DSD versus PCM - Is DSD really better or is it a 'myth'

BlueFox

"DSD is 1-bit PCM, and in almost all practical systems, it greatly complicates the path between the A/D and D/A converter. "

"There are many spectacular DSD recordings, but the quality is not due to any virtues of the DSD format."

"Nevertheless, the measured performance of DSD falls between that of the CD and 96 kHz 24-bit PCM."

"DSD is almost exactly equivalent to a 20-bit 96 kHz PCM system. "

http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/news/41262017-audio-myth-dsd-provides-a-direct-stream-from-a-d-to-d-a?utm_source=Application+Notes&utm_campaign=8c260d3dfb-AppNotes_22Apr_high-resolution_server&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e28f43b8aa-8c260d3dfb-125360433&mc_cid=8c260d3dfb&mc_eid=0cefed06f0

Makes sense to me. Probably why the Berkely Audio Referance DAC only does PCM.

mantis

Years ago I dug into all these things and really learned one thing that always stands true to me. No matter what kind of format is used the original recording quality is what really matters at the end of the day. When you have a great recording, it sounds good in 16/44.1. There are times when I listen to the exact ct in 16/44.1 and then in 24/192 and can't tell the difference due to what I believe is a superior recorded album.
Now there are plenty of times when I listen to a 16/44.1 and a DSD version and hear more clarity out of the same exact cut. It's not all the time but it's there most of the time.
It's why I will listen to all formats and not judge them for what they are as I have even heard 256 stuff from iTunes sound awesome and just as good as the original CD quality at 16/44.1.
These things are talked about all the time online. I don't see the need anymore other then just learning about formats.

madmax

Have been reading about this recently. This was interesting. http://audiophilereview.com/cd-dac-digital/dsd-and-pcm---horses-for-courses.html
It seems that if you want to mix the recording you end up changing to PCM then back to DSD, not that great. However, it sounds like if you do it in one take using DSD maybe thats something special. I read elsewhere that even in the DSD bit stream through the converters that different ways are available of doing it, some changing to PCM in the middle of the process then back to DSD and others keeping DSD throughout the process. I think ears and listening to many options might be required to come to a conclusion.

megasat16

I have several SACD, limited BluRay and CD albums. At the end of the day, what really matters for me is a really good DAC. I have tried out and compared several high end SS DAC, and older type Tube DAC. So, I sold most of my SS DAC and stick with VAC DAC. It's old, ugly and beat up but I don't even bother with the look or dust it.

All in all, the DAC matters to me most than the format. The mastering / good recordings matters 2nd most.

machone

This guy helped develop the SACD while at Sony.
This is his opinion on this subject.
See the attachment.

madmax

Good article!

txcoastal1

If you google and watch youtube conferences from RMAF about DSD (Andreas Koch) is one of the speakers. The conference video is long but very interesting. Do a little more research you'll find where people are pushing the market to actually record in direct DSD and trying to make it a standard.
We are already approaching recordings done in Quad DSD making DSD recording equipment more affordable to studios.

Now that doesn't justify the DSD recording to be superb because it still depends whose behind the mastering...there will always be good, great and c-rap recordings no matter what format.

In the long run I believe the market will trend to more DSD

txcoastal1

Moderator: Dr. David W. Robinson, Positive Feedback Online
Panelists: Jonathan Tinn, Blue Light Audio; Andreas Koch, Playback Designs; Michael Bishop, 5/4 Productions; Bruce Brown, Puget Sound Studios; Chad Kassem, Analogue Prod.; Dr. Rob Robinson, Channel D; Matt Ashland, JRiver; Cookie Marenco, Blue Coast Records
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj7d7Jnx0xc

tonyb

txcoastal1 wrote: »

Now that doesn't justify the DSD recording to be superb because it still depends whose behind the mastering...there will always be good, great and c-rap recordings no matter what format.

In the long run I believe the market will trend to more DSD

Bingo....but the trend as you say will tilt on the side of DSD. Why ? To sell more gear and recordings obviously.

Then after they bleed that, you'll get DSD2 or some other literation.....poised to be the next best thing since sliced bread, again.

txcoastal1

tonyb wrote: »

txcoastal1 wrote: »

Now that doesn't justify the DSD recording to be superb because it still depends whose behind the mastering...there will always be good, great and c-rap recordings no matter what format.

In the long run I believe the market will trend to more DSD

Bingo....but the trend as you say will tilt on the side of DSD. Why ? To sell more gear and recordings obviously.

