To DSD or not to DSD?

[bdiament]

Hi wisnon,

 

...I guess that you dont like DSD because of a HF sensation you get that is unpleasant to you. However, since it is gaining in audiophool popularity, is it a wise COMMERCIAL decision the eschew the format? I mean, you are not mastering for YOU per se, but for the 98% who DONT have any problem with DSD and indeed love it.

 

Wouldn't it make sense to consider DSD for say Jazz/vocals/chamber music and classicals and stick to Hirez PCM for pop/rock, reggae, for example?

 

I dont consider the investment expense of this new equipment, as I dont know costing...

 

The answer to your question would depend on whether one's motivation is to maximize profit, taking advantage of every opportunity for commerce or whether there is another motivation for doing something.

 

If maximizing profit was my motivation, I'd master client recordings for maximum level, rather than gently referring inquiries where level is the slightest concern elsewhere.

If maximizing profit was my motivation, I'd offer FLAC downloads of "singles" from Soundkeeper albums. (Folks have requested vinyl too.)

 

Many years ago, when I realized a lot of mastering clients had switched from loudspeakers to VU meters for evaluating my work, I had to stop and ask myself what it is I want to achieve as an audio engineer.

 

In fact, I *am* recording and mastering for me. I have to feel good about what I'm doing and I have to see it as achieving what I want to achieve or I'm not interested. It isn't going to result in monetary wealth but if that was my prime motivation, I'd be doing something other than audio engineering.

 

You raise a good point though. I do indeed see DSD (as well as USB) as opportunities for commerce. They're just not commercial enterprises that interest me, as vendor, service provider or customer.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[Jud]

I thought I might help make this thread interesting again with an on-topic comment, but as far as interesting, I have to say Peter that your last comment definitely has me beat.

 

With my previous post as a kind of lead-in, I too seem to have an opinion on DSD sourced music. ;-)

But please notice : I am not saying this at all because I produce a sheer PCM DAC; as an audiophool myself I just hunt for the best music reproduction.

 

I have been focusing on Hires SACD rips lately, and what I notice is that they sound more spatious than Hires DVD-A (once I am able to find properly done DVD-A which is rare anyway). It is easy to like "DSD" better for that matter.

But please notice : I listen through my own NOS1 and of course -thus- the SACD rips were converted to PCM.

 

So, DSD based music sure sounds different and this is already so with Redbook material taken from it (SACD).

Assumed the rips have been done well (PS3 etc.) it is my opinion that SACD receives a clear flavor. All highs sound the same throughout albums. And if there's one thing I strive for, it is NOT letting sound all the same. This is in my software (bit perfect/"lossless") all the time and this is in the DAC which should be 100% neutral. And 100% neutral means that nothing will receive a flavor hence sound similar. Also notice that the NOS1 does nothing to the sound, since it doesn't contain anything else than "simple" D/A conversion. No filters - nothing. And PCM (no SDM).

 

Of course it is hard to compare apples to apples, escpecially since the SACD needs to be converted to PCM (which would be necessary for each non-capable direct DSD DAC). But since the flavor is there everywhere while this is not the case at all for DVD-A or normal Redbook, it may tell something;

 

Apart from the flavor, I think the SACD rips are lifeless. Sound is nice and nicely spatious, maybe never disturbing, but there's not much in it. No power. Nothing of which I say (album to album) WOW. Never.

 

Well of course it is always interesting to me when someone who I at least occasionally share the same opinions with (remember the test track you sent around and we discussed on your forum re the sound of Win7 versus Win8), and who I know has good ears and the knowledge to back them up comes to a conclusion very different from mine. To explain this I want to take a long, roundabout route. Of course Peter has no grounds to object to long comments! And anyone else who does object, you can skip the rest of this.

 

So it is 1974 (told you it would be roundabout) and I am at the Philadelphia Spectrum for Eric Clapton's second concert after a 3-year hiatus for heroin addiction. No one really knows what to expect, though he has released an album, 461 Ocean Boulevard, that has some good music on it. (No one's heard anything about the first concert in Rhode Island a night or two before - this is before the Internet.) The lights go down, and a long-haired guy in an Uncle Sam outfit (American flag top hat and tails) runs out onto the stage and launches into Pinball Wizard. His right hand is just a blur as he runs through the strummed intro at full volume and double speed (how can anyone play that fast - it's gotta be Clapton!), then hits that huge first double chord - Ba-whaaamm - and the crowd goes insane. He's dressed crazy, looks like someone off the street (this heroin stuff's got to be hard on a fellow), but the playing! Then he stands stock still, lets that monster first double chord die off to nothing, cackles maniacally, and runs back offstage. Everyone just stands there with eyes wide and mouths open (omigod, the junk took his mind!) - until Clapton himself walks out grinning, his gorgeous Hawaiian backup singer Yvonne Elliman next to him in a black bodysuit, and they begin the actual concert. He was just having some fun with all of us after three years of wild rumors. But even though it was just part of a joke Clapton was playing, I never forgot the incredible sound of the Pinball Wizard intro, especially that monster double chord at stadium volume.

 

A little less than 20 years later, I finally got a "high end" system that let me duplicate some of that feeling with a decent turntable and the original LP of Tommy that my friends and I all ran out and bought when it first came out in 1969. The dynamics and thrill of that first double chord came right through, in spite of a little noise from the old vinyl.

 

So when I got my computer audio system up and running, it was with eager anticipation that I bought and ripped the 24/96 DVD-Audio of Tommy, and of course the first track I played was Pinball Wizard. Bleh. No drama, lifeless - the vinyl just killed it. But hope springs eternal, and when I learned of a Japanese SHM-SACD of Tommy, supposedly from the analog master tapes, I bought it. I played the DSD file of Pinball Wizard using an inexpensive but decent DAC (Bifrost), converting the DSD to PCM on the fly, since the Bifrost won't play DSD natively. And even through the conversion, that old thrill came through, that was so entirely absent with PCM file from the 24/96 DVD-A.

