CatManDo Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 You can create DSD files from an SACD ISO and play those on the Oppo. News Flash: Oppo now plays DSD files | Stereophile.com Claude Link to comment
rsorren1 Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 All, here are my experiences and thoughts regarding the original question, "DSD downloads worth the trouble"? In a word, yes. I have an MSB stack that includes UMT Plus, MSB Diamond DAC, Diamond power supply. I think everyone knows that the UMT Plus is a modified Oppo player and the MSB Diamond accepts DSD on it's USB, ethernet, and proprietary I2S input. I have compared DSD playback of Analogue Productions, Oscar Peterson "We Get Requests" three different ways looking for differences in sound quality. First, stick the disc in drawer and play it. What a great re-master! This is SO MUCH BETTER than the Verve PCM issue; more open, less noise, much better bass, cymbals, piano doesn't sound like it was recorded under water. The disc is played back using MSB's I2S interface between transport and DAC and uses the Galaxy clock for clocking. Next, I ripped the SACD using my PS/3 (thanks again to our brothers Ted_B an Mr Wicked) and created a .dsf file. I copy the dsf file to a FAT32 formatted USB drive and plug it into the USB port of the MSB UMT Plus. I have a monitor attached to the USB Plus so that I can use the user interface to select the files to play (Note: the Oppo interface is not great but you can navigate and get music playing. Also, no "gapless" playback). Again, the file is played back using the MSB proprietary I2S interface between transport and DAC and uses the Galaxy clock. Only difference is USB file read vs. disc read. I can't find any difference in sound quality at all. I have done this test for three different CA members who have visited me, my dealer, and they can't tell the difference either. Finally, last night, I downloaded the DSD file from Acoustic Sounds. I place that file on the FAT formatted USB drive and attach it to the UMT Plus USB input again. The downloaded DSD file uses the MSB I2S interface between transport and DAC again and the Galaxy clock. I compared all three. No differences that I could tell. Downloading the DSD file is a real convenience. I payed for it and within a few minutes was listening to it on my system. $5 less than ordering the physical media. No waiting for UPS to deliver, cracked cases, etc. I don't have to create the dsf files from my PS/3. The downloaded dsf file gets backed up on Time Machine and I keep a third copy of everything on another 2TB drive. One note: when downloading from Acoustic Sounds using their download app, disable Time Machine and Energy Saver on Mac. If you don't, the downloads may fail when Time Machine kicks off or the computer goes to sleep and you will have to start the download again to recover only those that failed. Some of the really great performances and sounding DSD downloads I have: Oscar Peterson, "We get Requests"; Hyperion Knight, "Music of Chopin" (Wilson recording that is out of this world good); Los Romeros, "Rodrigo Guitar Concerto"; Kenny Burrell, "Midnight Blue"; Art Pepper, "Meets the Rhythm Section"; The Jung Trio, "Dvorak Piano Trio, Op 65" (OTHER WORLDLY!!); Isley Brothers, "3 + 3"; etc. That said, results are going to be based on how good the recording is. Duke Ellington meets Count Basie is an older recording. It has great stage depth and placement of instruments but is not as outstanding sounding as some of the others I mentioned. Honestly, who cares; it's Duke and Count and the orchestras playing together! Ralph Link to comment
ted_b Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 Ralph, great post. Thanks! I work for NativeDSD.com and so will recuse myself on the comments about re-buying downloads when one owns the ripped ISO or DSF/DFF files. "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
Le Concombre Masqué Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 All, here are my experiences and thoughts regarding the original question, "DSD downloads worth the trouble"? In a word, yes. I have an MSB stack that includes UMT Plus, MSB Diamond DAC, Diamond power supply. I think everyone knows that the UMT Plus is a modified Oppo player and the MSB Diamond accepts DSD on it's USB, ethernet, and proprietary I2S input. I have compared DSD playback of Analogue Productions, Oscar Peterson "We Get Requests" three different ways looking for differences in sound quality. First, stick the disc in drawer and play it. What a great re-master! This is SO MUCH BETTER than the Verve PCM issue; more open, less noise, much better bass, cymbals, piano doesn't sound like it was recorded under water. The disc is played back using MSB's I2S interface between transport and DAC and uses the Galaxy clock for clocking. Next, I ripped the SACD using my PS/3 (thanks again to our brothers Ted_B an Mr Wicked) and created a .dsf file. I copy the dsf file to a FAT32 formatted USB drive and plug it into the USB port