Jump to content
IGNORED

ANOTHER Example of Why I HATE DSD and Why Customers Who Bought Sony's Boloney Are So Annoying


Recommended Posts

Charles, you have just guaranteed I will never consider one of your products.

 

???

 

IMO this post is a personal attack and not needed or relevant to the topic at hand.

 

I agree, but I also don't think it was directed at any one person specifically. We are each allowed to have our own opinions, we should not be attacking each other for having them.

 

No we don't want that, I agree. I also think we have control over whether or not we are offended.
Link to post
Share on other sites
SORRY EVERYBODY!

 

 

6 He had had built up in his head a world where every part of his system would be as close to perfection as humanly possible. When reality hit him smack between the eyes, he literally lost it and didn't know who to blame.

 

7) My original point was that the blame should be pointed directly at Sony, as they are they ones who built up at least half of the myths that this guy was operating under.

 

The moral of the story is like that old US TV commercial for some kind of fake "butter" where "Mother Nature" came down from the heavens and scolded the people saying, "It's NOT NICE to foll Mother Nature!"

 

 

I thought it was pretty funny. Didn't mean to cause trouble, but it seems that everyone took it in the right spirit for the most part. Thanks for listening!

 

 

As a lurker trying to understand, I'm not even close to the consumer that ecwl so accurately describes on the first page of this thread. I made a mistake of understanding what DoP is so I smoked some dope instead. So now I'm a dOpe who could care less about what DoP is because I just want to hit the on switch and maybe get around to washing that LP this time.

 

I DO understand the Gong Show (currently a Sony franchise) and the consequences of fooling Mother Nature. Those days when humor trumped the scourge of the modern Male, being correct!

 

Sony beguiled us with the first transistor radio that actually fit in a shirt pocket (mine is now relegated to the Baseball season only). The Trinitron television that provided good skin tone color without constant adjustment. And lets not forget the technology that put the incompatibility handwriting on the wall, BetaMax.

 

Fast forward and here we are. Blatant lying has transcended the political arena into commerce and daily life fooling Mother Nature and your dUped customer, Mr. Correct. I'm almost glad I'm still a dOp if it weren't for these four DSD discs I can't listen to not to mention what Sony is threatening to do with their only sensible asset, their music library.

 

I swear, if I have to purchase a Windows PC to enjoy DSD I might as well drop one of those last hits of Stanley's Blue Sky I've been holding onto all these years or just let it go at that.

 

I'm listening on gear that you and your circle of contemporaries have touched. So if you put on a Chuck Barris hat I ain't calling you a Hipster, you rant on...

Link to post
Share on other sites
quote_icon.png Originally Posted by AudioDoctor viewpost-right.png

Charles, you have just guaranteed I will never consider one of your products.

 

 

quote_icon.png Originally Posted by AudioDoctor viewpost-right.png

IMO this post is a personal attack and not needed or relevant to the topic at hand.

 

quote_icon.png Originally Posted by AudioDoctor viewpost-right.png

I agree, but I also don't think it was directed at any one person specifically. We are each allowed to have our own opinions, we should not be attacking each other for having them.

 

quote_icon.png Originally Posted by AudioDoctor viewpost-right.png

No we don't want that, I agree. I also think we have control over whether or not we are offended.

 

???

 

Your point?

 

 

The points should be self explanatory.

 

Take it as constructive criticism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...

DSD, recalling a couple of engineers,

:

« Ironically most reasonably priced PCM players actually use DAC chips that utilize a sigma-delta modulator to get a DSD-like signal anyway. Similarly most A/Ds are sigma-delta based. »

Secondly :

I will elucidate my position in one place so that people won't have to hunt through pages and pages of threads.

 

1) The only reason the DSD exists at all is because the patents for CD were expiring. This had been a HUGE bonanza for Sony and Phiips as the royalty per CD was onl $0.07, yet it added up to $1 BILLION per year. The costs of inventing the scheme had been written off decades earlier so this represented a massive profit center for Sony. They did NOT want to lose this profit.

 

2) At the same time, every other manufacturer was SICK of Sony/Philip making so much money while they received nothing. When the DVD standard was finalized, almost all of the major manufacturers owned some patents that were critical to the DVD concept, so they all wanted the format that replaced CD to be based on DVD, as they felt that the entire distribution of royalties was much more equitable.

