Playing Multichannel DSD / DSF over DLNA

[Roen]

Not sure if my multi-drive in my pc would work with sacd disc?

That I can't answer for you.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[lovinthehd]

That I can't answer for you.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Doesn't appear to, just the cd track.

 

[everettT]

If you're stream DSD you need a set top box then hdmi out. Not many AVRs or prepros can stream DSD. Invest in solution that will stream the audio and video you want. I never let my server client handle conversions .

 

[sterling shoote]

I think multi-channel SACD is still the way to go. Get an OPPP UDP-205.

 

[Roen]

If you're stream DSD you need a set top box then hdmi out. Not many AVRs or prepros can stream DSD. Invest in solution that will stream the audio and video you want. I never let my server client handle conversions .

I can stream 2 ch DSF's or DFF's fine. There's no conversion, the receiver can decode DSD without conversion.

 

[TLS Guy]

Thanks, I didn't see that in page 120.

It seems the DAC is limited to 2-ch, regardless of DSD or PCM.

Bah, oh well.

I'm pretty sure you're confused with digital file formats and compression.

The only available compression for DSD files is DST, which is lossless. Only DFF files are compressible with DST. You can have uncompressed DFF and compressed DFF files. DSF are not compressible by design.

All of my DSF files are uncompressed.

Well that is correct, I do not use DST or DFF. I wish I did not have to use DSD. That is a bad and awkward coding system of NO benefit. It is not sonically superior to PCM. As I stated before that is based on fundamental errors of reasoning.

For most program a CD is just as good as a two channel DSD encoded disc. A DSD disc has a dynamic range advantage that is only useful in in certain very large classical works with large orchestra, massed choirs and often an organ. Only systems with very powerful good and robust speaker systems with large amps can avail themselves of the advantage.

The big advantage of SACD is multi channel. All my SACDs are multi channel. However a multi channel audio only BD disc would, and does, accomplish the same thing and provide much longer program on one disc. In addition it gives the possibility of a picture in standard BD. That is pretty much essential for opera.

Equipment manufacturers are right not to support DSD and should not do so any longer.

DSD should never have been created and needs to go ASAP.

 

[Roen]

Well that is correct, I do not use DST or DFF. I wish I did not have to use DSD. That is a bad and awkward coding system of NO benefit. It is not sonically superior to PCM. As I stated before that is based on fundamental errors of reasoning.

For most program a CD is just as good as a two channel DSD encoded disc. A DSD disc has a dynamic range advantage that is only useful in in certain very large classical works with large orchestra, massed choirs and often an organ. Only systems with very powerful good and robust speaker systems with large amps can avail themselves of the advantage.

The big advantage of SACD is multi channel. All my SACDs are multi channel. However a multi channel audio only BD disc would, and does, accomplish the same thing and provide much longer program on one disc. In addition it gives the possibility of a picture in standard BD. That is pretty much essential for opera.

Equipment manufacturers are right not to support DSD and should not do so any longer.

DSD should never have been created and needs to go ASAP.

Let's be clear. What is of NO benefit of you, does not hold for other people.

I subjectively prefer the sound of DSD to PCM, not because of its debatable greater accuracy, but because of my perceived distortions of the sound that are pleasing to me. PCM may or may not be more accurate, but that is irrelevant to me.

Usually, the Masters are better from my DSD stuff than equivalent PCM.

DSD doesn't need to go in my book, in fact, there should be more of it.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[panteragstk]

Let's be clear. What is of NO benefit of you, does not hold for other people.

I subjectively prefer the sound of DSD to PCM, not because of its debatable greater accuracy, but because of my perceived distortions of the sound that are pleasing to me. PCM may or may not be more accurate, but that is irrelevant to me.

Usually, the Masters are better from my DSD stuff than equivalent PCM.

DSD doesn't need to go in my book, in fact, there should be more of it.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Sony helped develop DSD/SACD so why not look at one of their receivers for compatibility?

Looks like it might do everything you want. Without getting into the manual I can't say what DSD formats it supports.

 

[TLS Guy]

Let's be clear. What is of NO benefit of you, does not hold for other people.

I subjectively prefer the sound of DSD to PCM, not because of its debatable greater accuracy, but because of my perceived distortions of the sound that are pleasing to me. PCM may or may not be more accurate, but that is irrelevant to me.

Usually, the Masters are better from my DSD stuff than equivalent PCM.

DSD doesn't need to go in my book, in fact, there should be more of it.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

And its that line of thinking that allows audiophools to come up with every crack pot theory know to man and then some! The fact is that your opinion of the superiority of DSD is entirely subjective and of no value to the argument. It has no scientific validity whatsoever.

