DSD playing

[Serge]

Musicbee is the best free music player, but in my experience MB can't reproduce DSD files.
In earlier versions it was possible but in the latest version i can't.
My DAC works well with FooBar2000 and JRiver so the feature not depends on DAC (FiiO K5).
As a wish, I would also like the playing will always in DSD format,in my opinion the best format (FooBar2000 and JRiver do that).
Thanks

[Serge]

As playing I mean in native format

[hiccup]

MusicBee does play DSD files, and has been doing that for many years now.
Do a Custom Forum Search to see if you can find answers to your issue?

[sveakul]

Musicbee is the best free music player, but in my experience MB can't reproduce DSD files.
In earlier versions it was possible but in the latest version i can't.
My DAC works well with FooBar2000 and JRiver so the feature not depends on DAC (FiiO K5).
As a wish, I would also like the playing will always in DSD format,in my opinion the best format (FooBar2000 and JRiver do that).
Thanks

If you're talking about pure DSD instead of via PCM conversion, its ability to do so varies. Hiccup and others made some personal observations here: https://getmusicbee.com/forum/index.php?topic=30461.0 , https://getmusicbee.com/forum/index.php?topic=34298.msg187960#msg187960

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be enough user interest to persuade Steven to spend some of his valuable time working with MusicBee's DSD's performance.  For example, I posted this to the Wishlist in January, and there has yet to be a SINGLE THUMBS UP to it 5 months later:  https://getmusicbee.com/forum/index.php?topic=42447.0https://getmusicbee.com/forum/index.php?topic=42447.0 .  Disappointing.

[hiccup]

For example, I posted this to the Wishlist in January, and there has yet to be a SINGLE THUMBS UP to it 5 months later.
Disappointing.

In case you are curious why I haven't given it a thumbs-up:
I am firmly convinced that any and all sorts of so-called hi-res audio don't bring any improvements to audio quality compared to good old 16/44.
None, nada, zilch.
And I believe that anyone who claims he was able to hear a difference (repeatedly and blind testing), has been listening to different masters, or loudness levels, or the possible effects of resamplers.

So I believe it is a complete waste of time, effort, disk space, bandwidth, and possibly money.

[MotleyG]

I am firmly convinced that any and all sorts of so-called hi-res audio don't bring any improvements to audio quality compared to good old 16/44.
None
Nada
Zilch

There is absolutely nothing wrong with 16/44.1. This was the music industry's choice back in the early 80's when the CD format was born. But for all the technical reasons that explain why it is "good enough" there is no denying that there are also advantages to using the higher resolution formats available today. Certainly there have been improvements made in recording technology in the past 40+ years. Whether or not one's favourite artist is using them is a different discussion.

So I believe it is a waste of time, effort, disk space, bandwidth, and possibly money.

Many would agree. Many others would disagree with you on some or all of these points. Personal choices of how one spends their time, effort, disk space, bandwidth, and even money are just that, personal. But you did forget to mention all of the different lossy and lossless formats out in the wild that contribute to the noise as well.

[hiccup]

…there is no denying that there are also advantages to using the higher resolution formats available today. Certainly there have been improvements made in recording technology in the past 40+ years. Whether or not one's favourite artist is using them is a different discussion.

I think you are confusing music production with the end-user product?
For audio recording and production, using 24 bit is absolutely essential. (and DSD is useless)
For the end product/consumer, both 24 bit and DSD are useless.

Many would agree. Many others would disagree with you on some or all of these points. Personal choices of how one spends their time, effort, disk space, bandwidth, and even money are just that, personal.

Let's forget about personal opinions.

Can you point me to reliable and independent tests, where it has been undeniably established that some people are consistently able to distinguish between 16/44 and 'hi-res'?
(allow me to exclude tests involving bats and dolphins, those feckurs can hear up to 150 kHz!)

Surely 'the industry' would love to squeeze some extra bucks out of consumers.
So if hi-res audio is indeed an improvement in audio quality over 16/44, surely they would by now have invested a little bit of time and money in setting up a test stage (that can be scrutinised by serious and independent people), and publishing the verifiable and undeniable blind test results?

That would end the discussion right then and there, and they could start making more money.
So, where is the proof?

But you did forget to mention all of the different lossy and lossless formats out in the wild that contribute to the noise as well.

I don't understand what you mean by that, nor how that would relate to this topic?

[MotleyG]

I think you are confusing music production with the end-user product?

No confusion, there are many end-user consumer products built to maximize listening on formats well beyond 16/44.1.
There are many different cars on the road. Most will get you from A to B. But there are different sizes and speeds and comfort and qualities to choose from.

Let's forget about personal opinions.

Music is all about subjective and personal experience. Some people simply hear a song and  just a few of the words bring out emotion. For others it is the instruments or composition that evokes them. Some like it loud, others may not want it on at all. Some simply hoard GB's of data to brag about the size of their library but don't spend much time listening.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

WAV, FLAC, ALAC, Opus, TAK, aac, mp3. All various digital containers for audio that claim to be better than each other. The lossy ones you could more easily argue have different ways of crushing things down and how they unpack to sound similar to the original. The lossless ones all compress without losing anything and when decoded all the little 1's and 0's are back in the same place. So why are there so many of them?