 

3) As it turned out, the only viable physical format for a CD replacement was based on the DVD technology, using red laser of much shorter wavelengths than the IR lasers used in CD. So both SACD and DVD-Audio were based on the physical format of DVD. There wasn't enough time to develop anything else.

 

4) So now the two factions lined up against each other. Sony and Philips had the advantage of only having to align two companies, where as the DVD-Audio Working group was a GIANT committee with representatives from over two dozen companies having input.

 

5) Both groups felt that the key selling point for both formats would be multi-channel capability (surround sound) which would easily piggy back on to the booming home theater craze where everyone was purchasing mutli-channel systems.

 

6) There were a few voices (notably Pioneer, pushing for a higher fidelity standard of 96/24, which would give over double the bandwidth of CD.

 

7) Sony played one of their typical dirty tricks when they announced that DSD would play UP TO 100 kHz with a dynamic range of UP TO 120 dB. This is complete and utter bullshit, as the S/N ratio of DSD at 100 kHz is negative. If you look at a reasonable bandwidth of say 20 kHz to 100 kHz, there is MORE NOISE in the DSD system than there is total signal.

 

8) Once Sony raised that red herring, it was difficult to fight against. The DVD committee screwed up royally and decided to fight fake fire with real fire So they made Lossless compression a mandatory feature of DVD-Audio, and in the process lost ALL backwards compatibility with the hundreds of millions of DVD players that were already in use.

 

9) So DVD-Audio was now an orphan that required the customer to purchase a brand-new player for which no software existed. That was one of the turning points where DVD- Audio started to lose the war.

 

10) There were two other factors that greatly contributed to Sony gaining the PERCEPTION that SACD sounded better that DVD Audio:

 

a) They hired Andreas Koch and Ed Meitner to build ALL of the hardware required by the record companies required to make discs with a completely new modulation scheme. In contrast, DVD-Audio was like the old Wild West - no rules whatsoever and anything goes An SACD could not be made without a Sony trained and approved engineer on board the engineering team for making the recording. (99% were simply transfers of old analog classics.) Anybody could make DVD-Audio discs with easily available hardware and extremely low cost (eg, $39) software packages.

 

b) Completely by accident, SACD had a huge sonic advantage because it required no brickwall filter during recording and relatively gentle 3rd order analog filters during playback. At the time, very few people (if any) realized the degree of sonic degradation created by steep brickwall filters.

 

11) So when people started comparing the SACDs against either CD's or DVD-Audio discs. the combination of FAR BETTER hardware, along with FAR BETTER MASTERING, along with the (virtual) elimination of brickwall filters, most people said, "Aha! Sony is right! DSD is a better format than PCM!"

 

12) In the end, both formats flopped for different reasons. DVD-Audios generally required a video display just to navigate the menus. People didn't want to add a video display to their audio system. This was proven when we started shipping our C-5xe "universal" player. It was two channels only, so we lost the ENTIRE multi-channel crowd, but that turned out to be a drop in the bucket. The C-5xe was BY FAR the most successful product we had built up to that time. A consumer could buy it, not care about the "format wars" or who won or who lost -- they could just buy any software they wanted BECAUSE THEY LIKED THE MUSIC and didn't have to pay any attention to how it was recorded. If it was an audio disc, it would play and a video monitor was NOT required. We sold thousands of those things!

 

13) Eventually both formats died off for a very simple reason. Releasing a disc in EITHER format was a money losing proposition. If you release a disc and it makes money, you say, "Hey we just made $XXX,000! Let's do that again!" But that NEVER happened with either format. So after Sony' bribery money ran out, that was pretty much the end of SACD, and since the DVD-Audio committee was SO STUPID as to require a completely different player than a regular DVD player, it was also doomed to failure.

 

The sad part is that if they had just made DVD-Audio the same as DVD without a video section, we all could have been enjoying 2 channels of 96/24, or 5.1 multi channel all the way up to 48/24. And they would have played in ANY DVD player with (at the very most) a firmware update. But that's what happens when things are run by a committee.

 

14) The story would have ended there except for Gordon Rankin. He had been on parts of the USB committees over the years, and he made sure that USB had the ability to make a good audio data transfer link. So when he released his "Streamlength" asynchronous isochronous USB firmware, all of a sudden any computer made in the last ten years could serve as a transport of higher performance than ANY conventional S/PDIF transport EVER MADE! Ayre was the first licensee, and more people wanted solid state equipment than tubed equipment so we ended up setting a NEW sales record with that product. For 2-1/2 years, the least expensive product we had ever made (excluding accessories) made up over 40% of our revenue stream!