 

Does this show anything about how DSD must be superior to PCM? For me, not in the least. But it does say, with Pinball Wizard, and another track I have on both DVD-A and SHM-SACD, the title song from Steely Dan's Gaucho, that DSD was capable, even converted to PCM, of giving me the same thrill I experienced from the original vinyl (and in the case of Pinball Wizard, very memorably at full concert volume).

 

So could it be the conversion to PCM that gives DSD life? I don't think so. I have the MoFi SACD of Rickie Lee Jones' Pirates. The album is wonderfully recorded, and the first track, We Belong Together, has tremendous drums, especially the entry of the toms when the song changes from the slow intro to the faster chorus (We-ee be-long to-GETH-er badada-BOOM ba-dee-BOOM ba-dee-BOOM). Converted to PCM and played through the Bifrost, the DSD file was almost but not quite the equal of my vinyl original in the drama and slam of those toms. My new DAC plays DSD natively. The first time I heard native DSD playback of We Belong Together through the new DAC, I just sat open-mouthed. I'd never heard toms sound like that outside of high end shows or seeing Rickie Lee live (which I did standing with my wife 10 feet from the stage in an old Philly concert venue that unfortunately doesn't exist any more, the Chestnut Cabaret - a glorified bar that held maybe 400 people). So yes, in my own particular experience, DSD is capable of life, even fierceness. (By the way, Peter, there are brushes and ride cymbals aplenty on Pirates, and no problem with the balance between the two.)

 

Does Peter not know what he's talking about, or have such a bias against DSD he can't hear what's plainly there? To quote John Wayne in the movie Big Jake: "Not hardly." (Now that I've already given away the punch line, the story: At the beginning of the movie, Jake's family is killed, except, unknown to the baddies, Jake himself. Many years later, in the climactic shoot-out, John Wayne as Big Jake shoots the head of the bad guys played by Richard Boone. Since this is a John Wayne Western, Richard Boone can't die before John Wayne has a chance to talk to him. So as the rest of the bad guys are being rounded up, John Wayne saunters over to where Richard Boone is lying on the ground looking up at him. Richard Boone says (dialog approximate from memory), "Before I die, I'd like to know the name of the man that killed me." John Wayne replies "Jake McCandless." Richard Boone says "Jake McCandless! I thought you was dead!" John Wayne replies laconically, "Not hardly," upon which Richard Boone drops dead.) Or at any rate, I know Peter must be accurately describing what he hears; he's accurately described what I hear too many times for me to question his abilities or his candidness now. So what's responsible for the differences in what we're hearing?

 

Now :

 

What makes it so difficult to judge, where it for all of us to have an opinion, is that the filtering I apply (which is done in software) does not ring even one sample. This, while any normal SDM based DAC does this. So, SACD already rings more than my playback from normal Redbook. This is of vast importance, because with that normal filtering Redbook sounds lifeless (and way distorted) to me just the same - and way more than the SACD rips.

 

Sidenote : with a non-ringing filter - which is perfect in the time domain - the frequency domain receives distortion especially in the higher frequencies. To me (and/or my gear) this is not audible at all but should be audible in some way. Btw notice that the pictures in my previous post are from that same non-ringing filter.

What's done with DSD (which rings minimal) a totally obvious "distortion" is audible, though indirectly through that flavor applied. Remember though, after conversion to PCM.

 

It has been said by others before (and in this thread), but to me it is clear that the high frequency noise influences the sound in a similar way all over.

Also again look at my second picture from my previous post, which clearly shows that (HF) noise rides ON the signal. This is maybe not clear to most but it just is so. IOW, no matter how much down noise or other spuria are, they just influence the signal (hear) hard. This, and this is my personal opinion based upon a couple of years trying to squeeze out the best SQ from Redbook, is exactly what I perceive from SACD : a decorrelated HF noise which inluences all exactly the same. This is different from correlated noise which would imply anomalies.

 

my2c

Peter

 

I'm thinking of a couple of possibilities. The conversion to PCM, possibly. But I heard drama from DSD converted to PCM on-the-fly through a DAC much less good than Peter's, so I tend to discount that. It could well be greater HF sensitivity or greater sensitivity to phase correctness on Peter's part that I can listen past and he just cannot. Yet another possibility is something I understood Peter to say with regard to Arc Prediction. He said (and please correct me if I'm not accurately giving your meaning, Peter) that Arc Prediction does something similar to what DSD attempts to do: remain correct in the time domain while pushing frequency domain errors beyond audible effect. I'm just wondering whether what Arc Prediction does to PCM, that is good and necessary with PCM, is a kind of overkill when used with DSD, or well converted DSD-sourced PCM. I say this because while adjusting the pre-ringing filter in iZotope, I've experienced the life being drained from the music as the pre-ringing filter setting is moved toward linear phase. http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/izotope-src-15352/index4.html#post227022

[wisnon]

Come on now Barry, that is needlessly harsh. It not just about marketing hype, many of us actually like the DSD flavour of ice cream!

 

There is a third way that also maintains artistic integrity. DSD gives possibly wider commercial reach, so we are not talking about max profits, but max REACH. Remember, i said mastering for AUDIOPHOOLS, so by definition a set of people preoccupied with SQ.

 

Now, let us for arguments sake say that the reason for your HF discomfiture is a result of a physical defect in YOUR hearing that can be proven by a medical exam. This means that for some reason DSD causes a HF for you and 2% of the population, but nothing for the other 98% (much like asparagus gives a distinct smell to urine for everyone, but only the people with a certain gene can detect it). If we take the former as a given, can you see a case that you do not give up any integrity to master in DSD and in fact are legitimately extending your commercial reach while actually doing a service to audiophooldom? I mean, we all acknowledge you are talented an many would LOVE to hear what you could do in DSD (even if you carry the HF irritation gene).

 

I hope I made my complicated point clear.

[PeterSt]

For those asking about the Teresa Thread, nah ... you are able to find it yourselves I think.

I just put up my special sensor and it tells me to search Advanced, select the first tab in there and put

teresa nude

in the Keywords. Next tick the "Posts" for Show Results as et voilá - the bottom post.

 

But those hinting about it was "in the dark" ... correct. In the nude and in the dark. This should put you in denial of what you actually want to envision.

