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

[wappinghigh]

Enjoy the music. LOL!

[Hiro]

Are you just acting dumb?

 

The point I was making is I can just as easily assume it means upsampled, remastered, brick-walled, etc. just as easily as you chose to assume it means all variables 100% equal.

 

Whatever point you were trying to make, you failed at it miserably.

 

If you're assuming that to Michael Fremer, "well-recored" 192/24 music equals "upsampled, brick-walled, and compressed to death" you're making an idiot of him.

[Miska]

The fact that the DSD sounded better to him could easily be due to the DSD files in question simply being better recordings, and have NOTHING to do with the relative sound of the 2 formats.

 

However, one could conclude that at least DSD is not the limiting factor for sound quality either, although "PCM proponents" are trying to argue that DSD is not good for anything and that PCM clearly outperforms it.

 

My opinion has been that one performance limiting factor of both ADC and DAC has been the DSP section. Since DSD is closest to bypass of those sections, it is one way to lift some of the limitations.

 

So what if DSD difficult format for mixing and mastering? They do it as work and get paid for it, so they should be the ones going over all the hoops. And in any case, it's all done once and that's it. But all the people who listen the content should get very good performance from very reasonably priced hardware, so the playback hardware reproducing the content shouldn't have to go through all the hoops every time.

 

RedBook was very easy format for record companies, but it took 30 years to get the playback performance at reasonable level and it takes enourmous amount of DSP power to do it. New content formats should simplify the playback end and move as much complexity as possible to the production stage. Hires PCM is definitely not that thing, because it just increases DSP demands at the playback side. DSD may be it.

 

Or maybe 8-bit unary coded (9-level) delta-sigma at 5.6 - 24.576 MHz as I proposed earlier. This is what I'm going for anyway.

 

Meanwhile, IMO, DSD is a good way to go. Or if you prefer PCM, then DXD.

[rennq]

Whatever point you were trying to make, you failed at it miserably.

 

If you're assuming that to Michael Fremer, "well-recored" 192/24 music equals "upsampled, brick-walled, and compressed to death" you're making an idiot of him.

 

Your comprehension skills are abysmal. I thought a little exaggeration might help you to get the point, but you still had trouble with it.

 

Who's the idiot? You assumed "well-recorded" meant all files, and all other variables, were exactly the same.

 

BTW, firedog got it right away without any additional explanation. Why didn't you?

[Hiro]

Your comprehension skills are abysmal. I thought a little exaggeration might help you to get the point, but you still had trouble with it.

 

Who's the idiot? You assumed "well-recorded" meant all files, and all other variables, were exactly the same.

 

You assumed that I assumed something. And failed again.

[rennq]

You assumed that I assumed something. And failed again.

 

So now you're saying that you knew that all things were not equal? So you admit to understanding that all things were not equal, but made bogus claims anyway with intent to deceive.

[Hiro]

However, one could conclude that at least DSD is not the limiting factor for sound quality either, although "PCM proponents" are trying to argue that DSD is not good for anything and that PCM clearly outperforms it.

 

In that situation I can understand the frustration of "pcm proponents". BTW, take note that the DSD files were sourced from an analog tape, and some PCM proponents out there don't even consider analog tape "real" HD

[mav52]

You really don't know?

 

Same reason we have 3D TV. Industry giants create new buzz word, people think they need it, customers won't buy without it, manufacturers then have to include it, a little time passes it becomes irrelevant, move on to the next buzz… 4K!

 

And my guess is the price premium is for reasons other than DSD capability.

 

Bingo +1

[rennq]

Wonder if this will affect DSD's future.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/business/global/sonys-bread-and-butter-its-not-electronics.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

I saw this story on the news last week.

[Hiro]

So now you're saying that you knew that all things were not equal? So you admit to understanding that all things were not equal, but made bogus claims anyway with intent to deceive.

 

I simply showed an example of a recent listening test comparing modern 192-96/24 recordings to DSD. The hardware used for making both was very likely different, but that was precisely my point. Charles claimed that the advantage of DSD was due to hardware (i.e. the involvement of great engineers in DSD hardware development at the inception of the format).

 

Are PCM manufacturers still failing to catch up in 2013?