 

15) Now we have to split the story somewhat. First we will look at multi-channel PCM. Whilt it is TRIVIAL to record and make multi-channel PCM files for USB DACs, there is virtually no software available, very few software players that will handle it, and very few USB DACs are made with more than two channels. Essentially it is a solution waiting for a problem to solve. So we will leave that alone, except to say that if one thought it were a viable market, it would be trivially easy to make a 16-channel 192/24 USB playback system. But nobody really cares except a handfull of people that generally just purchase Blu-ray discs of live audio concerts.

 

16) Everything changed for DSD, when in 2006 Sony announced the "DSD Disc". This was essentially an SACD but without the copy protection that made it impossible to play on a computer. I first heard about it in 2008 (I think, I can't remember any more). I was seated next to Gus Skinas, who had been part of the Sony SACD team. His role was to be the liaison between the recording studios and the technical people at Sony who would loan out the hardware required to make an SACD. When he told me about it, I talked to Gordon Ranking about it and we said that it would be trivial to packetize the DSD stream so that it looked like PCM. But then we realized it was a fool's errand because the only source of software was to (illegally in this country) rip an SACD with one of the rare specific models of PlayStation 3s. So we said, "Screw it."

 

When Sony (who is facing HUGE financial troubles and has been for the last ten years) finally gave up on SACD, they gave the rights and all of the designs for the Sonoma Audio Workstation, which is basically the only way to make a modern SACD recording. The Sonoma turns the 64x 1-bit DSD signal into a 64x 8-bit signal, which has 256x the resolution of an SACD. So by turning the DSD signal into a very high speed PCM signal, they can now do things like adjust the volume, fade in or out, add EQ or reverb or compression or any number of things that have become mandatory in this day and age of multi-track recording.

 

The problem is that now Sony has to talk out of both sides of their mouth at once. They painted themselves into a LITTLE TEENSY CORNER because they said that one of the prime advantages of a one-bit system was that was always inherently linear. But when people found out the trught that probably less that 0.001% of all DSD recordings actually were transferred into PCM and then back to DSD, they look pretty damn stupid.

 

17) But there is the inescapable fact that DSD (in general) DOES NOT USE ANY BRICKWALL FILTERS and therefore it is MUCH easleri to get good sounding results from a DSD than from normal PCM. So there aer still a WHOLE bunch of people that (incorrectly) believe that DSD sounds "better" than PCM.

 

Then SOME of these people started record companies selling downloads of DSD recordings because now there is a way to play them on a computer and you DON'T have to worry about the laser burning out or the SPECIAL IRREPLACEABLE CHIP crapping out or any of that traditional problems with SACD.

 

18) But the truth is that there are still some HUGE problems with DSD, especially with regards to out of ban noise, the need to replace ALL of the studio's recording systems, DAW's (Digital Audio Workstation), and everything down the line. Then at the other end, the consumer has to find a disc player or computer DAC AND computer playback software that will handle this completely different modulations scheme.

 

Of course the question becomes WHY?

 

And the typical answer is that "DSD sounds better than PCM". Well, Ive got news for you. It can sound better. And it can sound worse. IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION.

 

19) We have recently introduced a two channel A/D converter that will output both PCM and DSD. But this converter has a few tricks up its sleeves. Specifically we have taken a page from the "What is so great about DSD" manual and applied it to PCM. And it turns out that with quad rate PCM you can get ALL OF THE SONIC ADVANTAGES OF DSD WITH NONE OF THE PRACTICAL DISADVANTAGES.

 

So we are literally on the verger of a whole new era of good sounding recordings. (YOU READ IT HERE FIRST!)

 

Go read John Atkinson's review of the QA-9 on the Stereophile website:

 

Ayre Acoustics QA-9 USB A/D converter | Stereophile.com

 

In it, he says that he ripped his best sounding LPs with the QA-9, and when he compared the copy with the original, he tried "until his ears bled" but could hear NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ANALOG ORIGINAL AND THE DIGITAL COPY.

 

Now this is something of a breakthrough. When the digital is SO GOOD that it is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the analog, we have transcended a barrier.

 

And this is ALL DONE with PURE PCM, which ANY STUDIO IN THE WORLD CAN HANDLE. No new hardware, no new software, no new nothing. Just better sounding music on PCM. And downloading quad rate PCM is trivial as HD Tracks has shown us all.

