To DSD or not to DSD?

[Dr. AIX]

Thanks Richard...perhaps I misunderstood. I simply didn't want anyone here to think that I removed the trackback comments on my RealHD-Audio site for the wrong reasons. I simply would rather the discussion regarding the merits of John's points not be focused outside of the site. Thanks for your response.

 

Mark

[Dr. AIX]

Hiro, my statement is an explanation for my actions...not an excuse. As I said, if you have expertise in this area and wish to contribute to the discussion, you are welcome.

[hardline]

I would like to thank Mark Waldrep for having the interview with John Siau. My intention by linking the interview was to provide a basis for an open discussion on the benefits and disadvantages of using DSD in the roles of sound/music recording and playback of the same. I never intended for this thread to review substantively Mr. Waldrep's article, to quote lengthy excerpts of this interview, nor to even critique the specific and literal assertions of Mr. Siau. Gentlemen, please accept my apologies.

 

On the other hand, I do think that computeraudiophile.com is an excellent place to have forum discussions on overall opinions/evaluations of the audio formats/medium and to show, (albeit sometimes with much enthusiasm) on why audiophiles should prefer and consider one or some formats over the others.

 

I first thought, perhaps, that my interest in the recording of music (whereby I would use a particular format - PCM or DSD) might be suited in another forum site - but then I do feel that my fellow computer audiophiles should appreciate just how difficult the “recording process” might be in consistently following one format ... from the production end (actual recording of audio from mics to media through format specific hi-resolution recorder) to production (editing - mastering) and subsequent post-production (final mastering) - a “chain” if you will.

 

As one who enjoys music, I look at this chain might then wonder how much of the music we enjoy (SACDs, hi-rez downloads, DVD-As) follow from purely one format... say DSD or did the production of the music involve cross-over between formats? If there were conversions where in the chain did it happen and what are those consequences? I then start questioning, as some have with popular hi-resolution music download sites, what is the format provenance for a particular piece of music I’m listening to.

[REShaman]

Thanks Richard...perhaps I misunderstood. I simply didn't want anyone here to think that I removed the trackback comments on my RealHD-Audio site for the wrong reasons. I simply would rather the discussion regarding the merits of John's points not be focused outside of the site. Thanks for your response.

 

Mark

 

Mark, posts being what they are and values important as they are and the need for protocols important as the values, thank you for reconsidering where I was coming from. I meant to support you and Hiro at the same time. You're more than welcome and I appreciate your courtesy to me.

Best,

Richard

[REShaman]

I would like to thank Mark Waldrep for having the interview with John Siau. My intention by linking the interview was to provide a basis for an open discussion on the benefits and disadvantages of using DSD in the roles of sound/music recording and playback of the same. I never intended for this thread to review substantively Mr. Waldrep's article, to quote lengthy excerpts of this interview, nor to even critique the specific and literal assertions of Mr. Siau. Gentlemen, please accept my apologies.

 

On the other hand, I do think that computeraudiophile.com is an excellent place to have forum discussions on overall opinions/evaluations of the audio formats/medium and to show, (albeit sometimes with much enthusiasm) on why audiophiles should prefer and consider one or some formats over the others.

 

I first thought, perhaps, that my interest in the recording of music (whereby I would use a particular format - PCM or DSD) might be suited in another forum site - but then I do feel that my fellow computer audiophiles should appreciate just how difficult the “recording process” might be in consistently following one format ... from the production end (actual recording of audio from mics to media through format specific hi-resolution recorder) to production (editing - mastering) and subsequent post-production (final mastering) - a “chain” if you will.

 

As one who enjoys music, I look at this chain might then wonder how much of the music we enjoy (SACDs, hi-rez downloads, DVD-As) follow from purely one format... say DSD or did the production of the music involve cross-over between formats? If there were conversions where in the chain did it happen and what are those consequences? I then start questioning, as some have with popular hi-resolution music download sites, what is the format provenance for a particular piece of music I’m listening to.

 

With appreciation. And I'll leave it at that. Oh, wait! I just re-read the interview with Barry Diament at Q&A with Barry Diament of Soundkeeper Recordings | AudioStream. Disclaimer, I admire Barry not only for his expertise as a producer and engineer but as someone who notwithstanding his body of work presents himself as one of us. That IMO is worthy of acknowledgment. Along with his patience for divergent points of view.

