kumakuma Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 No many are sourced from analog tape Really? The page I linked to says: "NativeDSD offers only DSD Edit Masters, sourced from DSD session recordings" Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
Blizzard Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Really? The page I linked to says: "NativeDSD offers only DSD Edit Masters, sourced from DSD session recordings" If you look closer you'll find Sourced from DSD Masters or Analog Tape. Never PCM sourced. Also check out the tech specs of each individual album. Most of the quad DSD, and all of the Yarlung records stuff is from Analog tapes Link to comment
Blizzard Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 A few months ago, a music reviewer friend brought over a set of 5-minute samples which were purported to be a remastering from analog done 4 ways: 1x DSD 2x DSD 192K PCM DXD= 352k PCM The analog master tape was Cantate Domino from the Proprius catalog, a justifiably very famous analog recording from somewhere in the 70's or 80's. We listened to each remastering carefully several times through my E28 XLR/femto via USB. JRiver was the player, Martin Logan Prodigies were the speakers via a Spectron Musician III Class D amp. The most striking thing was how almost totally indistinguishable they were from one another. We felt there might have been a slight, and I mean very slight, touch of greater smoothness and transparency from the 2x DSD. But, it took very careful listening to discern that. Neither of us was confident that our slight preference would stand up to an unsighted blind or double blind test. Later, I played the 1x DSD in my normal playback mode, which is on the fly conversion to 88k PCM, bass management xovers to my sub at 60 Hz and Dirac Live room correction. That was to us the clear winner sonically, easily exceeding and distinguishing itself positively from the 4 unprocessed originals. Some of the reasons for that are, I am sure, obvious. I am sure that discussion, caveats or disagreement with this could rage on for pages. But, those are the honest anecdotal reactions from our listening that night. I do not think the matter is closed for all time based on this. But, for now, it seems to confirm that my normal listening mode and signal processing may be optimal to my ears in my system for now vs. purer or higher rez source material. Yes DSP\room correction has it's advantages. Trick is to try to take advantage of both. The system I'm working on now will take advantage of both native DSD or PCM sources without lossy on the fly sound degrading conversion, and also take advantage of 64 bit floating point DSP for the active crossovers/room correction. I like to have my cake and eat it too! Link to comment
Blizzard Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Blizzard, thanks for your advice. I'll definitely check those versions out. no problem! Link to comment
Blizzard Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Another PCM vs DSD comparison that is similar to the Cat Stevens one is the Norah Jones boxset (especially 2nd and 3rd album) done a couple years ago. Again, they are not perfect in that they are completely different masterings (like Tillerman) but close enough. The 24/192's were done by Greg Calibi and the DSD transfers by Kevin Gray. If you want the ultimate comparison, go get the Massimo Gon Liszt piano recording. A two disc SACD/DVD-A that was recorded simultaneously. However, it's purely a solo piano. At the end of the day the quality of the A/D converter is extremely important as well. The same master tape converted to PCM with a high end A/D like the MSB, is likely going to sound better than DSD from the same tape using a low end DSD capable A/D. There's many variables that need to be weighed. But with the E22, you can take advantage of both and decide for yourself. Link to comment
esimms86 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 How about "Impromptu " available from Sound Liaison? Simultaneously recorded in PCM and DSD? Link to comment
Audio_ELF Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Upsampling PCM to DSD is a lossy process. I would suggest that a better statement would be that "Converting PCM to DSD is an irreversible process". Eloise --- ...in my opinion / experience... While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing. And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism. keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out. Link to comment
kumakuma Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 If you look closer you'll find Sourced from DSD Masters or Analog Tape. Never PCM sourced. Also check out the tech specs of each individual album. Most of the quad DSD, and all of the Yarlung records stuff is from Analog tapes Thanks for digging into this. It appears that their definition of "native" is quite inclusive. Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
bmoura Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Another PCM vs DSD comparison that is similar to the Cat Stevens one is the Norah Jones boxset (especially 2nd and 3rd album) done a couple years ago. Again, they are not perfect in that they are completely different masterings (like Tillerman) but close enough. The 24/192's were done by Greg Calibi and the DSD transfers by Kevin Gray. If you want the ultimate comparison, go get the Massimo Gon Liszt piano recording. A two disc SACD/DVD-A that was recorded simultaneously. However, it's purely a solo piano. The Norah Jones albums are somewhat tricky since there is conflicting information whether these were analog or PCM recordings to start with. Link to comment
Blizzard Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I would suggest that a better statement would be that "Converting PCM to DSD is an irreversible process". Or I should have said resampling instead of upsampling. Although most people do both. It is reversible but not without loss. Link to comment
Audio_ELF Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Or I should have said resampling instead of upsampling. Although most people do both. It is reversible but not without loss. I was using "irreversible" in its mathematical definition. I generally felt "lossy" implied a loss of quality (as in MP3 and AAC lossy codecs) so perhaps a different term was more applicable. PS. Isn't any up sampling lossy in respect that if you upsample 16/44.1 to 24/176.4 then convert back to 16/44.1 the new file will not match the original. Eloise --- ...in my opinion / experience... While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing. And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism. keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out. Link to comment
Blizzard Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I was using "irreversible" in its mathematical definition. I generally felt "lossy" implied a loss of quality (as in MP3 and AAC lossy codecs) so perhaps a different term was more applicable. PS. Isn't any up sampling lossy in respect that if you upsample 16/44.1 to 24/176.4 then convert back to 16/44.1 the new file will not match the original. Your right lossy does mean loss of quality. Parts of the original source are lost forever in a PCM-DSD conversion. And if you convert back to PCM once again, even more parts are lost forever. I'm pretty sure you should end up with the same file if you offline upsample a PCM file, then downsample it back to the same sample rate. Link to comment