of the MSB UMT Plus. I have a monitor attached to the USB Plus so that I can use the user interface to select the files to play (Note: the Oppo interface is not great but you can navigate and get music playing. Also, no "gapless" playback). Again, the file is played back using the MSB proprietary I2S interface between transport and DAC and uses the Galaxy clock. Only difference is USB file read vs. disc read. I can't find any difference in sound quality at all. I have done this test for three different CA members who have visited me, my dealer, and they can't tell the difference either. Finally, last night, I downloaded the DSD file from Acoustic Sounds. I place that file on the FAT formatted USB drive and attach it to the UMT Plus USB input again. The downloaded DSD file uses the MSB I2S interface between transport and DAC again and the Galaxy clock. I compared all three. No differences that I could tell. Downloading the DSD file is a real convenience. I payed for it and within a few minutes was listening to it on my system. $5 less than ordering the physical media. No waiting for UPS to deliver, cracked cases, etc. I don't have to create the dsf files from my PS/3. The downloaded dsf file gets backed up on Time Machine and I keep a third copy of everything on another 2TB drive. One note: when downloading from Acoustic Sounds using their download app, disable Time Machine and Energy Saver on Mac. If you don't, the downloads may fail when Time Machine kicks off or the computer goes to sleep and you will have to start the download again to recover only those that failed. Some of the really great performances and sounding DSD downloads I have: Oscar Peterson, "We get Requests"; Hyperion Knight, "Music of Chopin" (Wilson recording that is out of this world good); Los Romeros, "Rodrigo Guitar Concerto"; Kenny Burrell, "Midnight Blue"; Art Pepper, "Meets the Rhythm Section"; The Jung Trio, "Dvorak Piano Trio, Op 65" (OTHER WORLDLY!!); Isley Brothers, "3 + 3"; etc. That said, results are going to be based on how good the recording is. Duke Ellington meets Count Basie is an older recording. It has great stage depth and placement of instruments but is not as outstanding sounding as some of the others I mentioned. Honestly, who cares; it's Duke and Count and the orchestras playing together! thank you for sharing Link to comment
elcorso Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 All, here are my experiences and thoughts regarding the original question, "DSD downloads worth the trouble"? In a word, yes. I have an MSB stack that includes UMT Plus, MSB Diamond DAC, Diamond power supply. I think everyone knows that the UMT Plus is a modified Oppo player and the MSB Diamond accepts DSD on it's USB, ethernet, and proprietary I2S input. I have compared DSD playback of Analogue Productions, Oscar Peterson "We Get Requests" three different ways looking for differences in sound quality. First, stick the disc in drawer and play it. What a great re-master! This is SO MUCH BETTER than the Verve PCM issue; more open, less noise, much better bass, cymbals, piano doesn't sound like it was recorded under water. The disc is played back using MSB's I2S interface between transport and DAC and uses the Galaxy clock for clocking. Next, I ripped the SACD using my PS/3 (thanks again to our brothers Ted_B an Mr Wicked) and created a .dsf file. I copy the dsf file to a FAT32 formatted USB drive and plug it into the USB port of the MSB UMT Plus. I have a monitor attached to the USB Plus so that I can use the user interface to select the files to play (Note: the Oppo interface is not great but you can navigate and get music playing. Also, no "gapless" playback). Again, the file is played back using the MSB proprietary I2S interface between transport and DAC and uses the Galaxy clock. Only difference is USB file read vs. disc read. I can't find any difference in sound quality at all. I have done this test for three different CA members who have visited me, my dealer, and they can't tell the difference either. Finally, last night, I downloaded the DSD file from Acoustic Sounds. I place that file on the FAT formatted USB drive and attach it to the UMT Plus USB input again. The downloaded DSD file uses the MSB I2S interface between transport and DAC again and the Galaxy clock. I compared all three. No differences that I could tell. Downloading the DSD file is a real convenience. I payed for it and within a few minutes was listening to it on my system. $5 less than ordering the physical media. No waiting for UPS to deliver, cracked cases, etc. I don't have to create the dsf files from my PS/3. The downloaded dsf file gets backed up on Time Machine and I keep a third copy of everything on another 2TB drive. One note: when downloading from Acoustic Sounds using their download app, disable Time Machine and Energy Saver on Mac. If you don't, the downloads may fail when Time Machine kicks off or the computer goes to sleep and you will have to start the download again to recover only those that