But about quoting, I think I saw (no, sensed) a couple of posts down the line that someone named Chris asked himself whether that thread was for real. It was and it continued another another 150 posts.

The big miracle as I saw it was that without much exception everybody told he/she was out of the thread for a dozen times, but nobody could withstand it and kept on posting.

At post 259 the thread was finally closed by Chris.

 

But guys and gals, if I sneakily look now the thread is open again !

 

 

Ok. Souptin, great post about your nudity;

Personally I am sure you are as alive as can be. But might you doubt this yourself, don't perform my sensor's search operation. You might be disappointed.

[PeterSt]

Come on now Barry, that is needlessly harsh. It not just about marketing hype, many of us actually like the DSD flavour of ice cream!

 

Hey wisnon,

 

I don't wish to speak on behalf of Barry, but personally I don't see the harshness much. Really I don't.

But commenting in the same realm (we must be careful with implied quotes these days :-), I am the same really though through another angle. So, while I promised DSD through the NOS1 close to two years ago now, this still is not there only because I don't see it to be better. IOW :

 

Some people truly go for their beliefs which may be beyond money and such.

This doesn't prevent I will be searching for the real merits for as long as it takes.

 

Regards,

Peter

[hardline]

Thank you Jud for your Post #203 for helping "make this thread interesting again with an on-topic comment".

 

You expressed some of my observations and questions concerning PCM, DSD and inter-conversion between the two formats.

[bdiament]

Hi wisnon,

 

Come on now Barry, that is needlessly harsh. It not just about marketing hype, many of us actually like the DSD flavour of ice cream!

 

There is a third way that also maintains artistic integrity. DSD gives possibly wider commercial reach, so we are not talking about max profits, but max REACH. Remember, i said mastering for AUDIOPHOOLS, so by definition a set of people preoccupied with SQ.

 

Now, let us for arguments sake say that the reason for your HF discomfiture is a result of a physical defect in YOUR hearing that can be proven by a medical exam. This means that for some reason DSD causes a HF for you and 2% of the population, but nothing for the other 98% (much like asparagus gives a distinct smell to urine for everyone, but only the people with a certain gene can detect it). If we take the former as a given, can you see a case that you do not give up any integrity to master in DSD and in fact are legitimately extending your commercial reach while actually doing a service to audiophooldom? I mean, we all acknowledge you are talented an many would LOVE to hear what you could do in DSD (even if you carry the HF irritation gene).

 

I hope I made my complicated point clear.

 

I'm sorry if you feel it is needlessly harsh. It was not felt or said with harshness. You asked a question and I wrote an honest, from-the-heart answer.

 

I have said from the beginning that many folks (with ears I trust) just love their SACDs and DSD but that it just isn't *for me.* (I confess to finding it more than a little odd that some folks have trouble accepting this, as if my personal aversion to something will somehow diminish their joy. I know that can't happen if they are confident in what they tell me.)

 

If you want to take my perspective as representative of a defect in my hearing, so be it. You are of course, free to do so. (If you ask me *that* is a bit harsh but I understand you say it to illustrate a point.) Of course, perhaps I'm one of the few *without* the defect. ;-}

Or maybe, it is what I really feel it to be and as I always say, different folks have different sensitivities to different aspects of sound.

I tend to have a *very* strong aversion to dynamic compression, even moreso when it tends to cluster around one part of the frequency range. Among the other causes of my discomfort, that is one of the ways it sounds *to me*. (Defect, asset or neither, please understand it does not change my response to the sonics.)

 

Again, extending my commercial reach is a wonderful idea. But that isn't my prime motivation. I do this work (and founded Soundkeeper) to create the very best audio I know how to do, without compromise. Now if I find a particular format to be a compromise, why would I sacrifice my main motivation just to extend my "reach"?

 

By the way, I have no interest in audiophools. On the other hand, I have much respect for audiophiles, who by definition are merely folks who have a love for sound. Inasmuch as it is a vehicle for providing me access to Music, I do too.

 

Best regards

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com

[wisnon]

Hey wisnon,

 

I don't wish to speak on behalf of Barry, but personally I don't see the harshness much. Really I don't.

But commenting in the same realm (we must be careful with implied quotes these days :-), I am the same really though through another angle. So, while I promised DSD through the NOS1 close to two years ago now, this still is not there only because I don't see it to be better. IOW :

 

Some people truly go for their beliefs which may be beyond money and such.

This doesn't prevent I will be searching for the real merits for as long as it takes.

 

Regards,

Peter

 

Hi (King) Peter,

 

By harsh I meant that commercial expansion is not just about max profits, but also reaching further out and pleasing more people.

 

Its about getting even wider exposure for his work. Given that most here acknowledge how good he is, I can only imagine how good his DSD recordings will sound, given I like that format. i even say he can stick toi those genre weher even the critics acknowledge its strengths like Jazz/Chamber music/classical, etc.

 

So in summary, I am advocating that he does it for commercial EXPANSION reasons to offer his artistry to a wider audience who would eat up his DSD offering. Of course, if his heart is not in it...

 

As for you,I know you have different objections to DSD, not HF harshness objections, but rather you think PCM is flat out better from a fundamental level. However, I know that you will keep investigating to ensure that new techniques/discoveries dont change your perspective.

 

Its all good anyway...

[wisnon]

Hi wisnon,

 

 

 

I'm sorry if you feel it is needlessly harsh. It was not felt or said with harshness. You asked a question and I wrote an honest, from-the-heart answer.

 

I have said from the beginning that many folks (with ears I trust) just love their SACDs and DSD but that it just isn't *for me.* (I confess to finding it more than a little odd that some folks have trouble accepting this, as if my personal aversion to something will somehow diminish their joy. I know that can't happen if they are confident in what they tell me.)

 

If you want to take my perspective as representative of a defect in my hearing, so be it. You are of course, free to do so. Of course, perhaps I'm one of the few *without* the defect. ;-}

Or maybe, it is what I really feel it to be and as I always say, different folks have different sensitivities to different aspects of sound.

I tend to have a *very* strong aversion to dynamic compression, even moreso when it tends to cluster around one part of the frequency range. Among the other causes of my discomfort, that is one of the ways it sounds to me. (Defect, asset or neither, it does not change my response to the sonics.)