Then after they bleed that, you'll get DSD2 or some other literation.....poised to be the next best thing since sliced bread, again.

It's not like DSD hasn't been around for along time it's just now rolling into in the recording industry. If you record at the DSD level or higher(DSD double or quad) you will get higher resolution recordings over all(it may be c-rap mastered or maybe not).
Turn the clock back to some of the best RTR recordings via single track to multi track recorders/recordings. It all brought out better resolutions.

I had a brief discussion with Luther(Wardweb) about his RTR tapes. He actually has some 2nd/3rd copies of some really nice music. He explained the loss and degradation of copies of RTR. So if you don't have a 1st,2nd, or 3rd copy that goes to album press you are not getting the best of actual recording.

Album to tape to digital to high-res digital to whatever
...doesn't all begin with a source(media) then an output(speakers) and we then fill the blanks in between????

tonyb

I can agree to all that. The source obviously is the first step to good sound. My angst is the "good recording" part of the equation. They seem farther and fewer between in any format than what the norm should be.

Until they can squeeze in some more good recordings, I'm staying put with lossless files and a decent dac.

The flip side to "good recordings" though, is that too is subjective. So we aren't about to see any sort of standards anytime soon as to what constitutes a good recording. My guess is we will continue to have multiple choices, to fit anyones subjectivity and wallet.

SCompRacer

There are some excellent, newly recorded DSD music out there. One it's expensive. Two, it's not in a genre that I constantly listen in. Take a look at this Blue Coast Records example.

http://bluecoastrecords.downloadsnow.net/special-event-37

Special Event 37 - Jenna Mammina & Rolf Sturm.

Complete Album 5.6MHz (DSF): $50. Cost reduces as it's dithered down.

This will echo what has been said already. I focus on making the standard fare sound great while having the option of DSD.

BlueFox

A DSD weakness is the size of the files, especially the double DSD, etc. files. Granted storage is inexpensive, but still they are huge.

SCompRacer

BlueFox wrote: »

A DSD weakness is the size of the files, especially the double DSD, etc. files. Granted storage is inexpensive, but still they are huge.

Excellent point. This chart visually reinforces it.

BlueFox

I suspect those are uncompressed values. While compressing PCM files is trivial, I'm not sure if there is an efficient DSD compression algorithm. If there is then the file size point is moot.

Erik Tracy

I think the thrust of the info posted by txcoastal1 is that there is a 'push' to use DSD as the archive format of choice, not necessarily what we, the consumer, would have to buy.

With DSD as the studio archive format you don't have the issue with what generation tape is used for issue or remastering.

Kinda like in the photo world - use the raw uncompressed photo off the camera for 'pro' work, save that and then use whatever level or format to target distribution for print, web, etc.

But as pointed out, and what I agree with, it all comes down to the mastering. Just cuz its on SACD or a hirez download, if the engineer applied bad eq & mixing decisions or brickwalled the album - pass.....

madmax

While looking at portable high rez players I notice some of them are saying they support DSD. However, what they are doing is converting DSD to a PCM format first then playing the PCM format. So while supporting DSD they don't actually play DSD.

steveinaz

It's all about the mastering. When they start getting that right, then we talk about formats above 16/44.

BlueFox

steveinaz wrote: »

It's all about the mastering. When they start getting that right, then we talk about formats above 16/44.

Yes. Get that part right, and I bet any format will sound fantastic.

tonyb

steveinaz wrote: »

It's all about the mastering. When they start getting that right, then we talk about formats above 16/44.

My thoughts exactly Steve. However it's going to be a cold day in hell before we see that anytime soon. Then we have upsampling, down sampling, none/native of all formats in question and the variety of quality that goes into each.

No cut and try answer really, listen to the format that sounds best to you, with the gear you have, and simply enjoy your tunes as you see fit. Nothing else should matter. There's enough variety out there in all things audio to float anyones boat.

CoolJazz

It seems like the "ability" of the formats gets all confused with the actual material on it all the time. Sure, great recordings can be on redbook....but just think what that same quality would have sounded like when the format can deliver that much more!

CJ

jeremymarcinko

Theoretically DSD should be better, right? But I think another variable is how well the DAC implementation handles DSD or PCM. The Burr Brown components in my current AVR sounds better to me with hi rez pcm, however, the Burr Brown DAC in my previous Onkyo seemed to perform slightly better using the direct stream digital. I am curious how my new universal player will sound with either format, as I plan to use its analog out and take advantage of Yamaha's new proprietary 32bit DAC.

vmaxer

xcapri79 wrote: »

I own SACD-DSD and CD versions of a decent amount of music and the DSD versions have typically been superior to me. I agree that the mastering and recording are vital to good sound and not all SACD-DSD music is as good as it could be. But when it is, it is superior to me. Having a very good SACD player is also quite important to define the sound improvements.