The debate is endless. I won't pursue a conversation that spirals down that rabbit hole. I simply stated that options exist and everyone has the ability to make their own choices.

[hiccup]

No confusion,

Ok, but you did say:
 "Certainly there have been improvements made in recording technology in the past 40+ years."
Which is about the recording and production stages. (where 24 bit is undisputedly essential in the digital domain)
This topic (and MusicBee) is about consumer playback.
Two very different matters that should be kept separate so not to introduce any confusion.

There are many end-user consumer products built to maximize listening on formats well beyond 16/44.1.

Correction: There are many consumer products that facilitate using hi-res formats.
There is no proof whatsoever that that by itself improves the audio quality.
They just fear their product won't sell very well if they can't stick some hi-res label on it.
(do a search on MQA as a perfect example of how such audio scams work)

There are many different cars on the road. Most will get you from A to B. But there are different sizes and speeds and comfort and qualities to choose from.

Where all relevant features and differences can be specified.
Speed, breaking, steering, noise levels, suspension, fuel consumption, material, design etc. etc.
Anything that can't be smelled, felt, heard, specified or measured is useless and irrelevant.

Music is all about subjective and personal experience. Some people simply hear a song and  just a few of the words bring out emotion. For others it is the instruments or composition that evokes them. Some like it loud, others may not want it on at all. Some simply hoard GB's of data to brag about the size of their library but don't spend much time listening.

How is that relevant to using 16/44 vs. DSD or 'hi-res'?

WAV, FLAC, ALAC, Opus, TAK, aac, mp3. All various digital containers for audio that claim to be better than each other. The lossy ones you could more easily argue have different ways of crushing things down and how they unpack to sound similar to the original. The lossless ones all compress without losing anything and when decoded all the little 1's and 0's are back in the same place. So why are there so many of them?

Ask Grok.

But that's also irrelevant to this discussion.
The fact that lossless is lossless regardless of the compression technique has been established many times.
Wav, Flac, Alac, Ape, etc. will all sound the same.

The fact that there can and will be differences in audio quality between lossy codecs such as MP3, Opus, aac etc. has also been proven and established many, many times.

What has never been proven is that 'hi-res' or DSD sounds better than 16/44.
- maybe some people 'feel' it's better
- maybe some companies earn some extra money promoting and selling it
- maybe some DSD masters are created to improve on earlier 16/44 masters
  (BTW, I could easily create some 'MP3 master' that sounds better than some 'hi-res' master)
- maybe some people will think that since 24 is a higher number than 16 it will surely be better
- maybe some people will think that 1 bit DSD sounds like the one ring that rules them all (14, 16, 24, 32 being too confusing)
- maybe some people are using or paying for it because of FOMO

It's all fine by me.
I just care about providing honest facts and substantiated information.

edit:
@serge (OP)
Sorry for this thread getting derailed a bit.
I hope the earlier provided forum search link will be helpful in solving your playback issue.

[Serge]

Dear friends, as I said at the beginning, in my opinion the DSD tracks sound better.
I understand that the human can't heard frecuencies above 20 KHz, but there are other aspects than frequency range, for example scene amplitude, dynamic range, etc.
I hear the the bass notes more powerful than in a PCM track.
I only want hear native DSD sound in MusicBee because their data base capacities is more powerful than JRiver an FB2K.
I'll take the advices from SVEAKUL,

[hiccup]

I'll take the advices from SVEAKUL,

Not sure what that means.
Does it mean that you are retracting this Wishlist request about some alleged missing (and unspecified) DSD playback functionality?

[hiccup]

It seems the OP has no intent to persue this further.
Hopefully because he got things figured out and now has everything working.

For the purpose of users finding and reading this thread, I thought to make a comment about what was said about 'dynamics' and arguments why 24bit might 'sound better' than 16bit.

I understand that the human can't heard frecuencies above 20 KHz, but there are other aspects than frequency range, for example scene amplitude, dynamic range, etc.

I have never heard of 'scene amplitude'. No idea what that means.

About dynamic range:
CD's (16bit) have a dynamic range of 96dB available.
The best sounding 'audiophile favorites' albums have a dynamic range of somewhere between 14dB and 20dB.
Really. No typo.

So please explain how the 124dB range of 24bit audio will improve on dynamics compared to 16bit audio?

[sveakul]

My own take on DSD audio is that it reflects a "hobbyist technical challenge;" the ability to reproduce a music stream that can demonstrate via reliable hardware/software measurements is visually achieving a particular sample rate/bit depth/bps along a line the least affected by distortion or loss.  Actually listening to it, as opposed to pointing to a successful result ("the DAC lights confirm it," "the oscilloscope illustrates it") is a secondary activity, when it doesn't SOUND any better than a properly set up Wasapi Exclusive does.

I mean, I must bow to other's conviction that certain inaudible parts of the stream can affect/perfect the way the rest sounds in various mysterious ways, as I have no way to experience it myself, but if someone wants to gift me a DAC and setup instructions I'd be happy to give it a shot!

Anyway, it's a cool thing to be able to "do", and if MusicBee includes a way to "do" it, that's one more thing to be able to advertise to those with a yen considering a new music player.