 

Again, extending my commercial reach is a wonderful idea. But that isn't my prime motivation. I do this work (and founded Soundkeeper) to create the very best audio I know how to do, without compromise. Now if I find a particular format to be a compromise, why would I sacrifice my main motivation just to extend my "reach"?

 

By the way, I have no interest in audiophools. On the other hand, I have much respect for audiophiles, who by definition are merely folks who have a love for sound. Inasmuch as it is a vehicle for providing me access to Music, I do too.

 

Best regards

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

 

Barry, the "harsh" reference was referring not to your SQ views but the definition of commercial avenues as only about max profits as opposed to expansion. I cleared that up with Peter, as it seems I was not clear.

 

I have no problems with your opinions and my analogy was just that. Feel free to flip it to say 98% have a hearing defect and 2% don't. It does not change the fundamental point I was trying to make. Remember, I said for arguments sake, ie hypothetical...not to be taken literally.

No one seriously doubts you when you say you find DSD HF uncomfortable!

 

The audiophool reference was meant to be self-deprecating...I actually meant audiophiles. Apologies if you didnt get that.

 

Finally, you have answered my question directly regarding motivation (no compromise from your perspective) and I can live with that. Your heart would NOT be in it and so we would not be getting your best work anyway.

[bdiament]

I would like to add that I see no reason to treat classical or jazz differently from folk, reggae or any other sound my mics might pick up. The mics don't seem to differentiate between musical genres -- to them, it is sound.

 

The thing is, for the past several years, I've been thrilled to have a recording device and format (for me 24/192, *from this device*) where, for the first time in my experience, I have not yet been able to discern the output from my mic feed. To me, that is a pretty big deal. I never got that from any other recording device, regardless of price or format.

 

Maybe it is a "you had to be there". I don't know the words to express the above any better than I so far have.

 

I'm always listening to new things and always keep an ear open for something that will reveal how the current standard can be improved upon. In all the demos I've heard of DSD, I have not felt it a challenge to what I already have, much less something that bests it.

 

I understand other folks feel differently and I think that is wonderful. Really, I *celebrate* the joy my fellow music lovers (and yes, audiophiles) take in whatever brings them musical happiness. However, for my own work and my own listening pleasure, I must follow what *my* ears tell me.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

Hi Wisnon,

 

...Finally, you have answered my question directly regarding motivation (no compromise from your perspective) and I can live with that...

 

Thank you for understanding.

Sometimes I find it difficult to express it in words.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[tailspn]

The thing is, for the past several years, I've been thrilled to have a recording device and format (for me 24/192, *from this device*) where, for the first time in my experience, I have not yet been able to discern the output from my mic feed.

 

How do you accomplish that Barry? Do you do a analog mix, then track the output from the console and compare the console with the DAC'ed recording during the recording? Stereo, multi-channel? Or do you track all the mics, do a digital mix, and simultaneously do a analog mix, exactly match the levels, and compare on the fly? Do you ever do this comparison outside of the/your studio, in a real acoustically contributing space, and compare? As you know, it's the spaciousness that's the real cue to resolution.

[bdiament]

Hi tailspn,

 

How do you accomplish that Barry? Do you do a analog mix, then track the output from the console and compare the console with the DAC'ed recording during the recording? Stereo, multi-channel? Or do you track all the mics, do a digital mix, and simultaneously do a analog mix, exactly match the levels, and compare on the fly? Do you ever do this comparison outside of the/your studio, in a real acoustically contributing space, and compare? As you know, it's the spaciousness that's the real cue to resolution.

 

In my view, spaciousness is but one of many components involved.

I don't do any mix at all, neither analog nor digital. Neither is there a console. (I've never heard one that doesn't massacre the sound.) My recordings are done in stereo, one mic per playback channel, where the mics are arranged in a stereo array that provides the three types of cues we use for sound localization.

The mics themselves are very wide band with a very fast settling time.

 

The only "mix" occurs *before* I push the Record button. Rather than pushing faders on a console, I have the players (or if applicable, their amplifiers) move, per my instructions, until they are positioned where I want them and the balance is as I want it to be.

 

I do the comparisons during the recording session itself, while the mic feeds are active and while I can also reference the real thing, as it is occurring.

(I don't record in a studio, preferring either an auditorium, gallery or church, depending on the particulars of the music being recorded. The acoustics are a big part of the recording as I do not mic the instruments, I mic the event.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[tailspn]

Thanks Barry. That's about the only way it's possible to make such a comparison valid.

[bdiament]

Hi tailspn,

 

Thanks Barry. That's about the only way it's possible to make such a comparison valid.

 

Indeed.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[elcorso]

Come on now Barry, that is needlessly harsh. It not just about marketing hype, many of us actually like the DSD flavour of ice cream!

 

There is a third way that also maintains artistic integrity. DSD gives possibly wider commercial reach, so we are not talking about max profits, but max REACH. Remember, i said mastering for AUDIOPHOOLS, so by definition a set of people preoccupied with SQ.

 

Now, let us for arguments sake say that the reason for your HF discomfiture is a result of a physical defect in YOUR hearing that can be proven by a medical exam. This means that for some reason DSD causes a HF for you and 2% of the population, but nothing for the other 98% (much like asparagus gives a distinct smell to urine for everyone, but only the people with a certain gene can detect it). If we take the former as a given, can you see a case that you do not give up any integrity to master in DSD and in fact are legitimately extending your commercial reach while actually doing a service to audiophooldom? I mean, we all acknowledge you are talented an many would LOVE to hear what you could do in DSD (even if you carry the HF irritation gene).

 

I hope I made my complicated point clear.

 

Everything is about genetics...?

 

I don't like to eat asparagus thanks to the 'bad' smell in my urine...

 

I do like DSD HF 'extension' signature...

 

But I wouldn't remove my breast after an gene exam. (I'm a man but I know about guys with breast cancer).

 

Cheers!

 

Roch

 

PS/ May I suggest a poll looking for "asparagus urine smell detection linked to DSD HF extension".