 

Thank you hardline, Hiro, Dr. AiX for the admixture of what we can access, essentially with less inconvenience than being banned for speaking one's truth. Wait. Big time thank you to Chris, the owner of CA for providing a forum and an environment where you practically have to kill someone to get banned or something close to it. I guess that is the reason I feel at home here.

 

Anyone else?

 

Best,

Richard

[Miska]

John Siau: Benchmark Audio Guru | Real HD-Audio

 

How many DSD DSP algorithms or delta-sigma modulators that guy has designed? So far I've seen Benchmark converters using off-the-shelf converter chips. And I personally find converter chips being too resource constrained to have good enough DSP algorithms for my taste. Even if the conversion stage itself is good, the digital filters in ADC and DAC spoil the performance due to those constraints.

 

As much as I would like to comment, most of the things have been discussed to quite lengths already here at CA. I just really don't have time to run around the internet arguing technical details.

[SoNic67]

Hiro is obsessed by a format, cannot see past his object of adulation.

Reality is that 1-bit DSD is outperformed by any PCM recording higher than 20 bit/48kHz. Plus it comes with terrible issues, as described in papers written by real engineers. See one of them here: http://sjeng.org/ftp/SACD.pdf

The reason, simply stated, is that, when properly dithered, they are in constant overload. Prevention of overload allows only partial dithering to be performed. The consequence is that distortion, limit cycles, instability, and noise modulation can never be totally avoided.

 

That is the reason why all DAC manufacturers switched quickly from 1-bit to 3 and then 4-bit Sigma-Delta chips. They heard how horrid the 1-bit S-D sounded.

[wisnon]

Hiro is obsessed by a format, cannot see past his object of adulation.

Reality is that 1-bit DSD is outperformed by any PCM recording higher than 20 bit/48kHz. Plus it comes with terrible issues, as described in papers written by real engineers. See one of them here: http://sjeng.org/ftp/SACD.pdf

 

 

That is the reason why all DAC manufacturers switched quickly from 1-bit to 3 and then 4-bit Sigma-Delta chips. They heard how horrid the 1-bit S-D sounded.

Wrong again!

 

YOU seem obsessed with maligning one format.

 

There is space for both and DSD done right is SUBLIME.

 

I have a Denon Universal playeras well, but via computer to my Chord playing DSD blows the Denon away. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in engineering papers.

Get 2 engineers in a room and you will get 3 different opinions anyway. LoL

[sjoc2000]

Wrong again!

 

YOU seem obsessed with maligning one format.

 

There is space for both and DSD done right is SUBLIME.

 

I have a Denon Universal playeras well, but via computer to my Chord playing DSD blows the Denon away. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in engineering papers.

Get 2 engineers in a room and you will get 3 different opinions anyway. LoL

 

+1

 

I use the word, exquisite. Something interesting here. Those that are positive about DSD are generally those who are sharing their experience using DSD. I suspect many that are putting so much energy into negative criticism have never heard DSD.

 

If you have never listened to DSD (on a good system) with an open mind, and you are negatively critical, then your judgement is premature, and not well founded. Technical comments by qualified people go both ways on this subject. So try listening first.

 

If you have listened to DSD, and don't like it, well then listen to PCM.

 

It would be interesting for those who are anti DSD to comment, as to whether they have ever even heard a DSD play back, and what the equipment was that they heard it on.

 

Jim

[lijoe848]

Doesnt Benchmark make a DSD Dac???

 

Yes, The DAC 2 HGC and DAC 2 D both support DSD64.

[wisnon]

Yes, The DAC 2 HGC and DAC 2 D both support DSD64.

 

So why is the designer, who is so negative, make the DSD functionality available?

[Miska]

That is the reason why all DAC manufacturers switched quickly from 1-bit to 3 and then 4-bit Sigma-Delta chips. They heard how horrid the 1-bit S-D sounded.

 

Do not think SDM dither as having a parallel noise bit, it is not PCM. And for "multi-bit" SDM, most popular is 2.5-bit. Adding more bits just increases linearity problems.