 

[Roen]

And its that line of thinking that allows audiophools to come up with every crack pot theory know to man and then some! The fact is that your opinion of the superiority of DSD is entirely subjective and of no value to the argument. It has no scientific validity whatsoever.

I think you're forgetting what's important.

No one in this thread (besides yourself) is arguing for the superiority of DSD or PCM, either way.

Something doesn't need to have scientific validity to sound good to me. The premise is not what sounds good to everyone, but what each person likes. The sooner you realize that, the more pertinent advice you can give to others.

So to sum it up for you, to me, DSD generally sounds better than PCM for the same song, whether it's master differences, inherent distortion difference, or some other reason. Honestly, I could care less what that reason is nor do I need some sort of objective standard, it could even be that I like the sound of the letters DSD over PCM. At the end of the day, I subjectively like it better and I just care about the end result.

Psychoacoustics play a huge role in enjoying audio, so to argue only from an objective double blind point of view, is entirely pointless. We don't sit around wearing blindfolds to enjoy our music.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[Pogre]

I think you're forgetting what's important.

No one in this thread (besides yourself) is arguing for the superiority of DSD or PCM, either way.

Something doesn't need to have scientific validity to sound good to me. The premise is not what sounds good to everyone, but what each person likes. The sooner you realize that, the more pertinent advice you can give to others.

So to sum it up for you, to me, DSD generally sounds better than PCM for the same song, whether it's master differences, inherent distortion difference, or some other reason. Honestly, I could care less what that reason is nor do I need some sort of objective standard, it could even be that I like the sound of the letters DSD over PCM. At the end of the day, I subjectively like it better and I just care about the end result.

Psychoacoustics play a huge role in enjoying audio, so to argue only from an objective double blind point of view, is entirely pointless. We don't sit around wearing blindfolds to enjoy our music.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

I don't sit around listening to music in a blindfold, but if you're making claims like that wouldn't it be a great way to prove your point by telling folks know you can pick one over the other in a DBT? What would you say if you did a DBT and couldn't tell the difference?

 

[Roen]

I don't sit around listening to music in a blindfold, but if you're making claims like that wouldn't it be a great way to prove your point by telling folks know you can pick one over the other in a DBT? What would you say if you did a DBT and couldn't tell the difference?

I'm not making general claims, I am only making claims for myself.

Honestly, even if I couldn't tell in a DBT, it wouldn't matter, as long as it doesn't adjust my preferences without a blindfold. And even if I could tell them apart, it doesn't mean others can. Discerning fine audio qualities is not a necessarily transferable skill, hence the fallacy of the objective argument. What is represented by paper cannot be applied equally among the entire population. DBT's aren't consistent, so unless you have a population where the DBT is consistent, then there's no point making sweeping generalizations based on objective arguments as it just won't apply to everyone the same way.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[TLS Guy]

I think you're forgetting what's important.

No one in this thread (besides yourself) is arguing for the superiority of DSD or PCM, either way.

Something doesn't need to have scientific validity to sound good to me. The premise is not what sounds good to everyone, but what each person likes. The sooner you realize that, the more pertinent advice you can give to others.

So to sum it up for you, to me, DSD generally sounds better than PCM for the same song, whether it's master differences, inherent distortion difference, or some other reason. Honestly, I could care less what that reason is nor do I need some sort of objective standard, it could even be that I like the sound of the letters DSD over PCM. At the end of the day, I subjectively like it better and I just care about the end result.

Psychoacoustics play a huge role in enjoying audio, so to argue only from an objective double blind point of view, is entirely pointless. We don't sit around wearing blindfolds to enjoy our music.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

It is not pointless at all. We take a strong stand against the type of argument and rationale you have put forward on these forums, and with good reason.

It is just your logic that opens the door wide enough for sharks to fleece people with snake oil like exotic cables and worse. Under your philosophy people can come to believe absolutely anything and do. G.K. Chesterton foretold it over a 100 years ago, when he said we are entering an age where people will believe anything.

What we argue for on these forums is for people to invest their hard earned cash where we know they will have a demonstrable improvement in quality and not an imagined one.

The fact is that in terms of linearity DSD is not superior to PCM. DSD is however less flexible, harder and more costly to implement. It is not nearly as useful as PCM. That is what we will tell people.

The harm comes in that perpetuating myths means manufacturers are encouraged to add DSD decoders when that money could be spent elsewhere to much greater benefit. And I can tell you receivers have many areas needing improvement.