 

I understand it was convenient for you to assume the 96/24 files were upsampled, brick-walled, and compressed to death, but that certainly wasn't the case, as Michael Fremer clearly stated in his article that the PCM files were "well-recorded".

[Alex66]

Wonder if this will affect DSD's future.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/business/global/sonys-bread-and-butter-its-not-electronics.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

I saw this story on the news last week.

 

Not a very good article as there are many parts of Sony's manufacturing division that are working quite well such as the imaging sensor division. However rather stupidly they got caught on the hoof with flat screen tv's as they thought people would not go for them over the superior Trinitron tube. If and when they do drop lines it will be some of the lines not all as some do still make money and others are good for promotion items. I think they lose money on DSLR sales but as they sell themselves the sensor it comes out as a wash, but something like the A99 is a good example of look what we can do.

[barrows]

Fast forward to 2013, and this is how Michael Fremer describes the difference between DSD and today's PCM recordings:

 

"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

 

Hiro: I think that you are missing Charles' point here. He has stated clearly thta DSD does have an advantage over much of recorded PCM material. He clearly states that the reason for this is because DSD can be recordeed without the brickwall filter which is currently incorporated into most ADCs. Most "well recorded" PCM is still subject to the artifacts caused by the poorly designed digital filter in the ADC. So, indeed, Fremer may have found DSD to sound superior. Charles is frustrated, because there is no need for DSD to make superior recordings, what is required is 4x PCM, with a well designed digital filter. The fair test here for listening would be a DSD recording and PCM (24/192) made at the same time, with the DSD made through the ADC of ones' choice, and the PCM using Ayre's QA-9.

Charles' point is that it would be better for the recording industry, and the consumer, if DSD was ignored, and instead, PCM ADCs were optomized for best sound (better DF design).

The only thing "magical" about DSD sound, when one gets around the DF issue, is likely the presence of large amounts of HF noise, and how this interacts with the rest of the system. I suspect, that this noise is often (but not always) responsible for the "sweet" "soft" sound of DSD often present in many systems.

[mav52]

Not a very good article as there are many parts of Sony's manufacturing division that are working quite well such as the imaging sensor division. However rather stupidly they got caught on the hoof with flat screen tv's as they thought people would not go for them over the superior Trinitron tube. If and when they do drop lines it will be some of the lines not all as some do still make money and others are good for promotion items. I think they lose money on DSLR sales but as they sell themselves the sensor it comes out as a wash, but something like the A99 is a good example of look what we can do.

 

as a fyi Well here are the actual numbers for sony , pull up the PDF , of course it doesn't detail which segment within say Audio has lost etc.. Sony Global - Sony Group Earnings Releases

 

well your at it pull up apple Apple Inc. - Overview

 

Anyway I think Charles is spot on with his DSD analogy.. Well written Barrows unless Charles is just writing some foolery.

[Hiro]

Charles is frustrated, because there is no need for DSD to make superior recordings, what is required is 4x PCM, with a well designed digital filter. The fair test here for listening would be a DSD recording and PCM (24/192) made at the same time, with the DSD made through the ADC of ones' choice, and the PCM using Ayre's QA-9.

 

Did he at least compare DSD-256 to 4x PCM on his QA-9 before coming up with this sweeping claim?

[Hiro]

No, now 99.99% of the PCM DACs on the market run digital oversampling filters and delta-sigma modulator (bunch of DSP stuff) in hardware to produce data for the actual conversion section. What goes to the conversion section is similar to what DSD is. Same happens in inverse order in 99.99% of current PCM ADC when music is being recorded.

 

Delta sigma runs deep in the DNA of PCM DACs indeed. I recently learned that even Meridian 24/192kHz converters are Delta Sigma DACs. Meridian Audio Director (Preview) | AudioStream

[Miska]

Charles is frustrated, because there is no need for DSD to make superior recordings, what is required is 4x PCM, with a well designed digital filter.

 

It is just not possible to have a good non-brickwall filter at 4x PCM rate. You need to get aliases out of the data so that what ever you input to DF, there are no detectable aliases included. For proper sound, you also need to be able to record all harmonics that the instruments really provide, until they disappear in the background noise.

 

Even if you choose to begin cutting out at 20 kHz, you have only two octaves above before Nyquist. That means the digital filter needs to have at least 72 dB/octave attenuation. That still sounds like a brickwall, doesn't it?

