World’s First Valid Comparison of PCM versus DSD?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - Charles Hansen of Ayre Acoustics has published an interesting article about PCM and DSD, including sample tracks for evaluation. I'm posting this for discussion purposes only. Charles' opinion is his only and doesn't necessarily reflect my opinion about this matter. With permission of Ayre I have uploaded the sample files to CA's servers that are mirrored around the globe for expedited downloading. Below is a snippet of the article followed by a link to the complete article and the downloadable files.

 

 

World’s First Valid Comparison of PCM versus DSD

 

Recently the introduction of computers into home audio playback systems has made possible an unforeseen occurrence — the reintroduction of DSD, the modulation scheme used in Sony’s failed format of SACD from the turn of the century.

 

At the end of the 1990s as the CD patents were expiring, so was a huge revenue stream for Sony and Philips, developers of the Compact Disc format. Anxious to replace the CD with another exclusive format that would also generate licensing income, Sony and Philips tried again with the Super Audio Compact Disc or SACD. In the meantime, none of he other hardware manufacturers were having any of it. They all saw the explosive growth of DVD as the wave of the future and wanted to base any new format on DVD. Thus began one of the most bizarre chapters in the history of audio formats.

 

Complete article link ...

 

 

Downloadable files for comparison.

 

Ella Fitzgerald "Black Coffee"

Let No Man Write My Epitaph

(Verve - Classic Records Reissue)

 

PCM Version | DSD Version

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosby, Stills, and Nash "Helplessly Hoping"

(Atlantic - Classic Records Reissue)

 

PCM Version | DSD Version

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beethoven "Symphony No.7"

Otto Klemperer

(Decca - HiQ Records Supercuts)

 

PCM Version | DSD Version

 

[astrotoy]

Thanks Chris and Charles,

 

Just downloaded the files. I'll try them out on my new e28. Larry

[Miska]

Anxious to replace the CD with another exclusive format that would also generate licensing income, Sony and Philips tried again with the Super Audio Compact Disc or SACD.

 

I would much prefer if this kind of misinformation wouldn't be spread, or at least some proof of such would be shown. I have seen this repeated many times, but no verifiable source have been cited. Even if they would, DSD is unrelated to that and then it would have been just SACD itself. So for me, this goes to "fear mongering" / "FUD" category.

 

Obviously engineers designing SACD were much more competent than the ones designing DVD, because DVD protections were broken in no time, while SACD protections have not been broken to the date and only a design mistake in PlayStation 3 has led to relatively easy way for ripping SACD. It was kind of hilarious that it was Sony's own mistake and not any of the licensee's...

 

Other than that, anybody can make their own similar comparisons for example using Korg MR-2000 or TASCAM DA-3000.

[Synfreak]

Comparing Vinyl "rips"?

 

And,while we are at it: with most DACs out there, there will be a quite huge level mismatch between DSD and PCM data.

Just be sure you take care and match the levels before doing any comparisons ;-)

[Miska]

At least DSD download is twice as fast due to half of the file size compared to PCM...

[Miska]

Some spectrograms for the first track. There are some level differences between the two tracks, but I normalized both to 0 dBFS peak. I would like to know where the spurious tones and noise ripples between 16 and 32 kHz come from.

 

DSD:

 

DSD with alternative noise filter:

 

PCM:

[new_media]

I would much prefer if this kind of misinformation wouldn't be spread, or at least some proof of such would be shown. I have seen this repeated many times, but no verifiable source have been cited. Even if they would, DSD is unrelated to that and then it would have been just SACD itself. So for me, this goes to "fear mongering" / "FUD" category.

 

Well maybe just more rumor mongering from me because I have no evidence, but a friend of mine who worked in the industry (now retired) has told me that Sony was never really that vested in developing SACD as a consumer format. According to him, they were primarily interested in developing DSD for professional recording and the consumer SACD project was just a way to offset some of the R&D cost. Grains of salt all around, of course.

[Miska]

Black Coffee track sounds better to me in DSD. PCM sounds like there's a sock on the microphone but still some digitus in the treble. This when played as-is (without processing).

[lazy]

 

"Anxious to replace the CD with another exclusive format that would also generate licensing income, Sony and Philips tried again with the Super Audio Compact Disc or SACD."

 

I would much prefer if this kind of misinformation wouldn't be spread, or at least some proof of such would be shown. I have seen this repeated many times, but no verifiable source have been cited. Even if they would, DSD is unrelated to that and then it would have been just SACD itself. So for me, this goes to "fear mongering" / "FUD" category.

 

What exactly are you disputing? That the CD patents were expiring? That Sony/Phillips were behind SACD? That they marketed SACD as better than CDDA? That they required licensing fees for its use? That DSD is the underlying tech behind SACD? All of that is in the realm of "common knowlege" and you are welcome to google all of the above. I think you need to provide credible specific evidence to the contrary at this point.

 

The most insightful links I've found on DSD vs PCM are:

 

John Siau: Benchmark Audio Guru | Real HD-Audio

Benchmark’s John Siau Responds | Real HD-Audio

Mono and Stereo High-End Audio Magazine: INTERVIEW WITH BOB KATZ

[The Computer Audiophile]

It's obvious this thread is off to an interesting start. I figured there would be some heated discussion. That's totally cool with me as long as it's respectful.

 

Let's not get too far off topic. Threads that stay on topic tend to remain civil.

[Miska]

What exactly are you disputing?

 

The part I quoted, that SACD was created just to generate more licensing revenue.

 

All of that is in the realm of "common knowlege" and you are welcome to google all of the above. I think you need to provide credible specific evidence to the contrary at this point.

 

Regardless how much I Google I have not seen a public statement by Sony and/or Philips stating that their main motivation for creating SACD was to just generate more licensing revenue. Or even any convincing proof. I've seen lot of repeated rumors and opinions. But not much facts. Repeating a rumor doesn't make it true.

 

If you want to see where lot of licensing revenue is generated it is in PCM area in all kinds of audio codecs, most notably MP3 and AAC.

 

The most insightful links I've found on DSD vs PCM are:

 

John Siau: Benchmark Audio Guru | Real HD-Audio

Benchmark’s John Siau Responds | Real HD-Audio

Mono and Stereo High-End Audio Magazine: INTERVIEW WITH BOB KATZ

 

Where is the "insight" there? I can see opinions of two human beings. And what makes these any authority regarding what Sony or Philips had as a motive? Or as authority on anything else for that matter?

[alfe]

The part I quoted, that SACD was created just to generate more licensing revenue.

 

 

 

Regardless how much I Google I have not seen a public statement by Sony and/or Philips stating that their main motivation for creating SACD was to just generate more licensing revenue. Or even any convincing proof. I've seen lot of repeated rumors and opinions. But not much facts. Repeating a rumor doesn't make it true.

 

If you want to see where lot of licensing revenue is generated it is in PCM area in all kinds of audio codecs, most notably MP3 and AAC.

 

 

 

Where is the "insight" there? I can see opinions of two human beings. And what makes these any authority regarding what Sony or Philips had as a motive? Or as authority on anything else for that matter?

 

Sorry Miska I worked as design engineer of replication and mastering line with both company and SACD was mainly designed to keep the patent cash cow alive.

[esldude]

I wonder how long between these recordings they waited? Playing a track on LP and immediately playing again according to some can temporarily alter the shape of the grooves.

[esldude]

Some spectrograms for the first track. There are some level differences between the two tracks, but I normalized both to 0 dBFS peak. I would like to know where the spurious tones and noise ripples between 16 and 32 kHz come from.

 

 

So how large were the level differences, and which is louder? If the difference is much it is far from a valid comparison.

[Jud]

Sorry Miska I worked as design engineer of replication and mastering line with both company and SACD was mainly designed to keep the patent cash cow alive.

 

I actually wonder what relevance that has to the sound in any case. Darwin published Origin of Species because he heard Alfred Russel Wallace was ready to publish articles describing the process of natural selection. Didn't make Origin less valid scientifically. If Sony wanted to come up with a difficult-to-pirate digital music carrier because the CD patents were running out, that doesn't in itself make the DSD format any better or worse musically. It is what it is, and it should be evaluated on its sonic merits or lack thereof.

 

Something that ought to be included in the discussion that I never see Charles Hansen raise (though he is a tremendous audio engineer) is how the chips in most consumer DACs handle PCM versus DSD. For my particular DAC, DSD skips two processing steps that PCM goes through: (1) Oversampling to 8x rates (352.8/384kHz; I do this in software rather than in the DAC chip, but it must be done in one or the other for PCM); and (2) Delta-sigma modulation (DSD is already delta-sigma modulated). Usually, less processing has a bearing on better sound.

