ifi iDSD: a DAC that's "ahead" of the available music

[Thad E Ginathom]

The ifi iDSD, for portable or desktop users, is packed with many good features. Probably more than anyone could expect in any box this size ...or this price. Here's the Headfi thread in which its features are unfolded in a kind of parlour game.

The top-rated new feature: Octa-Speed DSD512 + 768kHz

To me, this is just madness, and the product encourages and furthers that madness. This spiral of numbers is not the way to move music forward. I don't want to support it.

However, obviously there are many who do not share this way of of thinking, and even if they do, then it could be said that these absurd numbers are the bath water, but this DAC has plenty of baby. This is high-end, high-price AMR technology at a decimated price.

Even though I said I don't want to support this charge into the ridiculous, I'm posting this because people whose budget is $5,000, or even $50,000, might do well to take a look at this $500 also-portable box.

We can do the format wars elsewhere

 

[neo]

Any ideas on what dac chip is it using? Can it do dsd natively or it's converted to pcm?

 

[hydra]

The ifi iDSD, ...

the iFi iDSD Micro, not to be confused with the iFi iDSD Nano (I know, I know! Too many sub-layers and similarities in the product naming scheme!).

To me, this is just madness, and the product encourages and furthers that madness. This spiral of numbers is not the way to move music forward. I don't want to support it.

I think (actually, hope) the industry will itself soon figure out the foolishness of having so many formats and multiple levels of quality within each format. Imagine an online retailer of digital music having to store all the records in every format and bitrate/frequency combination within each format! I doubt if they could practically store it all. (Not to mention the storage necessary at the buyer's end heh heh!). I'm sure the HDD manufacturers are rubbing their hands in glee.

 

[denom]

I think (actually, hope) the industry will itself soon figure out the foolishness of having so many formats and multiple levels of quality within each format. Imagine an online retailer of digital music having to store all the records in every format and bitrate/frequency combination within each format! I doubt if they could practically store it all. (Not to mention the storage necessary at the buyer's end heh heh!). I'm sure the HDD manufacturers are rubbing their hands in glee.

Probably pumping in the funds to create this madness in the first place, to reap heavily the benefits coming towards them in the near future

 

[hydra]

Any ideas on what dac chip is it using? Can it do dsd natively or it's converted to pcm?

Quote from the referenced thread on HeadFi:

Capable of full DSD512 and 768kHz PCM (2xDXD) directly from the computer to the micro iDSD via USB, natively with NO conversion ...

It plays DSD natively, without conversion.

The iFi iDAC Micro (the elder brother of the iDSD Micro) uses an ESS Sabre DAC chip. I don't think iFi has announced which DAC chip they're using in the iDSD Micro as yet.

Probably pumping in the funds to create this madness in the first place, to reap heavily the benefits coming towards them in the near future

Very likely!

 

[anm]

got idsd nano from US. got it last night. plays oob with macbook. not impressed with first listen. will burn in.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

iDSD Micro, yes, sorry. Micro is the bigger one, Nano is the smaller. Actually I'm wondering what they might be able to put in a Macro range. Could be good, if it is not crazy!

I thought the chips had been specified in that thread. There are two, and as far as I recollect, one of its selling points is plays everything native.

I do subscribe to the theory that one of the reasons for I can hear the difference is that, yes you can, because some DACs do handle all sample rates or formats equally.

 

[Santy]

Prefixing "i" with model nos. should be banned. Very frustrating and confusing. Let apple alone live with it.

iFi iAudio iDSD iDAC iNano iMicro iDecco iMedia iUSB iPre iPower iPurify iPhono iLink iTube iAmp iCan iCannot...

iHate this i.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I prefer it to Apple's 'i.' In fact, there is no relationship to Apple products at all. I can live with it. Just.