failed. Some of the really great performances and sounding DSD downloads I have: Oscar Peterson, "We get Requests"; Hyperion Knight, "Music of Chopin" (Wilson recording that is out of this world good); Los Romeros, "Rodrigo Guitar Concerto"; Kenny Burrell, "Midnight Blue"; Art Pepper, "Meets the Rhythm Section"; The Jung Trio, "Dvorak Piano Trio, Op 65" (OTHER WORLDLY!!); Isley Brothers, "3 + 3"; etc. That said, results are going to be based on how good the recording is. Duke Ellington meets Count Basie is an older recording. It has great stage depth and placement of instruments but is not as outstanding sounding as some of the others I mentioned. Honestly, who cares; it's Duke and Count and the orchestras playing together! I have to add, like in my case, living in a small country with no access to buy SACDs, where I have to pay shipping plus heavy import taxes that duplicate the cost of each physical media...! My pray goes to the politicians don't tax us for downloads... Thanks God there is no technology available now to implement such a control. Roch Link to comment
tailspn Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 To defend CatManDo's viewpoint, IMHO the simple reason why PCM will remain the mainstay and DSD a niche is the fact that editing DSD digitally still is nearly impossible. So DSD is great for new transfers of old analog tapes, we'll certainly see more of this, and if you record classical music and do not want to do a lot of editing on it. Beyond this, I expect 24/96 to become the new standard high-res format. I agree, but for different reasons. If you separate "editing" from post process sweetening, then there's no limitation with DSD. Editing is the process of combining the selected best parts of several "takes" into a composite performance. Either the Pyramix, Sonoma, or SADiE workstations can accomplish this without PCM conversions. Post process sweetening (EQ, compression, artificial reverb, not to mention the myriad of effects processes) can presently only be preformed in PCM, due to the nature of DSD actually being an analog format, storeable and transmittable on a digital medium. So, it's very music genre and recording type dependent. Rips of analog tapes, without sweetening; no problem. Classical music recorded in an acoustic environment; dependent on the label and producer's intent. Some, like Cookie and Channel Classics (and others) do all the balancing at the session in analog hardware, and DSD record the results. What's left is DSD editing. Pop studio music (by far the largest recording market) is heavily effects processed, and therefore completely PCM dependent. So I agree that 24/96 PCM will probably become the the de facto hi-res release standard for a period of time. But there's a growing market for acoustic recordings that correctly implemented DSD serves, and will flourish IMO. Link to comment
spdif-usb Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 due to the nature of DSD actually being an analog format, storeable and transmittable on a digital medium. This is EXACTLY the kind of aggressive marketing mumbo jumbo I have been referring to. If you had the memory of a goldfish, maybe it would work. Link to comment
ted_b Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 This is EXACTLY the kind of aggressive marketing mumbo jumbo I have been referring to. Huh?? You argue that not enough science and math is taken seriously here, then once a Grammy-winning recording engineer attempts to explain why DSD can't be easily "sweetened" (edited for purposes of more than splicing) you call it aggressive marketing? His analogy was "analog" because that is how DSD is really seen...not each sample a set of bits that contain all info but instead a stream of changing voltages where the only measurements are in fact the changes from the earlier "sample".....analog on a digital medium. Why is this so upsetting?? "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
spdif-usb Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 Huh?? You argue that not enough science and math is taken seriously here, then once a Grammy-winning recording engineer attempts to explain why DSD can't be easily "sweetened" (edited for purposes of more than splicing) you call it aggressive marketing? His analogy was "analog" because that is how DSD is really seen...not each sample a set of bits that contain all info but instead a stream of changing voltages where the only measurements are in fact the changes from the earlier "sample".....analog on a digital medium. Why is this so upsetting?? See the link I posted in my first reply to this thread. I don't find it upsetting, just a bit amusing (with the emphasis on "a bit" lol). If you had the memory of a goldfish, maybe it would work. Link to comment