[PeterSt]

Hi Jud,

 

Thank you for a most interesting post, although I thgought to catch some sleep before I'd read it. Also thank you for your kind words throughout.

Maybe I now can tell better what I am perceiving from DSD based recordings, making it better relative to your description;

 

So, what if would would have Windows 8 only and compare that to the DSD based recordings ? DSD would win hands down. This time because of W8 being far too dynamic (as one part of its strangeness). I could also say that W8 is the other way around of what I like to perceive from music (as an audiophile btw, not an audiophool since this seems to be important :-). So, when I earlier in the thread talked about smashing cymbals, I don't mean the ones from W8.

But here you have it already : who from CA readers recognize this in the first place ? Nobody does on the whole globe (as I tried to analyze it). Still, in the end we on Phasure all do, and indeed it needed an example track for some (very well recorded IMO) to point it out. Also : half of albums/tracks don't show the W8 strangeness (and sound actually better) but I go for the 100% - never thinking it is the recording, until *proven* otherwise.

 

Why this W8 story ? because it tells that SQ can't be compared through forums unless done in the specific way we did it on Phasure where also most of the apples can be compared to apples.

But this is also how a story of yours, Jud, needs that roundabout lead-in because it at least tells me the genuity of it. Of course I talk myself like that, because indeed this gives me a feeling of "real background" instead of putting out my conclusion only. You story reads the conclusion like aplot, and this is how it should be.

 

Like I said, DSD based recordings sound very spatious. This is a vague description for the -I hope- better properties here :

 

- Music feels coming towards you in a fast back-forth motion. Almost sibilance-like, but in all the frequencies. To me it can come across "processed like" (also knowing that this behavior can easily be mimiced by DSP).

 

- Because the lack of real transients (I will stick to this forever) expecially toms will receive their individual color. This is most profound, and I know how much it took throughout the development of XXHighEnd to get that right for general Redbook. Notice though that this is merely a "Hires" property, but with DSD based recordings you can feel it won't go wrong for even the Redbook derival. Btw I now think about Gruppo Sportivo for the great tom sound. Let's bet that this is DSD based (uh-oh).

 

- DSD *does* feel analog; It does to the general sense that -exactly like with LP- it can't go wrong (in the harshness department). Again I refer to Creedende which I play a lot (and mostly all of them in a row once I think about them again), which to me clearly from the old age sound different than non-DSD based from the same era. Again the toms and especially the smooth nice highs. Notice that end-60's - beginning 70s) normally excels in the most dynamic ever recorded through time (what about The Byrds, Syd Barrett - and no I didn't sort out the recording format). What sounds better ? Syd Barrett by miles. It's full of life (the man being almost dead).

What sounds smooth and undisturbing for background music ? Creedence.

 

- The "lifeless" I talk about is possibly the exact other way around from what I mean to say. So Jud, your story expresses NOT the being full of life I talk about. Yours is the full sound of coherence. Btw now I suddenbly think of it ... Who's Next also sounds like this (is this DSD based for the CD we can obtain ?). The Life you talk about I think is about warmth. Fullness. And that "sibilance" I talked about which causes it IMO.

My lifeless is about the lack of (micro !) dynamics. Do I need to explain ? I don't think so if we only compare to LP. Indeed it is very similar but don't tell me it is very dynamic. It even can't technically.

 

So do we agree now ? I think we do. Now it is only a matter of what's subjectively best to our ears. Or ?

 

Or let me tell you what can be perceived more outside of LP-Warmth (and power btw) :

 

If we take something like ZZTop this is about fat guitars. The "fat" is about just that and it will resemble that first Pinball Wizard chord. A total full sound. A wall of it. Notice though that the most of this "wall" is about tones which do not come from these guitars in the first place. It is too low keyed. Now, when a sufficient amount of "dynamics" is added, the individual strings come forward and instead of a fat guitar it suddenly becomes a beautiful instrument for its harmonics all over. All distortion guitars do and speed guitars played high key can go in the direct of nice sines. I know, this is stupid to say from an electric guitar, but just beautiful they are. Clapton's too by the way.

 

While the latter is an almost possible phenomenon to share (for a "go listen and you will see"), now take an upright bass. Go to a live concert (or invite Ray Brown to your living room) and notice that each single pluck (when not too softly played) is overwhelmed by the metal sound of the plucking itself (the zzzzing in rough on/off frequency). This is very special because it really needs "something" to bring that forward through loudspeakers. So this is what you can try (take a random recording with a profound double upright bass) and watch for the metal sound. It won't be there, or maybe you may say "hey !" for a couple of times only. It should always be there because in real life it is always there.

I don't even know how it works that this most profound metal sound can be left out by our reproduction systems, because it seems such an obvious sound which isn't even high frequency (it's at the frequency of the tone itself, like 90Hz and such). But it is On/Off (for it's net harmonic result) and this is special. Like On/Of from synths won't be reproduced well by the commonly applied filters. The smear (ringing) is too much to have it remained "squared".

 

In the mean time all will sound more lean. So, our fat guitar is not a fat guitar anymore (unless it was fatly processed by the player (footpedal etc.) of course). Now the guitar itself has become a super spatious instrument. Similarly the double bass now is positioned in the sheer left or right speaker (when recorded like that). Try Basie Jam and see whether you can get it there (and mind the plucking again).

In the end it is the accuracy of the tone (string based in this case) which implies a better straight wave (think sine for your comfort) and know that a distorted wave will create LOWER frequencies (because the distortion is a resonance and does not occur as fast as the fundamental). So, lower, more fat if you want, but not the real thing.

 

So, in the far end all is related to accuracy, but this too doesn't tell much to most. It sounds nice as a phenomenon, but what is it ? Well, it starts with the transients and further detailed sound coming from it. Not necessarily "accurate" were it about music reproduction, but a technical thing needed to get there. Being able to follow (and highly related to jitter btw). Now :

As you will know from me, Jud, what comes from the better accuracy is the elimination of standing waves. Envision this as all thinner individual frequency waves which will not soon collide in the room because they are thinner.

 

No way LP is doing that and DSD similarly does not do that (the latter as I hear it, the former because of logic).