What player do you use??

steveinaz

xcapri79 wrote: »

I own SACD-DSD and CD versions of a decent amount of music and the DSD versions have typically been superior to me.

Because more often than not, the SACD versions are remastered; CORRECTLY.

steveinaz

DSkip wrote: »

I do grow tired of the 'its the recording/mastering' argument. Its valid, but it always boils down to that fact, making any of these discussions a moot point. Diversion at its best.

More like unescapeable "FACT." It starts at the beginning. If the recording isn't done well, all the "gadget wizardry" in the world isn't gonna help.

Redbook 16/44 CD was/is fully capable of outstanding fidelity, but the music business has poisoned the well with overdriven dynamics and inexperienced recording engineers who obviously lack some passion for fidelity.

madmax

Is DSD actually higher resolution, or is it just run through a different process, just something I've been thinking about. Either way it can make an impact on the sound, good or bad.

madmax

I was thinking more like comparing 24/96 vs DSD. This is an interesting thread since I'm currently in the digital exploration phase. I've remained in ignorant bliss with vinyl for quite some time so now its time to visit the harsh realities of digital irritainment.

SCompRacer

madmax wrote: »

I was thinking more like comparing 24/96 vs DSD. This is an interesting thread since I'm currently in the digital exploration phase. I've remained in ignorant bliss with vinyl for quite some time so now its time to visit the harsh realities of digital irritainment.

All things equal, native DSD will sound better. With your abilities, you ought to build a DAC. I like the Russ White approach at Twisted Pear. He addresses power to the DAC (Three seperate series shunt regulator modules (Tridents) for Digital supplies and Dual series shunt voltage regulator module for AVCC supplies) and offers two I/V output stages. Direct DSD, I2S and S/PDIF inputs supporting up to 32-bit/192kHz. Build as current output (best IMO) or voltage output.

The output stage I use is a Twisted Pear discrete balanced output. Their SE and headphone output is op amp out. Or take a look at the various diy DAC options at diyaudio. Building allows you to design a DAC with inputs and output stage you want. My dual mono DAC doesn't irritate at all. However, vinyl still gets the nod here for best SQ.

The huge difference between vinyl and digital is you only have one RIAA filter with vinyl. Digital creates nasty artifacts that must be filtered out or moved to higher inaudible frequencies. Hopefully without sending amps into oscillation. The claim is you still won't hear the oscillation but it keeps the amps busier and they get warmer. This is why files are converted, not to make silk purses but to take advantage of different filters.

BlueFox

DSkip wrote: »

I think that will change with the death of CD's looming, and it looks like DSD will become the new standard.

I doubt if DSD will become the standard. The whole point of the OP was an article showing there is no technical/sonic advantage to DSD after 96/24 PCM. However, there are a lot of issues with DSD in so far as editing, mastering etc. in DSD. So, it is converted to PCM for editing, and then back to DSD for distribution. High-res PCM will most likely be the new standard, with DSD like vinyl, a small niche. But, who knows?

madmax

Interesting article. http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-abcs-of-dsd-downloads/

It doesn't address issues directly but gives a little more input on DSD vs PCM.

PCM still has issues with how its applied as I'm sure DSD does. A part time recording engineer let me audition seperate copies of single recordings using several different (popular) PCM recording algorithms and they all sounded completly different. One algorithm sounded sweet on one type of music and horible on another type. Different ones brought out different sounds and changed the soundstage. His DSD recordings were consistantly good but he didn't give me any option on those. Just one point of reference so it doesn't sway me too much although I was amazed at the differences between the different sounding PCM versions. In some cases even the instruments changed tone and position. This ain't analog yet.

SCompRacer

madmax wrote: »

Interesting article. http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-abcs-of-dsd-downloads/

This ain't analog yet.

So you are getting it. Digital will never be the true analog some of us love and won't let go completely. IMO it's how close you can get.

Then you get into SPDIF, not all DAC's decode it the same. Some do not reply entirely on the embedded clock. Some DAC's sound much better when fed I2S versus SPDIF. I2S separates clock and data (and is the serial communication used in CD/SACD players), where with SPDIF the DAC must sort it all out. However I2S is not meant for long runs so you best to employ LVDS or Low-voltage differential signaling between devices.