the response from BAD is in reply to some (nonsensical) assertion that 'multi-bit S-D is not PCM'.