 

I must emphasize it again, the playback means itself already makes all incomparable. Believe it or not, but this is reality :

The XXHighEnd software is there to tweak the DAC (any). In its life it always has been like that. Now, I mostly play the more modern ambient music (say beyond 2008) only for testing the transient speed. This is because synthesizers will carry "infinite" transient speed depicted by their players (I have a pile of synths myself). Because this music is like it is, their "songs" are not much songs but merely is a sequence of sounds which for many of them can't be remembered in memory well. Still, when you play a track one month later than before, you will recognize that you played it before, obviously. Now, my "Nice Stuff" Gallery consists of some 250 albums (only) and it is there to compare when I applied changes to the sofwtare. Or to the PC, which also is important. And here is the thing : with amost each perceivedbly small change I do not recognize that I played such an album or track a previous time for the life of me. This, while I play from those 250 almost exclusively and each day for 2-5 hours. Each day.

 

What does the latter tell ? Well, that we, here at CA, try to make clear to eachother how DSD sounds vs. PCM etc., but that already small software tweaks *should* change your mind for each new setting you tweaked in (which you should be able to in the first place). And my serious opinion ? this is way more important than the formats - up to making a format suddenly excel over the other.

And one other thing (which is NOS1 related) : I changed footers under my DAC and while for the better in general I now perceive a sort of Chine Cymbals flavor all over over albums. So, I changed footers and suddenly the cymbals change to Chine Cymbals (these are the (on purpose) ugly sounding cymbals a drummer may use now and then). Or Windows 8 which makes all cymbals sound too small (too less color in them).

 

So you see ? in the end we can't compare at all. I still try though, but maybe I can because I am doing this for the most part of my daily life PLUS I can tweak and test way more than you out there, obviously. And so, when W8 makes the cymbals smaller, footers make them all towards Chine, DSD makes them sound similar. Neither is good, obviously. But please, first use a DAC which allows this comparison and this means no flavor creating filter.

 

About the latter, Jud, when I play Hires DSD it can be done without Arc Prediction (and maybe should be done without) but it doesn't make a difference. Were you referring to Redbook DSD based, then the filter still is needed.

 

And about your reference to DVD-A, well what to say in brief in this post ? All I can do is refer to my ever so many times telling exactly the same as you about it : lifeless - and indeed more towards your description. But NOW this is dangerous because here it depends so much on the remastering to 2ch which is so often derived from multichannel and which actually can't be done. This is why I always say that only with 192KHz DVD-A we have a fair chance of a technically good recording - dedicated to 2ch. The best of that could be Ray Brown (the brownish one). Btw, the very best "Hires" I see is Beck - Sea Change (88.2). I know I know ... DSD ... But is it really ? I never can stand more than 4 tracks of Beck. I always blamed him to play the same all over. But listen again - it just sounds the same all over. And no album should.

 

Best regards,

Peter

[Hiro]

Just that all your modern "PCM" ADCs are SDM converters that internally convert SDM to PCM (with crappy algorithms) and all your modern "PCM" DACs are SDM converters that internally convert PCM to SDM (again with crappy algorithms). That's the problem DSD is trying to avoid by having SDM end-to-end...

 

That's precisely the aim of 64x, 128x, 256x DSD.

 

Now, some people may hold the belief that it's "just marketing", but the fact is that it's not.

[Miska]

Well, that we, here at CA, try to make clear to eachother how DSD sounds vs. PCM etc.

 

I don't think it is possible to make any generalization between the two. For both it first primarily depends on how it was sourced. And then it also depends on how it was played back.

 

(neither one is supposed to have any particular "sound")

[Teresa]

In the nude and in the dark.

 

You are correct, excellent memory!

 

Music is both felt and heard. I believe the feeling of music is why live music feels live. In my home I can close the drapes and remove my clothing to intensive the "feeling" effect of music. I won't be able to listen to live music nude unless I move to a nudist colony that has a concert hall. Now that would really be an experience.

 

I like music better with the lights out, it sounds smoother and images better and I have a couple of theories about that, first being in the dark eliminates the sense of sight thus intensifying the sense of hearing. Second with the lights out your eyes can't see your speakers and that is why my soundstage sounds so much wider and deeper with lights out.

[PeterSt]

Now, some people may hold the belief that it's "just marketing", but the fact is that it's not.

 

Fact ? I am not so sure.

 

That's the problem DSD is trying to avoid by having SDM end-to-end...

 

Maybe we shouldn't be repetitive of what has been said so many times already (not in CA only), but at least to me the whole point is about that not much genuine DSD is available and otherwise we can't tell. Oh, there is, but now it was mixed in analog and now we have to judge the merits of *that*. The story is longer of course with Sonoma mixing and such, but still the last quote above (from Miska) is what it whould be all about. Only then we'd have an optimal world. But this -again to me- looks similar to Barry producing nice Hires recordings, while he is quite alone. Say as alone as Cookie M. is, but with the notice that she still mixes in analog. It could be for the better, but I don't think so (apart from that it will sound LP-like again). So I would strive for what Miska said, and this seems to be without real solution (see first sentence in this paragraph).

 

Now, maybe all of the other Direct DSD manufacturers don't understand this well, but when I had to put out a Direct DSD DAC I would do it for "marketing" reasons only. Not the real "marketing" term as such perhaps, but for commercial reasons at least. But I don't, because I think I understand the underlaying problematics (paragraph above).

 

But YMMV. I was there when the first Direct DSD sounds came from speakers to the public (here in the Netherlands) and all I can say is that everybody liked it the best. So, marketing or the attenders (a/w manufacturers) just liked it for the better and went for it.

There was one guy there who walked out because of hurting ears. This was me. And for exactly these reasons I am still struggeling with the whole phenomenon. So my "mareketing" is that I should not provice my -mind you !- existing customers with something that hurt their ears or at least is "worse" than what they are used to and for which I should charge money at the same time. How can I ?

 

Read the above once more and you will see that ALL is relative. Relative to references. References which for me (and my customers) is the real thing. Not that with the least anomalies (which sadly is what most are struggeling with).