Apple has done its best to own the letter 'i' and I'm surprised these people have not been sued --- but I guess they did their homework on this before launching the range

 

[ranjeetrain]

To me, this is just madness, and the product encourages and furthers that madness. This spiral of numbers is not the way to move music forward. I don't want to support it.

Well said, Thad. The problem is the DAC market is overflowing with competing products now. More so the entry level market. They have to do something to make their product stand out from the rest. And the easiest way to do the same is - make your numbers bigger than the competitor.

I sincerely hope the industry agrees to to 24/96 as consumer standard, 32/192 as studio standard soon.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I sincerely hope the industry agrees to to 24/96 as consumer standard

So do I. I believe the scientists who tell me that I won't hear anything more than I do at 44.1/16 (and that is my experience too), but I also believe them when they say that that higher bit-rates make the filter implementations easier. What some of them say, though, is that there is such a thing as optimum, beyond which things do not get better. Some of them say that optimum is actually about 60khz, but do the "standards" give us that? Naah... so I suppose we have to settle for 96, but also to be perfectly happy with 44.1 when it is what we've got. I am not buying the same music all over again!

I have to confess that I am yet to get a grip on DSD. Whilst I don't feel that I want it, or probably ever will, it's a part of the audio scenery, so I should try to at least match my meagre knowledge of PCM. Especially if I criticise it :lol: .

(Ranjeet, tried to PM you the other day, but you inbox was full)

 

[Santy]

I don't find much difference between 48khz and higher rates but most of the 24 bit recordings sound great to me so are DSD formats. The dynamic range increases sifgnificantly and the noise floor is lowered. I can go louder without discomfort (/distortion). DACs with digital volume control get benefitted too I suppose. Low noise floor does not mean that the pink noise is tamed under audible levels as people generally think, it helps to ensure parts of the attack and decay of the instruments are not lost into the noise floor. This is what I personally have observed. The instruments sound complete. Tracks from less loss site and Cheeky records Wake up years are good for the tests..

24 bit tracks may not be good because they are played at 24 bit but may be because they are recorded/mastered at 24 bit. And because they are recorded in 24 bit, if they are presented as it is, why not. Do check out some albums originally recorded on DSD and play them natively. They are uncanny. Again as I said it is possible that it is not the format, it could be the recording and mastering..better instruments or engineers. I do not rule out the fact that I may not be having any of the greatest recordings on redbook format.

Looking at so many DAC manufacturers jumping onto the DSD bandwagon, I am not sure if only their marketing division insisted for its implementation, it must be quite possible that their technical team too were convinced to some extent.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

it must be quite possible that their technical team too were convinced to some extent.

I'm sure there is sincerity as well as marketing. I don't really doubt the sincerity of the ifi people, and their posts on head-fi. I'm sure they are very serious about producing what, for them, is the best possible product that pushes price restraints to the maximum. As I said before, a person looking to spend five or ten thousand on a DAC might well find that this five hundred [USD] box is as good, or better (it is yet to be released, so who knows) within the context of the whole "hi-res" thing.

Time moves on for believers and non-believers alike, and when we acquire music we have to accept what is available, and that is determined by FOD ---which you may read as Flavour of the day or Format of the day . Because of this, I now have 92K and even 192k music in my collection. Who knows if, in a few years time, we may be unable to get something that we want in less than 192, or perhaps it may come in DSD only. There is a simple practical requirement to play the music, and we will need DACs that do, just as, years back, we bought CD players to, err ...play CDs. Hats off to those who bring us that equipment at affordable prices. I'm never going to buy the Schiit DSD DAC, but I'm glad they make it.