Audio_ELF Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I'm pretty sure you should end up with the same file if you offline upsample a PCM file, then downsample it back to the same sample rate. I think you are incorrect here... I'm not saying it would be noticeably different, but each conversion will increase entropy... After thousands of conversions this would be noticed at playback (iirc). Eloise --- ...in my opinion / experience... While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing. And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism. keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out. Link to comment
Jud Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 True, but you are at least comparing how your exaSound handles a 24/192 source vs DSD64 one. It IS worthwhile. Yes, agreed. It is very worthwhile because it lets you know a lot about how these sound in your system. (But very little about the general question of which format is better. I'm not sure that's even a useful question.) One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
ted_b Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 The Norah Jones albums are somewhat tricky since there is conflicting information whether these were analog or PCM recordings to start with. Agreed, but I think Greg and Kevin are starting with the same analog tapes...wherever they came from. "We're all bozos on this bus"....F.T. My JRIver tutorial videos Actual JRIver tutorial MP4 video links My eleven yr old SACD Ripping Guide for PS3 (needs updating but still works) US Technical Advisor, NativeDSD.com Link to comment
Jud Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I think you are incorrect here... I'm not saying it would be noticeably different, but each conversion will increase entropy... After thousands of conversions this would be noticed at playback (iirc). You're correct Eloise, but I doubt it would take a large number of conversions to be noticeable, due to unavoidable imperfections in each iteration. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Jud Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I would suggest that a better statement would be that "Converting PCM to DSD is an irreversible process". "Lossy," referring to conversions, in fact precisely means irreversible, but I agree the precise mathematical term is likely to be taken as pejorative by those unaware of this. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Blizzard Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Agreed, but I think Greg and Kevin are starting with the same analog tapes...wherever they came from. Are sure that the original recordings were done with pure analog equipment and recorded on analog tape? Link to comment
Blizzard Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I think you are incorrect here... I'm not saying it would be noticeably different, but each conversion will increase entropy... After thousands of conversions this would be noticed at playback (iirc). There would be no point to do such a thing anyways. Unless your on a mission to try to degrade the file. I think there's easier ways to do that. Such as converting a perfectly good PCM file to DSD. Link to comment
Jud Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 There would be no point to do such a thing anyways. Unless your on a mission to try to degrade the file. I think there's easier ways to do that. Such as converting a perfectly good PCM file to DSD. You aren't thinking about what happens in the playback chain. The question isn't whether to convert to DSD, since your DAC would do that internally to any PCM file it's fed. The question is where you want to do the conversion: In studio equipment; dedicated software; or a chip running a less sophisticated algorithm than is available in dedicated software. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
ted_b Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Are sure that the original recordings were done with pure analog equipment and recorded on analog tape? No, that's exactly why I said "wherever they came from". The point is that they are working with the same baseline. "We're all bozos on this bus"....F.T. My JRIver tutorial videos Actual JRIver tutorial MP4 video links My eleven yr old SACD Ripping Guide for PS3 (needs updating but still works) US Technical Advisor, NativeDSD.com Link to comment
Blizzard Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 You aren't thinking about what happens in the playback chain. The question isn't whether to convert to DSD, since your DAC would do that internally to any PCM file it's fed. The question is where you want to do the conversion: In studio equipment; dedicated software; or a chip running a less sophisticated algorithm than is available in dedicated software. This is where the grey area lies. Who has the best algorithm, and if you have the best algorithm, where's the best place to apply it? This topic came up a couple weeks ago when the designer of the Sabre chip came over for coffee. (He happens to live down the road from me. I'm not going to mention names on a public forum) I brought up the topic of software claiming to be better at applying this algorithm than his chip. I asked him if the best algorithm theoretically possible was invented, where would the best place to apply it be? He said by far the #1 place is in the chip. If designed into the chip, the chip can do it much better than anywhere else. #2 would be inside a FPGA. #3 would be on a computer. He also explained that there's much more going on in that chip than most people understand. Long story short the final word was it couldn't be done better than his implementation in his chip, if his chip was part of the playback chain. When designing DAC chip's, the #1 goal needs to be preserving the original source material in the most linear way possible. The result of this doesn't necessarily mean the most enjoyable listening experience possible, because if the source happens to be poor quality, the end result will be poor quality. This is where these software based algorithms can differ. They can be designed to sprinkle a bit of fairy dust on the music. This is the reason that some might find these algorithms superior. Now if using these software algorithms brings you a more enjoyable listening experience, then that's great, use the software and enjoy it. But keep in mind that if the same algorithm was being applied in the chip, it would be able to do a better job. Link to comment
Blizzard Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 No, that's exactly why I said "wherever they came from". The point is that they are working with the same baseline. If the source masters were PCM, then they would have had to go through a lossy DSD conversion for the DSD versions. So wouldn't be a fair comparison. Only way for a fair comparison is if source was analog tape. Link to comment
ted_b Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 If the source masters were PCM, then they would have had to go through a lossy DSD conversion for the DSD versions. So wouldn't be a fair comparison. Only way for a fair comparison is if source was analog tape. They were! The provenance of those tapes is what is at question. "We're all bozos on this bus"....F.T. My JRIver tutorial videos Actual JRIver tutorial MP4 video links My eleven yr old SACD Ripping Guide for PS3 (needs updating but still works) US Technical Advisor, NativeDSD.com Link to comment
Blizzard Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 If the source masters were PCM, then they would have had to go through a lossy DSD conversion for the DSD versions. So wouldn't be a fair comparison. Only way for a fair comparison is if source was analog tape. I did a bit of research. The first album was recorded on Analog tape. The rest were recorded in PCM. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now