 

And might you have been there, then you for sure would have noticed the first very explicit terms of real marketing. I won't say too much about it, but this focuses around the DoP "format" introduced right there. Some here will know that I explicitly didn't do a thing with it only because I refuse to be commercial.

This, btw, does NOT tell (at all) that those out there with the first version of it are doing wrong; Each manufacturer, hardware or software, may try to implement this at best for their environment and reference. But mine does not allow this. Again, think of existing customers like I just told about.

 

And STILL I keep on trying.

Peter

[wisnon]

LoL

 

Maybe I am not getting the HF hurting ears because I use Heil tweeters?

[PeterSt]

I like music better with the lights out, it sounds smoother and images better and I have a couple of theories about that, first being in the dark eliminates the sense of sight thus intensifying the sense of hearing. Second with the lights out your eyes can't see your speakers and that is why my soundstage sounds so much wider and deeper with lights out.

 

Yes, this is funny. So, I perfectly recognize what you mean, and it is the exact reason why I listen with lights on and eyes open. When not, it becomes a headphone experience and (indeed) all sounds better. However :

 

I am not into things letting sound better because of a personal experience. It must physically *be* better. Make it less subjective where possible.

If next people want to listen to my product with eyes closed or whatever, then at least I tried all I can to have it physically correct and not let it depend on wine or drugs etc.

 

So for you this is okay, while for me it would not be allowed. Thus, when taken it to the drugs, how could I tell you to take drugs or otherwise my product will sound wrong to you.

 

Regards,

Peter

 

 

PS: There is a thread about this in CA. IIRC everybody listens with eyes closed and dimmed or lights out. So you are not "strange" regarding this. I am.

[Hiro]

Fact ? I am not so sure.

 

Peter, haven't you recently admitted that when the SDM signal is kept SDM end-to-end it helps with the ringing problem?

 

SDM based DACs ring and once you heard the difference with non-ringing you'd know what this is all about.

Although the principle of DSD is "SDM based" (for the recording part), funnily enough this does NOT ring (or hardly).

[Jud]

Why this W8 story ? because it tells that SQ can't be compared through forums unless done in the specific way we did it on Phasure where also most of the apples can be compared to apples.

 

Yes, exactly. This is one of many reasons I want to find time to install Windows on my MacBook (not that the install will take very long, but cleaning all the unnecessary stuff out to make room will) to hear what XXHE does with the new DAC.

 

Like I said, DSD based recordings sound very spatious. This is a vague description for the -I hope- better properties here :

 

- Music feels coming towards you in a fast back-forth motion. Almost sibilance-like, but in all the frequencies. To me it can come across "processed like" (also knowing that this behavior can easily be mimiced by DSP).

 

Sounds very much like a phase/timing domain problem to me, which ties in to what I was mentioning about a couple of possibilities - that there are phase problems with DSD I am able to listen past and you are more sensitive to; or that what you are hearing with DSD is a result of something like what I hear when I push the pre-ringing slider in iZotope too much toward linear phase behavior.

 

- DSD *does* feel analog; It does to the general sense that -exactly like with LP- it can't go wrong (in the harshness department). Again I refer to Creedende which I play a lot (and mostly all of them in a row once I think about them again), which to me clearly from the old age sound different than non-DSD based from the same era. Again the toms and especially the smooth nice highs. Notice that end-60's - beginning 70s) normally excels in the most dynamic ever recorded through time (what about The Byrds, Syd Barrett - and no I didn't sort out the recording format). What sounds better ? Syd Barrett by miles. It's full of life (the man being almost dead).

What sounds smooth and undisturbing for background music ? Creedence.

 

I have LPs of all these guys (Barrett on Floyd's Relics, which is late enough in his tenure with the band that it's pretty close to being just him, as no one else could really stand to work with him for long by that time), but nothing digital to listen to. However, I do have Pet Sounds on gold CD, 24/192 download and MoFi SACD, and you're right that the DSD sounds less harsh in the vocals than the 24/192 download. (I'm reasonably sure the download and MoFi are from the same very good stereo remaster.) Whether the harshness should be there and the DSD is artificially making it pleasant, I don't know for sure. The harshness doesn't sound right to me, though.

 

- The "lifeless" I talk about is possibly the exact other way around from what I mean to say. So Jud, your story expresses NOT the being full of life I talk about. Yours is the full sound of coherence. Btw now I suddenbly think of it ... Who's Next also sounds like this (is this DSD based for the CD we can obtain ?). The Life you talk about I think is about warmth. Fullness. And that "sibilance" I talked about which causes it IMO.

My lifeless is about the lack of (micro !) dynamics. Do I need to explain ? I don't think so if we only compare to LP. Indeed it is very similar but don't tell me it is very dynamic. It even can't technically.

 

 

Warmth without dynamics is not the same as what I'm hearing, though. That first double chord in Pinball Wizard after the strumming - if the hair on your arms doesn't stand up, your system or the recording is missing something. Nothing fat or warm or background-pleasant about it, for me it's sheer dynamics: You thought this song had started with some excitement with all this frantic strumming, but now let me really kick it off with a bang! It's the huge leap from what wasn't soft to begin with into an all-out assault in a split second. Now this is totally different from microdynamics; I've got to do more listening for that. But I can tell you with the Jordi Savall Brandenburgs, one of the wonderful things about this recording is the fact that the instruments are the same as those that Bach would have used, which don't play as loud as modern instruments. So you can hear there is so much more than point-counterpoint, there are five and six themes all intertwining and harmonizing. To clearly hear this and follow the lines for each individual instrument - for instance in something like the Sixth Concerto, where there are three or four separate themes for different string section instruments alone - you need microdynamics, and I've noticed no problem there with DSD. In fact it's my favored way to listen to these pieces, which I have on CD as well.

 

So do we agree now ? I think we do. Now it is only a matter of what's subjectively best to our ears. Or ?

 

Or let me tell you what can be perceived more outside of LP-Warmth (and power btw) :

 

If we take something like ZZTop this is about fat guitars. The "fat" is about just that and it will resemble that first Pinball Wizard chord. A total full sound. A wall of it. Notice though that the most of this "wall" is about tones which do not come from these guitars in the first place. It is too low keyed. Now, when a sufficient amount of "dynamics" is added, the individual strings come forward and instead of a fat guitar it suddenly becomes a beautiful instrument for its harmonics all over. All distortion guitars do and speed guitars played high key can go in the direct of nice sines. I know, this is stupid to say from an electric guitar, but just beautiful they are. Clapton's too by the way.