Your point of view is not harmless and has gone a long way to preventing the many enjoying needed improvement.

That is why on these forums we come done hard on new members who preach your errant and harmful philosophy.

 

[Roen]

It is not pointless at all. We take a strong stand against the type of argument and rationale you have put forward on these forums, and with good reason.

It is just your logic that opens the door wide enough for sharks to fleece people with snake oil like exotic cables and worse. Under your philosophy people can come to believe absolutely anything and do. G.K. Chesterton foretold it over a 100 years ago, when he said we are entering an age where people will believe anything.

What we argue for on these forums is for people to invest their hard earned cash where we know they will have a demonstrable improvement in quality and not an imagined one.

The fact is that in terms of linearity DSD is not superior to PCM. DSD is however less flexible, harder and more costly to implement. It is not nearly as useful as PCM. That is what we will tell people.

The harm comes in that perpetuating myths means manufacturers are encouraged to add DSD decoders when that money could be spent elsewhere to much greater benefit. And I can tell you receivers have many areas needing improvement.

Your point of view is not harmless and has gone a long way to preventing the many enjoying needed improvement.

That is why on these forums we come done hard on new members who preach your errant and harmful philosophy.

I would agree with you, if I went on a preached my philosophy to others. But I don't.

My logic is my logic because I have already gone through looking at demonstrated objective improvements, listened to them in my environments, and concluded that they mean squat to me.

I do not force this logic on others, nor do I use this frame of reference when giving advice to others for their purposes.

What I have a problem with is people coming in and telling me I cannot enjoy audio how I see fit, because it does not subscribe to some notion of external objectivity that should be shared by everyone for the greater good. Even just typing that up, I had to snicker at its sheer ridiculousness.

If I told you I don't care for linearity, that it's not a huge deal to me, regarding DSD and PCM, then what would you say? If you told me that most editing is done in PCM before converting to DSD and then I tell you, I still like DSD after A/B'ing them, then what would you say?

Demonstrated improvements have their place, but they cannot and should not be the end all be all recommendation for everyone, ESPECIALLY those who prefer the sub-optimal for subjective reasons!

Lastly, what is demonstrable to me, is what I perceive. That is clear as day. It is not what appears on a piece of paper, it is how I absorb the information that the piece of paper represents.

If I see all these test results showing no electrical improvement between regular cables and exotic ones, but I still believe exotic cables sound better to my ear after A/B'ing an installation (mainly due to psychoacoustics), who are you to tell me that I'm not enjoying the things I like properly?

If this sounds like me berating you, then it is. Get off your high horse.

This thread title is not, which is better, DSD or PCM. It is, how do I play multichannel DSF files over DLNA? You don't need to even pre-suppose which is better, DSD or PCM, in order to answer this question. This question doesn't even take into account why someone would want to do this, nevermind assuming it's for high fidelity reasons. For all you know, someone could just have one esoteric multichannel DSF file that has no PCM copy and would want to play it wirelessly over their home network.

So let's stay on topic, shall we? and save the DSD vs. PCM thread for when they actually appear.

Your point of view is not harmless and has gone a long way to preventing the many enjoying needed improvement.

FYI, when I first bought my receiver, I went and filtered out any receiver that did not support DSD. So a manufacturer would have (foolishly) lost my sale.

The vast majority of the needs of the many do not apply to me. Only my needs and some others' apply to me.

As much as I like Schiit DACs, I will not buy a system until they create another standalone DSD DAC that is the successor to the Loki. It is their operating model not to create DSD equipment just as it is my choice to not buy from them. There are other capable manufacturers that will get my money instead.

 

[TheWarrior]

I would agree with you, if I went on a preached my philosophy to others. But I don't.

My logic is my logic because I have already gone through looking at demonstrated objective improvements, listened to them in my environments, and concluded that they mean squat to me.

I do not force this logic on others, nor do I use this frame of reference when giving advice to others for their purposes.

What I have a problem with is people coming in and telling me I cannot enjoy audio how I see fit, because it does not subscribe to some notion of external objectivity that should be shared by everyone for the greater good. Even just typing that up, I had to snicker at its sheer ridiculousness.

If I told you I don't care for linearity, that it's not a huge deal to me, regarding DSD and PCM, then what would you say? If you told me that most editing is done in PCM before converting to DSD and then I tell you, I still like DSD after A/B'ing them, then what would you say?

Demonstrated improvements have their place, but they cannot and should not be the end all be all recommendation for everyone, ESPECIALLY those who prefer the sub-optimal for subjective reasons!

