Native DSD kernel vs the stock kernel. Anybody hear a difference and have a preference on what kernel to use? Because my DAC (Accuphase DC-37) is DoP only, the native kernel doesn't do a thing for my case in theory. However, I prefer the stock kernel (from the Snakeoil install) over this native DSD kernel.
Do you guys think the same, or you prefer the native DSD kernel? Please vote, and add a comment of your DAC below, and provide a general assessment if you can.
Depending on the answers, maybe I should spend a couple of weeks experimenting and try to re-tune this DSD kernel.
My experience suggests that a DAC which can play native DSD files better than PCM will benefit from a DSD kernel. This is based on a SOtM SMS-200 Ultra Neo (running optimised Fedora based Linux) feeding a Gieseler Gross DAC.
The Gross delivered better sound quality on DSD than 24/96 PCM for the same recording (and I duplicated & bought the SACDs !!). An earlier kernel could only do DoP, but a later version did Native DSD version 1.
(25-Apr-2019, 09:24 AM)Snoopy8 Wrote: [ -> ]My experience suggests that a DAC which can play native DSD files better than PCM will benefit from a DSD kernel. This is based on a SOtM SMS-200 Ultra Neo (running optimised Fedora based Linux) feeding a Gieseler Gross DAC.
The Gross delivered better sound quality on DSD than 24/96 PCM for the same recording (and I duplicated & bought the SACDs !!). An earlier kernel could only do DoP, but a later version did Native DSD version 1.
So the dsd kernel makes native dad sound better? Wonder why it doesn't quite well as well for DoP. Hopefully I can dig deeper into this soon.
Once Blind testing U5 is out. I will release some variants of the dad kernel, put it here for you guys to comment and feedback.
There is a small improvement with using native DSD over DoP. There is an improvement jump between DSD over PCM for the Gieseler Gross DAC. DSD is poorer than PCM on a Chord Qutest.
There is no one right answer because it is dependent on the DAC.