 

You can hear another original recording of an organ recording at:

 

John Marks Records - Jul Downloads

 

In another month or so we will have 4 downloads available of a purist recording using the QA-9 in quad-rate PCM mode with just two microphones in a nice hall in Berlin of a piano. These will be preludes by Debussy, played absolutely, stunningly beautifully by a soon-to be-famous pianist named Katie Mahan Gorgeous playing and gorgeous sound.

 

20) So the bottom line is NOT that you are an idiot if you like DSD. DSD can sound wonderful. But what I am saying is THERE IS NOTHING MAGIC ABOUT DSD. WE CAN GET ALL OF THE GOOD THINGS ABOUT DSD IN A HIGH SAMPLE RATE PCM RECORDING ALSO!

 

So its more like the difference between tubes and transistors It's hard to make a bad sounding tube amp or preamp. And is DAMNED hard to make a great sounding solid state amp or preamp.

 

Well, we have cracked the nut. There is NO LONGER ANY REASON to get all worked up over DSD. Every time we send out a A/D converter for trial, It never comes back. In another year or two, MANY releases will be made on the QA-9. And many releases will be made on ADCs where the engineers have stolen our ideas and applied them to their products. (Of course the copy is never as good as the original, but that is a different story altogether

 

I hope that clarifies things a bit

 

Best,

 

Nowadays, how well do their (2013-2014) clarifications hold ?

 

«

an accurate picture

Sono pessimista con l'intelligenza,

 

ma ottimista per la volontà.

severe loudspeaker alignment »

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...
On 8/14/2013 at 9:42 AM, edorr said:

I have gone through the following hardware / signal paths for MCH SACD playback:

 

Modded Denon 3910 into McCormack MAP1

Denon 2500 HDMI transport into modded Onkyo 855 SSP (DSD to PCM conversion)

Sony XA 5400 into Onkyo 855 SSP (HDMI DSD Direct)

Marantz UD9004 DSD direct into Theta Six Shooter

Marantz UD9004 DSD direct into Theta Six Shooter, A/D converted into Trinnov processor

Modded Oppo digital out (DSD to PCM conversion) into Trinnov processor

How are you controlling the switching in the Theta Six Shooter?

Kal Rubinson

Music in the Round

Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kal, am I too pessimistic in thinking that  seeking further information from the originator of a post made over 6 years ago in a thread started by someone who sadly passed from us a few years later may be a little optimistic?

 

Still I may be proved wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, PAR said:

Kal, am I too pessimistic in thinking that  seeking further information from the originator of a post made over 6 years ago in a thread started by someone who sadly passed from us a few years later may be a little optimistic?

 

Still I may be proved wrong.

Well, I did meet with the poster about a year ago at RMAF and I also sent him an email.  I hope you are wrong.🤞

Kal Rubinson

Music in the Round

Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LowOrbit said:

Well, sadly, Charles Hansen died in 2017, I believe.

Yes, that is true but I did not refer to the OP (of the thread.)  I did refer to the poster of the message to which I was replying. 

Kal Rubinson

Music in the Round

Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope you succeed, though you might also get Wilhelm posting some more videos.

We will win because our NHS is the beating heart of this country. It is the best of this country. It is unconquerable. It is powered by love.

-- Boris Johnson

 

We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

-- Jo Cox

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/7/2020 at 3:53 PM, Miska said:

 

I play everything as DSD to the DAC which operates with bit-perfect conversion to analog... No matter what is the source.

 

How does your DAC operate?

 

What do you mean by bit-perfect conversion to analog?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lucretius said:

What do you mean by bit-perfect conversion to analog?

 

That the data stream goes directly as-is to the actual D/A conversion section without any intermediate DSP. IOW, that the actual D/A conversion section sees the exact same bits that leave the player.

 

Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer

Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 3/7/2020 at 1:05 PM, Slaphead said:

I mean is DSD really still a thing?

 

Unfortunately, yes.  In a way, it's worse than before as people continue to redefine DSD to give it new life with standards never defined by Sony.

President

Ayre Acoustics, Inc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2020 at 11:55 AM, One and a half said:

DSD has at least some technical lossless advantage as well as multi channel capability.

 So did DVD-A , yet it wasn't enough to make the General Public want it . DSD is likely to remain a niche product and possibly eventually die out as the younger generation in general, doesn't appear to be greatly interested in any more than Audio from a Mobile phone.

 The only thing that appears likely to survive is the Loudness Wars.:$

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...