Lastly, what is demonstrable to me, is what I perceive. That is clear as day. It is not what appears on a piece of paper, it is how I absorb the information that the piece of paper represents.

If I see all these test results showing no electrical improvement between regular cables and exotic ones, but I still believe exotic cables sound better to my ear after A/B'ing an installation (mainly due to psychoacoustics), who are you to tell me that I'm not enjoying the things I like properly?

If this sounds like me berating you, then it is. Get off your high horse.

This thread title is not, which is better, DSD or PCM. It is, how do I play multichannel DSF files over DLNA? You don't need to even pre-suppose which is better, DSD or PCM, in order to answer this question. This question doesn't even take into account why someone would want to do this, nevermind assuming it's for high fidelity reasons. For all you know, someone could just have one esoteric multichannel DSF file that has no PCM copy and would want to play it wirelessly over their home network.

So let's stay on topic, shall we? and save the DSD vs. PCM thread for when they actually appear.



FYI, when I first bought my receiver, I went and filtered out any receiver that did not support DSD. So a manufacturer would have (foolishly) lost my sale.

The vast majority of the needs of the many do not apply to me. Only my needs and some others' apply to me.

As much as I like Schiit DACs, I will not buy a system until they create another standalone DSD DAC that is the successor to the Loki. It is their operating model not to create DSD equipment just as it is my choice to not buy from them. There are other capable manufacturers that will get my money instead.

You're bringing feelings to a fact fight. The fact is DSD is not compatible with DLNA and is instead converted to PCM based on a google search of the topic.

For all intents and purposes, it is a dying if not dead format with only the loyal few standing by it, and I do appreciate SACD so I applaud you. Just realize your future upgrades are going to be on an increasingly small list as long as DSD remains essential to you. TLS' comment about Blu ray audio is spot on, however, and would really make everyones life easier if it would have been more widely embraced.

 

[TLS Guy]

I would agree with you, if I went on a preached my philosophy to others. But I don't.

My logic is my logic because I have already gone through looking at demonstrated objective improvements, listened to them in my environments, and concluded that they mean squat to me.

I do not force this logic on others, nor do I use this frame of reference when giving advice to others for their purposes.
.

The problem is your logic means nothing. It is erroneous. Logic is not something personal to an individual.

Unfortunately with the decline in educational systems, didactic logic is no longer formerly taught, I don't believe. It was taught to me and should be a fundamental part of any decent educational system.

 

[Roen]

The problem is your logic means nothing. It is erroneous. Logic is not something personal to an individual.

Unfortunately with the decline in educational systems, didactic logic is no longer formerly taught, I don't believe. It was taught to me and should be a fundamental part of any decent educational system.

Rephrase.

My logic is my logic because I have already gone through looking at demonstrated objective improvements, listened to them in my environments, and concluded that they mean squat to me.

->

My conclusion from reviewing demonstrated objective tests, reviewing the same subject matter in my preferred listening environments and assessing the results has me realizing that subjectivity trumps objectivity in how I enjoy my music.

Call me a poor English student.

 

[PENG]

Looking at the Denon's, they support multi channel DSD, but only DSD64 for both 2ch and multi channel.

With the Yamaha's, they support stereo only, but up to DSD128.

Can there not be one receiver that does DSD128/256/512 in 2ch and DSD64 in multi channel? Am I asking for too much?

That is true for last year's model, the 2017 Denon AVR-X4300H and AVR-6300H can do DSD128 2Ch and DSD64 5.1.

 

[PENG]

My PS3 doesn't play sacd, have the newer slim.

I am sure you know only the original PS3 can rip SACD, right? There are other way to rip them but probably not all of them are legal.

 

[2channel lover]

I currently have a Serviio server setup on my PC, which feeds DSD (and PCM) files to my Yamaha RX-A660. 2ch DSF's are a breeze to listen to.

I recently encountered an iso file that has both stereo and Multichannel tracks. I used SACD_extract to extract the stereo DSF's in one directory and the Multichannel DSF's in another.

The stereo files play over DLNA. In the signal info screen, the info shows up properly as 2.0, DSD64.

However, the Multichannel files refuse to play at all. The receiver sees the file on the server, but I suspect, cannot decode them.

How do people on this forum listen to digital Multichannel DSD files through their receiver?

Reportedly, my AV7702mkii supports MC DSD files, but I don't have any such files yet to say I've actually tried it.

So far I'm playing MC hi res via a Oppo spinner.