Santy, as I acquire these 96K (currently my system's max) releases, I am finding that they are, without exception, superb. They vary from commercial releases at this rate to quality vinyl rips. It is easy to fall into a trap here. I have to remind myself that I do not have the 44.1K copies to compare. I have to remind myself that I have wonderful 44.1K music that is also absolutely superb. I have to remind myself that, when I have tested my own rips (and not even blind), both on extended listening and on selected detail, I have not been able to tell the difference. It's easy to get caught up in the hysteria --- even for a hardened old cynic

As I was making my tea this morning (sounds like a sermon: must be the Sunday effect!) I was thinking about the recommendation of several digital experts/engineers/scientists/pioneers (and music lovers) of 60K as the optimum... So what happens if the music industry and the hardware industry actually go for this? Easy to predict. They will not sell one single track or one single box. Because most of us may not have much clue about how digital music works, but hey, we can count. And bigger numbers must be better, mustn't they? Who the hell wants to buy 60? People would be crazy to try and sell 60! But, if it is true, then why aren't the most discerning of audiophiles demanding it? Well, speaking for myself, I never even knew this until very recently

Santy, there are simple, practical and technical reasons why studios record and process music using 24. and even 32, bits. It has nothing to do with end-product quality or fidelity. It is nothing to do with "resolution," which is an entirely wrongly applied word.

 

[ranjeetrain]

So do I. I believe the scientists who tell me that I won't hear anything more than I do at 44.1/16 (and that is my experience too), but I also believe them when they say that that higher bit-rates make the filter implementations easier. What some of them say, though, is that there is such a thing as optimum, beyond which things do not get better. Some of them say that optimum is actually about 60khz, but do the "standards" give us that? Naah... so I suppose we have to settle for 96, but also to be perfectly happy with 44.1 when it is what we've got. I am not buying the same music all over again!

I have to confess that I am yet to get a grip on DSD. Whilst I don't feel that I want it, or probably ever will, it's a part of the audio scenery, so I should try to at least match my meagre knowledge of PCM. Especially if I criticise it :lol: .

(Ranjeet, tried to PM you the other day, but you inbox was full)

Thad, IME difference between 16/44 and 24/96 is very easily discernible on anything better than entry level systems. Of course usual conditions apply, such as they should be from the same source etc. That said, I have to admit that well recorded and well mastered 16/44 sounds spectacular as well.

I am not a fan of DSD, possibly due to lack of exposure. I have heard DSDs on ultra revealing systems as well as my own system. On my own system they are nice, sound good. But on ultra revealing systems the amount of details they cough up is unbearable. IME and IMO to be able to enjoy DSDs one should either have an entry-level or a mid-fi system. If a highly resolving system there should be something to take the edges off the sound, e.g. a tube component somewhere in the chain. If not, it's a razor sharp presentation that not everyone may like.

All IME and IMO, YMMV.

PS: About PM - Oops! I am growing tired of clearing my PM box. I have a lot of sensitive mails there that I can't delete and whatever room I make, it gets full within 2-3 days. That's why I have put my email on my profile. Managing email is way way easier than handling HFV mail. Anyway, I'll make some room again, but there is every possibility it will still return messages if not monitored by me constantly.

 

[Santy]

Not sure if there is anything like too much of detail?
It is like saying the color is too much of white or the glass is too transparent.
Ofcourse personal tastes may vary... because this is music.
24/96 as far as I have observed closely matches DSD in terms of SNR.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

my email on my profile

Ahh... ok.

BTW... what I do is to download my PMs in text format. It is not nearly so readable, but any important information from the past can certainly be dug out from the files. I wish there was an application to display the contents nicely ... but hey, I have always found what I wanted with good old search tools.

IME difference between 16/44 and 24/96 is very easily discernible on anything better than entry level systems

it's funny how many people say this and how many say the exact opposite, not to mention how many people fail when tested blind. As mentioned earlier, I do think that the differences are not always psychological or imaginary, but can result from reasons entirely separate from the simple numbers, eg, a DAC might sound better at one rate than the other. One person put this way: If you can hear the difference, and 96 sounds much better, there must be something very wrong with how your DAC is handling 44.1! It's a theory --- and I think that, in practice, we have to look beyond bold assertions from audiophiles that they can, and bold assertions from scientists (who may also be audiophiles) that it is just not possible.