 

While with DSD64 you have six octaves to spare for similar frequency response so 24 dB/octave is enough, that would be a fourth order filter which is completely realizable already in analog domain. But since the noise floor raises as function of frequency, you don't need even that much, because there's no 144 dB SNR anymore at the Nyquist. So second order analog filter is enough...

 

Having a second order digital anti-alias filter for 4x PCM is definitely not enough. And not fourth order either.

 

For DXD, 48 dB/octave is enough which is eight order filter, just within a reasonable analog filter design and on the edge of being tolerable. But you would still have just 20 kHz pass-band, so you would get ringing and be altering properties of output from a 100 kHz mic.

 

The only thing "magical" about DSD sound, when one gets around the DF issue, is likely the presence of large amounts of HF noise, and how this interacts with the rest of the system. I suspect, that this noise is often (but not always) responsible for the "sweet" "soft" sound of DSD often present in many systems.

 

And you don't need to consider similar noise generated by DAC chip's delta-sigma modulator, because you don't see it in digital domain prior to the DAC? Plus all the digital images created by poor oversampling? What you see doesn't exist?

[Miska]

To compare apples to apples, here is digital domain simulation of how output from a typical "flagship DAC" chip delta sigma-modulator output looks like. This is fifth order SAH delta-sigma modulator to 5.6 MHz with dithered 6-bit output. Source is 100 kHz tone using 352.8/32 PCM (output format of such DAC chips' 8x interpolation digital filter).

 

No out of band noise? Drastically different from a DSD? Really?

 

 

 

I can only say ugly...

[mav52]

But can a normal listener hear it

[Miska]

But can a normal listener hear it

 

Not the noise, most of it is removed by combination of the actual D/A section and following analog reconstruction filter stage. Since those digital images are directly correlated to input signal and have higher level, those may cause adverse side effects to the audio band in form of intermodulation products. (intermodulation products of white noise are still white noise, they just increase the base noise floor)

 

Design properties of the modulator affect the sound, it is one source of the DAC's sonic signature. Martin Mallinson also said this in his presentation.

 

In my opinion sonic properties of a DAC originate in following order per domain. Both domains are equally important.

 

Digital:

1) Delta-Sigma modulator

2) Digital up-/oversampling filter

 

Analog:

1) Design of the actual D/A section

2) Analog reconstruction filter

3) I/V section

[firedog]

John Marks Records - Jul Downloads

 

As recommended by Charles, recorded with his ADC. Recorded live in Church built in the 1680's. Simple miking.

 

Sounds really good, and you get a great "feel" of the size of the hall and what it would sound like in there.

 

The download also includes pics of the hall and the mic setup, which is a great addition.

[barrows]

To compare apples to apples, here is digital domain simulation of how output from a typical "flagship DAC" chip delta sigma-modulator output looks like. This is fifth order SAH delta-sigma modulator to 5.6 MHz with dithered 6-bit output. Source is 100 kHz tone using 352.8/32 PCM (output format of such DAC chips' 8x interpolation digital filter).

 

No out of band noise? Drastically different from a DSD? Really?

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7008[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7009[/ATTACH]

 

I can only say ugly...

 

Miska: you continually make this claim, that PCM reproduced by the typical DS DAC these days (and there are still plenty of R2R DACs to choose from if one really wants that option) has the same noise spectrum as DSD. Now this may be true with what you are doing personally (which no one else has access to), but, al it takes is a quick trip over to stereophile.com, and to check the measured noise spectrum of various when DACs when playing back DSD vs PCM. John Atkinson's measurements clearly show the much greater noise content, much closer to the audio band with the same DAC playing DSD vs PCM.

 

This is, of course, for SD DACs, which I admit does cover the majority of them, including my own. But if one really wants it, there are still options for ladder style PCM DACs. Off the top of my head I can think of a few: Naim, Resolution Audio Cantana, Total DAC, MSB, Phasure, Ayon...

[barrows]

But can a normal listener hear it

 

This will depend on the audio system. It will depend on how the other audio components behave when presented with this noise. Some will have problems and produce artifacts within the audio band from this noise.

[barrows]

Miska:

 

"It is just not possible to have a good non-brickwall filter at 4x PCM rate. You need to get aliases out of the data so that what ever you input to DF, there are no detectable aliases included. For proper sound, you also need to be able to record all harmonics that the instruments really provide, until they disappear in the background noise."