ted_b Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 ? You find your inability to understand DSD concepts amusing? Or my questions amusing? Please don't hide behind a vague response; if you are going to be rude to someone and tell them their comments are amusing you with their inaccuracies then spit it out. I'm interested what you find amusing about an award-winning DSD engineer telling you about DSD! And amusing or not, in what way could any of this be considered aggressive marketing? "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
YashN Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 To defend CatManDo's viewpoint, IMHO the simple reason why PCM will remain the mainstay and DSD a niche is the fact that editing DSD digitally still is nearly impossible. So DSD is great for new transfers of old analog tapes, we'll certainly see more of this, and if you record classical music and do not want to do a lot of editing on it. Beyond this, I expect 24/96 to become the new standard high-res format. That said, I'm still considering getting one of the new DSD DACs to complement my current PCM DAC, as I'd be curious to see what all the DSD lovers make such a fuzz about. Except you don't absolutely need to edit DSD digitally, that's a choice by the production team. You can decide to record multi-track DSD, mix and process in the analog realm, and then capture in DSD again. Same with Mastering. Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623 DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels Link to comment
spdif-usb Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 ? You find your inability to understand DSD concepts amusing? Or my questions amusing? Please don't hide behind a vague response; if you are going to be rude to someone and tell them their comments are amusing you with their inaccuracies then spit it out. I'm interested what you find amusing about an award-winning DSD engineer telling you about DSD! And amusing or not, in what way could any of this be considered aggressive marketing? What's amusing about it is that Lipshitz & Vanderkooy have already mathematically proven that the old "it's closer to analog" claim is in fact marketing B.S. (Before Science). In DSD, the quantization error, which, by definition, is an artifact that is entirely digital in nature as it has nothing to do with analog in any way whatsoever, is always going to be there no matter what, or at least a significant part of it is. (Even, if the correctly dithered DSD output of the ADC remains "bit perfect" all the way on its way into the DAC). In PCM, dither can be applied in such way it fully replaces the quantization error, and, partly as a result, correctly dithered 24/192 PCM captured by the most accurate ADCs currently is closer to analog than any DSD recording. If you had the memory of a goldfish, maybe it would work. Link to comment
tailspn Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 You can decide to record multi-track DSD, mix and process in the analog realm, and then capture in DSD again. Same with Mastering. Yes, that's a method some producers use, as do many mastering engineers. IMO, that's more for fashion, and for those project's and producer's preference for the "tape" sound. If you believe the analog sound quality coming from the microphones through a quality mixing desk is the ultimate achievable level of realism, then straight to a quality DSD A/D converter is all that's necessary. In an acoustic recording, where the producer/engineer has control of the environment (a session recording in an empty concert hall or church), with the optimal selection and placement of microphones to match the space, along with the participation of the artists to "play to the hall," can yield a recording only needing editing. Unfortunately that's very expensive to produce, so many of the current acoustic recordings are live concerts. These then usually require allot of post process sweetening to add life to the now dead hall, and remove the audience noises. Most recordings of this type are recorded over two or three concerts, so the editing task is about the same. Link to comment
elcorso Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 What's amusing about it is that Lipshitz & Vanderkooy have already mathematically proven that the old "it's closer to analog" claim is in fact marketing B.S. (Before Science). In DSD, the quantization error, which, by definition, is an artifact that is entirely digital in nature as it has nothing to do with analog in any way whatsoever, is always going to be there no matter what, or at least a significant part of it is. (Even, if the correctly dithered DSD output of the ADC remains "bit perfect" all the way on its way into the DAC). In PCM, dither can be applied in such way it fully replaces the quantization error, and, partly as a result, correctly dithered 24/192 PCM captured by the most accurate ADCs currently is closer to analog than any DSD recording. Were (are) Lipshitz & Vanderkooy mathematicians only? Or deaf mathematicians? There are more merchants in this, and other audio forums, than people who loves the SQ of DSD. Anyway do you thing it is a huge business? C'mon, there some other guys in this forum defending MP3, are they also marketing this format? I had a very long experience on analogue too, and believe also that DSD is not only the closest, but better...! BTW, what is doing a "vinyl nerd" in a computer music forum? Roch Link to comment