 

While the latter is an almost possible phenomenon to share (for a "go listen and you will see"), now take an upright bass. Go to a live concert (or invite Ray Brown to your living room) and notice that each single pluck (when not too softly played) is overwhelmed by the metal sound of the plucking itself (the zzzzing in rough on/off frequency). This is very special because it really needs "something" to bring that forward through loudspeakers. So this is what you can try (take a random recording with a profound double upright bass) and watch for the metal sound. It won't be there, or maybe you may say "hey !" for a couple of times only. It should always be there because in real life it is always there.

I don't even know how it works that this most profound metal sound can be left out by our reproduction systems, because it seems such an obvious sound which isn't even high frequency (it's at the frequency of the tone itself, like 90Hz and such). But it is On/Off (for it's net harmonic result) and this is special. Like On/Of from synths won't be reproduced well by the commonly applied filters. The smear (ringing) is too much to have it remained "squared".

 

In the mean time all will sound more lean. So, our fat guitar is not a fat guitar anymore (unless it was fatly processed by the player (footpedal etc.) of course). Now the guitar itself has become a super spatious instrument. Similarly the double bass now is positioned in the sheer left or right speaker (when recorded like that). Try Basie Jam and see whether you can get it there (and mind the plucking again).

In the end it is the accuracy of the tone (string based in this case) which implies a better straight wave (think sine for your comfort) and know that a distorted wave will create LOWER frequencies (because the distortion is a resonance and does not occur as fast as the fundamental). So, lower, more fat if you want, but not the real thing.

 

So, in the far end all is related to accuracy, but this too doesn't tell much to most. It sounds nice as a phenomenon, but what is it ? Well, it starts with the transients and further detailed sound coming from it. Not necessarily "accurate" were it about music reproduction, but a technical thing needed to get there. Being able to follow (and highly related to jitter btw). Now :

As you will know from me, Jud, what comes from the better accuracy is the elimination of standing waves. Envision this as all thinner individual frequency waves which will not soon collide in the room because they are thinner.

 

No way LP is doing that and DSD similarly does not do that (the latter as I hear it, the former because of logic).

 

 

Well, as I mentioned above, I don't know that what I am hearing is (limited to) the same thing you are describing regarding a "fat" or "warm" sound. I think I am actually getting more substantively from these recordings I like rather than a particular characteristic sound. But I understand what you are describing. The thing about the bass is particularly interesting, and something I want to listen for.

 

I must emphasize it again, the playback means itself already makes all incomparable. Believe it or not, but this is reality :

The XXHighEnd software is there to tweak the DAC (any). In its life it always has been like that. Now, I mostly play the more modern ambient music (say beyond 2008) only for testing the transient speed. This is because synthesizers will carry "infinite" transient speed depicted by their players (I have a pile of synths myself). Because this music is like it is, their "songs" are not much songs but merely is a sequence of sounds which for many of them can't be remembered in memory well. Still, when you play a track one month later than before, you will recognize that you played it before, obviously. Now, my "Nice Stuff" Gallery consists of some 250 albums (only) and it is there to compare when I applied changes to the sofwtare. Or to the PC, which also is important. And here is the thing : with amost each perceivedbly small change I do not recognize that I played such an album or track a previous time for the life of me. This, while I play from those 250 almost exclusively and each day for 2-5 hours. Each day.

 

What does the latter tell ? Well, that we, here at CA, try to make clear to eachother how DSD sounds vs. PCM etc., but that already small software tweaks *should* change your mind for each new setting you tweaked in (which you should be able to in the first place). And my serious opinion ? this is way more important than the formats - up to making a format suddenly excel over the other.

And one other thing (which is NOS1 related) : I changed footers under my DAC and while for the better in general I now perceive a sort of Chine Cymbals flavor all over over albums. So, I changed footers and suddenly the cymbals change to Chine Cymbals (these are the (on purpose) ugly sounding cymbals a drummer may use now and then). Or Windows 8 which makes all cymbals sound too small (too less color in them).

 

So you see ? in the end we can't compare at all. I still try though, but maybe I can because I am doing this for the most part of my daily life PLUS I can tweak and test way more than you out there, obviously. And so, when W8 makes the cymbals smaller, footers make them all towards Chine, DSD makes them sound similar. Neither is good, obviously. But please, first use a DAC which allows this comparison and this means no flavor creating filter.

 

 

Yes, I completely agree here. It constantly amazes me, though I know it intellectually, just how much difference little tweaks can make. That of course is one of the reasons I went for a DAC that can be made non-oversampling by feeding it 8x input.

 

About the latter, Jud, when I play Hires DSD it can be done without Arc Prediction (and maybe should be done without) but it doesn't make a difference. Were you referring to Redbook DSD based, then the filter still is needed.

 

 

That is interesting. No difference? Or no difference in the "sibilance" or phase phenomenon or whatever it is?

 

And about your reference to DVD-A, well what to say in brief in this post ? All I can do is refer to my ever so many times telling exactly the same as you about it : lifeless - and indeed more towards your description. But NOW this is dangerous because here it depends so much on the remastering to 2ch which is so often derived from multichannel and which actually can't be done. This is why I always say that only with 192KHz DVD-A we have a fair chance of a technically good recording - dedicated to 2ch. The best of that could be Ray Brown (the brownish one). Btw, the very best "Hires" I see is Beck - Sea Change (88.2). I know I know ... DSD ... But is it really ? I never can stand more than 4 tracks of Beck. I always blamed him to play the same all over. But listen again - it just sounds the same all over. And no album should.

 

Best regards,

Peter

 

Yes, the remastering is critical. I've certainly heard 24/96 sounding a lot better (the Beatles Love; Wilco's The Whole Love...).

 

I admire your fortitude about listening to Beck. I can only take one track at a time from him, so I don't plan to acquire any recordings, even in the name of research.