 

And now the same manufacturers are making 1-bit class-D driver chips for amps. When you listen audio from any mobile device (iOS or Android) you are most likely listening 1-bit audio anyway because the headphone amp is class-D...

 

Or if you use class-D amps (Bel Canto, NAD, etc)...

[SoNic67]

I don't use D class amps, they belong in subwoofers.

As for 2.5 bit SMD being "popular" I think you are uninformed, for example TI uses now 6 parallel + 2.5 S-D (total of 66 levels) in their flagship lineup. For a reason...

[Hiro]

Just as I predicted. Not only was the original linking to the thread removed from the website, but my comment on the realhd-audio.com was blocked too.

[Hiro]

Hiro, my statement is an explanation for my actions...not an excuse.

 

Mark, there was a link posted on your website just minutes after the thread on the Computer Audiophile was started, so how come what you're saying now isn't an excuse. Was your website hacked and the link posted there without your knowledge?

[Hiro]

Hiro is obsessed by a format, cannot see past his object of adulation.

Reality is that 1-bit DSD is outperformed by any PCM recording higher than 20 bit/48kHz.

 

At the of the day the believers in 24bit PCM superiority have to resort to frequency spectrum analyzers to see if ECM HD downloads "sound" better to them than their CDs, and if they are truly HD.

[Hiro]

+1

 

I use the word, exquisite. Something interesting here. Those that are positive about DSD are generally those who are sharing their experience using DSD. I suspect many that are putting so much energy into negative criticism have never heard DSD.

 

That may well be the case. When you look at comments made by people (both audiophiles and professional engineers) who actually heard 1-bit DSD at either 64fs (via the Grimm), or 128fs (via the Korg), or 256fs (via the Horus) their opinions range from "very impressive" to "spectacular".

[Selarom]

I would like to add that also many audio journalists are impressed by the presentation given by DSD music. Not only for the new usb dacs, but for example, if you look at Michael Freamer's review of the Playback Designs MPS-5, he concludes that its the most analog sounding CD/SACD player he has heard. This player basically converts everything to DSD 6.1mhz.

 

Now, don't diss Mark Waldrep because of the article, he knows his stuff. If you listen to his music from AIX Records, he makes some of the best PCM recordings I've heard! And he is very pro multichannel which I enjoy very much. One of my favorite albums is "Zephyr: Voices unbound" which sounds truly amazing in 5.1. Part of that is that he basically does level adjustments, he does not use ProTools or amything like that to manipulate the performance.

 

Now going back to DSD, i would like for some Recording Engineer to lend him a Sonoma so he can make a recording in double DSD or even a Horus for DSD256 and record a performance simultaneously using Mark's PCM 96/24 system and in DSD natively without conversion and see what he thinks. That would be interesting. Mark's definition of a high definition recording starts with at least 96/24. If he proves himself that DSD128 or DSD256 provide as more if not more information than whats in his 24/96 recording, then I'm sure he would even start doing albums in DSD

[Jud]

Lordy, more heat and less light than necessary on a potentially very interesting topic (thanks, hardline). The recording end of the chain is one we don't talk about as often as perhaps we should.

 

There are people whose knowledge and ears I respect on both "sides" of the DSD/PCM discussion. I personally hear DSD sounding closer to the live acoustic music concerts I've been able (privileged) to attend, for example Jordi Savall's viola da gamba playing. For Jordi Savall the PCM part of the comparison may be unfair, since it is RedBook, albeit upsampled with a very good SRC (iZotope) to 176.4 through a Bifrost and to 352.8 through my present DAC. But I came to a similar conclusion about the excellent HDTracks 24/192 download of Pet Sounds versus the DSD: There was a harshness to the vocal harmonies with the download that was not present on DSD. There was as much or more detail on DSD as with the download, so I don't think DSD was simply masking harshness that was truly in the recording.

 

That's my experience, but people like Barry Diament, who's heard more live music in direct comparison to recordings than any of the rest of us are ever likely to, speak of DSD in terms like "ears bleed." Now maybe the difference can be explained by differences in hardware or my HF hearing versus Barry's. But if that's so, how to account for someone as knowledgeable as Miska about chips and measurements saying there really isn't more HF distortion with DSD?