One studio guy in the Gearslutz Neil Young Porno tamasha (not all techies are objectivist, by a long chalk) proposed that, in certain circumstances, with certain content, he could. He said that it required volumes that nobody would use for normal listening, and that, in normal music-listening circumstances, it could, almost certainly, not be done. I paraphrase snippets from a long conversation here, please forgive inaccuracies.

It seems to me that blind testing is really important here, but that it is only one tool. I think that guys point of view was that, however unlikely, and how ever many blind tests in which one fails to spot a difference, there are times and circumstances when one can hear something,and know that one can hear it, even though it could not be repeated to the point that statisticians would consider significant. It's still a long way from saying that something is obvious, on any equipment.

In general, and with hearing that is not good enough to do even the tests I tried a few years ago reliably, I am inclined to go with the old guys who grew up in the digital-music development business, and who can spot a digital artefact when it flies by in their dreams. Refer J J Johnston, for one --- who is one of the guys who would like to see 60K.

Short version: I'm not saying you can't hear a difference, but it may not be primarily due to sample rates.

 

[ranjeetrain]

Not sure if there is anything like too much of detail?
It is like saying the color is too much of white or the glass is too transparent.
Ofcourse personal tastes may vary... because this is music.
24/96 as far as I have observed closely matches DSD in terms of SNR.

This is why I added IME and IMO.

What I have experienced is - difference between two resolutions is somewhat system dependent. Some systems like a certain resolution better than another. Take for example: two very good speakers at the same price point. They both may not be an equally good match in every setup. It will depend on rest of the chain.

It's the same with resolution of digital files. Each system is likely to benefit from enhanced resolution. But will the additional resolution be a positive/welcome change in every system? Not always!

Having heard a collection of DSD files on a all Kharma setup I learned that the setup sounded SUPERB with red book and very very good with higher res as well. But with DSD the sound was piercing and details were razor sharp. Not to my liking. That's why I added IME and IMO. And of course things are likely to be different in different systems.

it's funny how many people say this and how many say the exact opposite, not to mention how many people fail when tested blind. ... .... .... .... Short version: I'm not saying you can't hear a difference, but it may not be primarily due to sample rates.

Thad, the above reply to Santy's post also applies here. I have come to conclude that -- Not every system benefits from added resolution. Some systems sound best with 16/44 others with 24/96. It also depends on personal taste. Not everyone wants to hear all the details. They like a higher level picture of the recorded sound, for which 16/44 is plenty.

 

[thx911]

call it a coincidence, had just finished reading a survey on 24-Bit vs. 16-Bit and i see this topic being discussed. here is the link to this very interesting survey,
Archimago's Musings: 24-Bit vs. 16-Bit Audio Test - Part II: RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS

Conclusion from the survey

In a naturalistic survey of 140 respondents using high quality musical samples sourced from high-resolution 24/96 digital audio collected over 2 months, there was no evidence that 24-bit audio could be appreciably differentiated from the same music dithered down to 16-bits using a basic algorithm (Adobe Audition 3, flat triangular dither, 0.5 bits).

This survey reinforces long held belief that 16/44 is more than enough for consumers.

 

[reignofchaos]

The problem with 24/96 content is that pretty much no DAC can play it properly. All DACs have a noise floor of -130dB or thereabouts which means an effective resolution of 20-21 bits. This is assuming a perfect power supply and output stage which is obviously not possible. This is also not accounting for various other distortions that DACs introduce because of delta sigma modulation.

To add to all this, ADCs have even worse specs and performance than DACs. That means the data coming in is already mangled by them and have less than 20 bits of real resolution. Factor in all this and I am not surprised that no one can distinguish between 16/44 and 24/96.

 

[abhijitnath]

A propos- the results of the 24 vs 16 bit test are out. No surprises.
Archimago's Musings: 24-Bit vs. 16-Bit Audio Test - Part II: RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS