World’s First Valid Comparison of PCM versus DSD?

[esldude]

I did listening session with my daughter, she is student of two musical school and we both agreed: DSD is better. Even different level of files is not an argument, Ella Fitzgerald sounds better in DSD.

My opinions are like astrotoy and Miska says. That symphony recorded with socks on mic, and I think this is done on original record session - so I don't blame Ayre's products and people's on this.

 

Because technology of both formats is different, we can't obtain exactly same volume level at all, some differences stays. We can only do universal DAC with calibrated amplification for exact matched level.

 

I did PCM conversion to DSD and we listened again. Results are same.

 

Sorry, matching levels is important. Some of us harp over it for good reason. It is very important if your differences are over 6 db. I don't know whether you got closer than that or not in your listening. Socks over a mic is exactly what a level difference might be sound like. PCM was the quieter file. Now it still may or may not sound the same, but unless you get pretty close in level you won't know for sure.

 

I also have a question. When you say you did a PCM to DSD conversion with same results, am I right to assume once converted to DSD the PCM still sounded worse? Also was there still that level difference with PCM in DSD form?

 

Please Maldur, I am not criticizing you as a person. Just pointing out that level matching is important if one wishes to do valid comparisons.

[esldude]

Nolan Ryan won with his arm/legs and badass quiet Texas intimidation. Greg Madux won with his brain and overall versatility. DSD is more like Nolan Ryan and PCM is more like Greg Maddux. :-)

 

Btw, I used to watch Ryan in the Astrodome growing up in the 80s. It was exciting. But Ryan had many losses too. Maddux was more successful in the end.

 

 

Yes, I agree with you Ryan had too many losses. As I was explaining to a soccer fan I didn't get into the nuances of baseball. Ryan had more strikeouts and no hitters. Maddux had a greater winning percentage.

[Allan F]

Yes, I agree with you Ryan had too many losses. As I was explaining to a soccer fan I didn't get into the nuances of baseball. Ryan had more strikeouts and no hitters. Maddux had a greater winning percentage.

 

I think the number of losses and winning percentages had more to do with the teams behind them rather than their comparative effectiveness.

[Le Concombre Masqué]

I did listening session with my daughter, she is student of two musical school and we both agreed: DSD is better. Even different level of files is not an argument, Ella Fitzgerald sounds better in DSD.

My opinions are like astrotoy and Miska says. That symphony recorded with socks on mic, and I think this is done on original record session - so I don't blame Ayre's products and people's on this.

 

Because technology of both formats is different, we can't obtain exactly same volume level at all, some differences stays. We can only do universal DAC with calibrated amplification for exact matched level.

 

I did PCM conversion to DSD and we listened again. Results are same.

not sure of the meaning of your last sentence... I converted an eqed/upsampled pcm file to dsd and it sounded awful (no life, drowned in bass, thick sound...)

[Miska]

Socks over a mic is exactly what a level difference might be sound like.

 

I measured the level difference and compensated for it in the playback. And even by listening I get pretty much the same gain figure needed for the PCM version.

 

Of course, to make sure one can turn volume for the PCM clearly louder than DSD. With 12 dB gain you can be pretty sure PCM is louder than the DSD.

[ar-t]

At least my experience of product development in innovative large organizations is different. Usually the flow goes more like this:

 

1) Team of R&D engineers work hard on something they believe improves technology over the old one

2) A lot of footwork is needed inside the corporation for the R&D team to sell it's idea inside the organization

3) Engineering team may or may not attempt to get the idea patented

4) If (2) is successful, a product development team is set up to productize (1)

5) A marketing team is set up to think how to sell (3 & 4)

 

In my experience (I have not worked for Sony or Philips, so I don't know about those) the R&D engineering team doesn't think about generating licensing revenue. It just doesn't motivate them, they are only motivated by technology and possibility to make something cool and great. And because they truly believe what they are doing is something better.

 

Whatever, dude. I can only surmise that you have never worked for a really, really, really large corporation. I have. Our R&D group was perceived (and rightly so) as being nothing more than the stooges of upper management. Our job was to find a way to justify what upper management wanted to do. Whether it was right or wrong. I say that, as I was part of that group. (Should come as no surprise that I had a way of being contrary and ornery, much to the relief of the other engineering groups.)

[elcorso]

Matching levels could be important, but where I found DSD kills PCM is in dynamic contrast, from 0 Db to >100 Db (depending on the music type, ears and gear).

 

For example when listening a symphony, where you don't know the full musical score and a sudden very high Db peak happens, beware your ears and gear under DSD, because the previous low level music (fully and detailed listenable on DSD) can distract or mislead. It's like in real unamplified live concerts. Not so in PCM.

 

Quieter background from DSD? Of course.

 

Better musicality from DSD? Of course. Listen the piano, violin, cello or human voice.

 

But maybe this belongs to another thread? "A matter of taste". Could be...

 

Just my opinion,

 

Roch

[Maldur]

Sorry, matching levels is important.

---

Just pointing out that level matching is important if one wishes to do valid comparisons.

 

I fully agree with this, 100%. But as former DJ and live sound engineer, I can set the Volume level very easy and relatively fast to subjectively same level during listening session.

I don't have such tools to convert both formats to exact same level, with both native state. As we see, such tools are needed in Ayre's camp too, and they don't have this also.

 

I also have a question. When you say you did a PCM to DSD conversion with same results, am I right to assume once converted to DSD the PCM still sounded worse? Also was there still that level difference with PCM in DSD form?

Answers are respectively: yes and yes (no any +/- gain processing is used).

[Miska]

WI can only surmise that you have never worked for a really, really, really large corporation. I have.

 

OK, if 100,000+ employees is not large enough, then I have not...

[Maldur]

not sure of the meaning of your last sentence... I converted an eqed/upsampled pcm file to dsd and it sounded awful (no life, drowned in bass, thick sound...)

Basically, results are same, DSD sounds well and PCM in native form and converted form... worse. No, it's not day and night difference, but DSD wins clearly.

[ar-t]

I think that Mr Hansen has no other choice than moving to DSD because the only avalaible DAC in the market today are mainely Delta Sigma ones.

It's not Hypocrisy,it's lack of choice.

 

This what a lot of folks seem to be missing. You have to work with what DAC chips are out there. Or, make you own converter.

 

Counter that with you have to convert DSD to PCM, to do any editing. So, on one end, you can not avoid PCM; and on the other, you are able to eliminate it. End result is no one wins. All we end up doing is complaining which method sounds worse. Or easier to implement.

[ar-t]

Nolan Ryan won with his arm/legs and badass quiet Texas intimidation. Greg Madux won with his brain and overall versatility. DSD is more like Nolan Ryan and PCM is more like Greg Maddux. :-)

 

HUH??

 

As a fellow Texan, comparing Nolan Ryan to DSD is an insult. It is a real stretch to say "Well, he threw real fast, and since DSD is a 1-bit operation, working at a higher rate than plain ol' PCM, I can say Nolan is more like DSD." At least that is what I think you are saying.

 

Lawyers...............oy vey...............

[ar-t]

OK, if 100,000+ employees is not large enough, then I have not...

 

OK, let's say you have. Still will not convince me the R&D group sets the direction the corporation moves in. Unless you are living in an alternative universe. As engineers, we may wish that was the case.

 

Just look at how many engineers sit on the Board of Directors of these big corporations. That explains why "we" have no say in those matters.

[junker]

Or convert directly from mastered analog tape to DSD.

 

This what a lot of folks seem to be missing. You have to work with what DAC chips are out there. Or, make you own converter.

 

Counter that with you have to convert DSD to PCM, to do any editing. So, on one end, you can not avoid PCM; and on the other, you are able to eliminate it. End result is no one wins. All we end up doing is complaining which method sounds worse. Or easier to implement.

[Allan F]

This what a lot of folks seem to be missing. You have to work with what DAC chips are out there. Or, make you own converter.

 

Counter that with you have to convert DSD to PCM, to do any editing. So, on one end, you can not avoid PCM; and on the other, you are able to eliminate it. End result is no one wins. All we end up doing is complaining which method sounds worse. Or easier to implement.

 

Can't DSD can be converted to analog for editing rather than PCM? I don't know what the implications are in doing that as opposed to converting to PCM, but Andreas Koch has talked about doing just that in DSD presentations at seminars I have attended.

[astrotoy]

Can't DSD can be converted to analog for editing rather than PCM? I don't know what the implications are in doing that as opposed to converting to PCM, but Andreas Koch has talked about doing just that in DSD presentations at seminars I have attended.

 

I know in the old days, they edited analog with a razor blade. Not much fun. When I do my vinyl rips to 192/24, I use Izotope RX2 to take out the clicks. Not sure how one would do that manually.

 

Larry

[dallasjustice]

It's more like DSD is a one trick pony. It's said to be sublime, but only under very limited circumstances. (In rooms so large EQ won't help or subs, with a single resistor DAC, when the recording was made with a single bit DSD recording, and on and on) When Nolan's fastball was on, he was literally unhitable. But that wasn't very consistent. OTOH, Maddux never needed to rely on one pitch to win. Maddux could even hit and field. How many gold gloves did he win? Maddux could work the plate ump's strike zone like a master as well. Nolan Ryan is best known for his rare no-hitters and highlight reel. Sorry it's the truth. PCM does it all: EQ, delay, cross-over, volume control, wide DR and super extended FR.

 

HUH??

 

As a fellow Texan, comparing Nolan Ryan to DSD is an insult. It is a real stretch to say "Well, he threw real fast, and since DSD is a 1-bit operation, working at a higher rate than plain ol' PCM, I can say Nolan is more like DSD." At least that is what I think you are saying.

 

Lawyers...............oy vey...............

[Allan F]

It's more like DSD is a one trick pony. It's said to be sublime, but only under very limited circumstances.

 

There are no limited circumstances from the point of view of the end user who has a DSD capable DAC. The vast majority of audiophiles aren't making recordings. They just want to listen and enjoy the music. If DSD provides me with the best sound quality, that is what I and most others want. When it comes to enjoyment of the music, the technical arguments are irrelevant.

[esldude]

This what a lot of folks seem to be missing. You have to work with what DAC chips are out there. Or, make you own converter.

 

Counter that with you have to convert DSD to PCM, to do any editing. So, on one end, you can not avoid PCM; and on the other, you are able to eliminate it. End result is no one wins. All we end up doing is complaining which method sounds worse. Or easier to implement.

 

Which brings up something I would like to hear from those that have the ability in their systems. If you convert DSD to PCM does it still sound better or does it now only sound like PCM?

 

Maldur has indicated converted PCM doesn't sound like DSD when converted to DSD. What about the reverse conversion?

[esldude]

I know in the old days, they edited analog with a razor blade. Not much fun. When I do my vinyl rips to 192/24, I use Izotope RX2 to take out the clicks. Not sure how one would do that manually.

 

Larry

 

I have done it manually. It is no fun, but you can get probably the best results that way. It is tedious and time consuming. Only worth doing for the most precious of recordings.

[Le Concombre Masqué]

Which brings up something I would like to hear from those that have the ability in their systems. If you convert DSD to PCM does it still sound better or does it now only sound like PCM?

 

Maldur has indicated converted PCM doesn't sound like DSD when converted to DSD. What about the reverse conversion?

read my posts

[esldude]

read my posts

 

Okay, I saw where you said turning PCM into DSD still sounded like DSD. Did you say you also turned DSD into PCM and it sounded like DSD? If so I missed that part. And if true, it indicates PCM isn't a problem as it can sound as good as DSD did. Which would mean the issue between the two versions is somewhere else.

[Le Concombre Masqué]

Okay, I saw where you said turning PCM into DSD still sounded like DSD. Did you say you also turned DSD into PCM and it sounded like DSD? If so I missed that part. And if true, it indicates PCM isn't a problem as it can sound as good as DSD did. Which would mean the issue between the two versions is somewhere else.

NEVER said turning PCM into DSD still sounded like DSD

sounds like mushed potatoes (compared to PCM) at the opposite of the qualities i find in native (when it actually is....) dsd : dynamic contrast to quote le Corse

[firedog]

It's more like DSD is a one trick pony. It's said to be sublime, but only under very limited circumstances. (In rooms so large EQ won't help or subs, with a single resistor DAC, when the recording was made with a single bit DSD recording, and on and on) When Nolan's fastball was on, he was literally unhitable. But that wasn't very consistent. OTOH, Maddux never needed to rely on one pitch to win. Maddux could even hit and field. How many gold gloves did he win? Maddux could work the plate ump's strike zone like a master as well. Nolan Ryan is best known for his rare no-hitters and highlight reel. Sorry it's the truth. PCM does it all: EQ, delay, cross-over, volume control, wide DR and super extended FR.

 

Very limited amount of stuff being done in "Pure" DSD. Some classical and specialist stuff. However there are lots of analog to DSD conversions, and many sound great. One of the areas where DSD may have some advantage.

 

P.S. I think we should stop the baseball analogies. Lots of the forum members don't get them, so they are fairly useless. If you have to explain it...

[esldude]

NEVER said turning PCM into DSD still sounded like DSD

sounds like mushed potatoes (compared to PCM) at the opposite of the qualities i find in native (when it actually is....) dsd : dynamic contrast to quote le Corse

 

Okay, so we got at cross purposes here.

 

How does DSD sound if done in PCM?