 

So I suppose I will continue to enjoy my SACDs and DSD files (and my PCM RedBook and downloaded material as well, though my preference, all else being equal, is for DSD at this point), and just understand that a definite resolution of the issue one way or the other is vanishingly unlikely at this point.

[Hiro]

I would like to add that also many audio journalists are impressed by the presentation given by DSD music. Not only for the new usb dacs, but for example, if you look at Michael Freamer's review of the Playback Designs MPS-5, he concludes that its the most analog sounding CD/SACD player he has heard. This player basically converts everything to DSD 6.1mhz.

 

He was also pretty impressed with the DSD playback via the new Marantz USB DAC:

 

"Well-recorded files included 192/24 and 96/24 bit resolution ones that sounded quite good but all agreed the best digital sound came from an analog tape-to-DSD transfer. It wasn’t even close. It was the only one that produced a credible, involving, three-dimensional soundstage and a sense of space that made you want to look as well as listen."

Marantz Launches NA-11S1 Reference Class Network Audio Player and USB DAC | Analog Planet

[Miska]

As for 2.5 bit SMD being "popular" I think you are uninformed, for example TI uses now 6 parallel + 2.5 S-D (total of 66 levels) in their flagship lineup. For a reason...

 

I'm not uninformed, I know, they are making hybrid converters. But the parallel part is not SDM at all, but PCM ladder running at 352.8/384k rate, the SDM side is five level, output of these are then combined in analog domain. Their SDM is used to achieve better low level linearity and PCM is used only for high levels. They are also one of the manufacturers who have a real 1-bit ADC chips. They are not the only manufacturer though...

[Miska]

Just for the sake of comparison, here's wide band spectrum of typical modern SDM-based PCM DAC, input is frequency sweep at 44.1k sampling rate. Those peaks are digital alias images around every 352.8k which is the internal digital interpolation filter output rate. You can also see the familiar noise bump of the SDM around 500 kHz.

 

 

Of course, looking at typical 100k audio measurement bandwidth it looks much nicer...

[wisnon]

He was also pretty impressed with the DSD playback via the new Marantz USB DAC:

 

"Well-recorded files included 192/24 and 96/24 bit resolution ones that sounded quite good but all agreed the best digital sound came from an analog tape-to-DSD transfer. It wasn’t even close. It was the only one that produced a credible, involving, three-dimensional soundstage and a sense of space that made you want to look as well as listen."

Marantz Launches NA-11S1 Reference Class Network Audio Player and USB DAC | Analog Planet

Also this from Whats best:

 

"I have the MyTek in my second system now.

 

Choosing it or a good SACD player is a non equivalent choice.

 

Do you have a decent collection of SACDs? Are they ripped to your hard drive?

 

If not, then you may want to look at the Marantz SA-15s2B

 

http://www.avrev.com/home-theater-au...er-review.html

 

This is a scary good player at two grand. SPDIF inputs on TosLink and Coax to boot.

I really regret not buying the review sample, but then again, I would have spent a fortune on

Analogue Production and MoFi SACDs!"

 

Marantz SA-15S2B Limited Edition SACD Player Review - AVRev.com

[bdiament]

Hi Jud,

 

...That's my experience, but people like Barry Diament, who's heard more live music in direct comparison to recordings than any of the rest of us are ever likely to, speak of DSD in terms like "ears bleed."...

 

Actually, I don't believe I've ever used a term like "ears bleed" in this regard (please correct me if I'm wrong).

For me, it is simply that I don't take this to be a high resolution medium. (As I've said, I know many, with ears I trust, who love the format. It just isn't for me.) Like CD, there are things about it that just don't sit right for me. In this case, what I've said is that I find the high treble to be discomforting.

 

That doesn't mean I'd refuse to listen to a recording done in this format if I like the music. But it does mean that if it is available in another format, that is what I'd go after. And it means I wouldn't consider the format for Soundkeeper.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[Melvin]

... And it means I wouldn't consider the format for Soundkeeper.

 

This one sentence speaks volumes Barry. I appreciate your participation in this thread and here at CA as I always find your perspective enlightening.