 

The above is a matter of opinion. Clearly, your opinion differs from that of Charles Hansen. Nothing wrong with that. But until you produce commercially available products, which win awards, and are greatly respected as outstanding performers, I know who I am going to believe in.

[Miska]

Miska: you continually make this claim, that PCM reproduced by the typical DS DAC these days (and there are still plenty of R2R DACs to choose from if one really wants that option) has the same noise spectrum as DSD. Now this may be true with what you are doing personally (which no one else has access to), but, al it takes is a quick trip over to stereophile.com, and to check the measured noise spectrum of various when DACs when playing back DSD vs PCM. John Atkinson's measurements clearly show the much greater noise content, much closer to the audio band with the same DAC playing DSD vs PCM.

 

There are couple of reasons.

 

I don't know what you are referring to in terms of what I'm doing personally?

 

1) Those DSD measurements are made using DSD64 that runs at 2.8 MHz. PCM DACs commonly use 5.6/6.1 MHz, or 11.2896/12.288 MHz. So the noise is shifted up proportionally same way as for DSD128 and DSD256 that correspond to those frequencies, so it begins 2x or 4x higher. Sabre runs at rate equivalent of DSD1024 and it's D/A stage (analog filter) cuts out most of it's OOB-noise. As it should.

 

2) Design of the D/A section defines where it begins to cut into the noise. Most have been designed for higher frequencies, but TI chips allow four options to reconfigure the conversion section for DSD. CS4398 is optimal at DSD128.

 

3) If you look at measurement results in 4x PCM mode, the frequency response typically starts rolling off quite early vs Nyquist - to suitably cut out the raising noise slope. Shouldn't 4x PCM frequency response go flat to 88.2/96 kHz?

 

Most measurements conveniently stop at 100 kHz or 200 kHz which is too low to actually see what is going on with DACs.

 

There is no magic involved.

1-bit has dynamic range of:

20*log10(2¹) = 6.0206 dB

6-bit has dynamic range of:

20*log10(2⁶) = 36.124 dB

 

So the overall noise level difference is just 30 dB, but at the highest frequencies both hit 0 dB at noise level due to noise shaping.

 

This is, of course, for SD DACs, which I admit does cover the majority of them, including my own. But if one really wants it, there are still options for ladder style PCM DACs. Off the top of my head I can think of a few: Naim, Resolution Audio Cantana, Total DAC, MSB, Phasure, Ayon...

 

The new Naim DAC-V1 is delta-sigma DAC like their CD and network players too.

 

How big market share do you R2R has, if you cover all Blu-ray players, DVD-players, TV's, AVRs...

 

But you can check out my blog posts comparing two early 90's DACs, one is 1-bit 64fs and another one is R2R ladder. With measurements. Ladders DAC's output becomes dirty right above the Nyquist frequency it runs at.

Here is the CS4328 playing back 1 kHz tone, it is 1-bit 64x oversampling 5th order delta-sigma DAC - thus practically it converts 44.1/16 input to DSD. No large OOB noise here? The conversion stage is just optimized for the particular input rate and 22.05 kHz audio band.

 

Here is wideband spectrum of CS4398 playing back dithered digital silence at 192/24 PCM, measured from DAC's analog outputs (includes analog reconstruction filters). You can see the familiar noise bump. Internally it runs at 6.1 MHz here.

 

Here is DXD frequency sweep played back as DSD128 through Sabre DAC:

 

Here is DXD frequency sweep played back as 192/24 PCM through Sabre DAC:

 

Huge difference in out of band noise?

[Miska]

The above is a matter of opinion. Clearly, your opinion differs from that of Charles Hansen. Nothing wrong with that. But until you produce commercially available products, which win awards, and are greatly respected as outstanding performers, I know who I am going to believe in.

 

Well, I don't see that matching the QA-9 either. Maybe I'll get one for evaluation and post some measurement results. But I wasn't at all impressed on the Stereophile measurement results either.

 

I don't do hardware, I do software. So if your opinion depends on hardware solutions, then I guess I cannot affect it.

 

I have my own opinions and I like to discuss technical views, but I'm not trying to compete about "awards" and other such BS I'm not interested in first place. I like to stay purely technical.