[NOMBEDES]

[quote=Miska;280973

 

(Edit)

 

Regardless how much I Google I have not seen a public statement by Sony and/or Philips stating that their main motivation for creating SACD was to just generate more licensing revenue. Or even any convincing proof. I've seen lot of repeated rumors and opinions. But not much facts. Repeating a rumor doesn't make it true.

 

 

Both companies are in business to make money. If they can make money by building a better product, they will build a better product. If they can make money building crap, they will build crap. If they can make money by extending a revenue stream, they will attempt to extend it.

 

 

Why was no one able to hack the SACD like they hacked the DVD?

[PopPop]

I wonder how long between these recordings they waited? Playing a track on LP and immediately playing again according to some can temporarily alter the shape of the grooves.

 

This: from another forum. I can PM you the link if you like. Doing so here seems inappropriate. In the end, it's subjective.

 

 

 

• The Japanese audio press has noted years ago that a certain amount of physical deformation of the LP groove is necessary for proper sound during playback. And I've confirmed as much with the engineers responsible for the King Super Analog LP series.Not only is an LP groove cut with a stylus under pressure, it is also intended to be played with a stylus under pressure, and it is mastered by the cutting engineers so that it sounds the best when deformed by the pressure of a physical stylus. Test lacquers and test pressings are made, played back, and if the resulting sound suggests that adjustments should be made to the cutting setup, this will be done. Basically, the engineer will make adjustments to the cutting setup until he gets a sound that he subjectively feels is the best that he can accomplish. From beginning to end, the playback and checking of lacquers and test LPs is done by a cartridge with a physical stylus, and the engineer takes the pressure-induced groove deformation into account. In fact, some engineers play the test pressing back once without listening to it seriously, play it back a second time in immediate succession, and base their judgement on the sound of the second playback. In other words, they are adjusting the cutting setup so that the LP will sound the best when the groove has undergone two accumulated physical deformations.
  
  
  Now if the mastering engineers would check the test lacquers and pressings with an optical playback system so that physical groove deformation was never an issue during the mastering and cutting process, then yes, something like the ELP would be the proper way to listen to LPs. But as it stands, trying to apply a non-pressure playback system (ELP) to a product that is made to be played with pressure applied (LP) is misguided, AFAICT.
  
  

  
  

[alfe]

I actually wonder what relevance that has to the sound in any case. Darwin published Origin of Species because he heard Alfred Russel Wallace was ready to publish articles describing the process of natural selection. Didn't make Origin less valid scientifically. If Sony wanted to come up with a difficult-to-pirate digital music carrier because the CD patents were running out, that doesn't in itself make the DSD format any better or worse musically. It is what it is, and it should be evaluated on its sonic merits or lack thereof.

 

No relevance but keep in mind that the SACD design was focused on a difficult to pirate product.

[Jud]

No relevance but keep in mind that the SACD design was focused on a difficult to pirate product.

 

Right alfe - we would have to look for any indication the DSD format "riding on top of" the SACD system suffered from this focus.

[new_media]

Why was no one able to hack the SACD like they hacked the DVD?

 

Mostly the lack of PC drives than can read a SACD, I would guess.

[Jud]

Why was no one able to hack the SACD like they hacked the DVD?

 

As the Hansen article indicates, because there was a physical aspect to the encoding that one would need particular hardware to read.

[alfe]

Mostly the lack of PC drives than can read a SACD, I would guess.

 

Not really, SACD is using PSP circuit (pit signal processing) not easy to hack.

[NOMBEDES]

As the Hansen article indicates, because there was a physical aspect to the encoding that one would need particular hardware to read.

 

 

Thanks. I missed that aspect.

[alfe]

As the Hansen article indicates, because there was a physical aspect to the encoding that one would need particular hardware to read.

 

PSP is controlling the pit depth that's the physical aspect

[Jud]

So, the state of the art comparison is based on material recorded a half century ago?

 

They are correct that DSD was designed to be the follow on to standard CD. Given it pretty effectively stops copying, if it was worth the effort, the record companies would have adopted it in droves without any alleged sonic improvements. They didn't.

 

The record companies would have adopted it in droves if they wanted to pay Sony's licensing fees and were confident they could sell recordings based on the resulting price structure. They didn't and they weren't.