tailspn Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 What's amusing about it is that Lipshitz & Vanderkooy have already mathematically proven that the old "it's closer to analog" claim is in fact marketing B.S. Gee, all these professionals and consumers who greatly prefer DSD sound quality to PCM for its naturalness and "analog like" quality must be just products of marketing BS, and not their own judgement. Pitty, they should have read Lipshitz & Vanderkooy before they were so brainwashed. What's your agenda spdif? Link to comment
ted_b Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 What's amusing about it is that Lipshitz & Vanderkooy have already mathematically proven that the old "it's closer to analog" claim is in fact marketing B.S. (Before Science). In DSD, the quantization error, which, by definition, is an artifact that is entirely digital in nature as it has nothing to do with analog in any way whatsoever, is always going to be there no matter what, or at least a significant part of it is. (Even, if the correctly dithered DSD output of the ADC remains "bit perfect" all the way on its way into the DAC). In PCM, dither can be applied in such way it fully replaces the quantization error, and, partly as a result, correctly dithered 24/192 PCM captured by the most accurate ADCs currently is closer to analog than any DSD recording. I figured that's where you are going with this. You completely misunderstood Tom's reference to analog. He's not, in this example, trying to prove any sonic "DSD sounds more analog-like" thing. The fundamental problem that people like you have with Tom's explanation is you try to understand DSD in the frame of previous digital sampling knowledge. There are no real samples, per se. When viewed as an analog modulation of a free-running pulse stream, just like FM radio is the modulation of a fixed high frequency sine wave carrier, then it's really simple. And the reason it can't be handled in an editing vein. This "analog" discussion had nothing to do with (marketing) folks who want one format to sound more like vinyl than the other....you raised that, not me! "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
audiventory Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Me seems both formats has right for existing. Delta sigma modulation allow create more simple DAC. But audio signal processing of PCM more simple. AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HD audio converter/optimizer for DAC of high resolution files ISO, DSF, DFF (1-bit/D64/128/256/512/1024), wav, flac, aiff, alac, safe CD ripper to PCM/DSF, Seamless Album Conversion, AIFF, WAV, FLAC, DSF metadata editor, Mac & WindowsOffline conversion save energy and nature Link to comment
spdif-usb Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Were (are) Lipshitz & Vanderkooy mathematicians only? Or deaf mathematicians? There are more merchants in this, and other audio forums, than people who loves the SQ of DSD. Anyway do you thing it is a huge business? C'mon, there some other guys in this forum defending MP3, are they also marketing this format? I had a very long experience on analogue too, and believe also that DSD is not only the closest, but better...! BTW, what is doing a "vinyl nerd" in a computer music forum? Roch You can read about who they are at the end of the paper I linked. I never said there is something wrong with people who love DSD, its sound quality, or even the fact it's less close to analog than PCM in its current state. If you love any of this then that's perfectly OK as far as I'm concerned. Aggressive marketing, or the use of fiction in an advertising campaign, is not at all illegal. It's called freedom of speech. It's also no different from what happened with Redbook CD when they said it's the perfect sound forever. I know it's not the perfect sound forever, so no real harm done here, at least to me. But if you're defending mp3 then you should just be catapulted to the other end of the rainbow IMO. (I'm kidding! I'm kidding!) 8-D Computers are excellent for listening to vinyl IMHO. Computers can be used to, in iZotope RX 3 Advanced, remove those annoying ticks and pops that still remain even after thoroughly having cleaned the vinyl, and, next, you can just use a computer and DAC to play back the vinyl without having to torture yourself and without having to torture your vinyl. Apart from my musical genre preferences, computer music is one of the main reasons why I almost always prefer vinyl over both SACD ripped via PS3 and DSD downloads. That being said, one of the DAC devices that I own supports native playback of both DSD64 and DSD128. I have also been through comparative listening by switching between DSD and PCM on quite a few other DACs and systems, including systems that were using a Korg 2000S / EMM Labs DAC2X. Some of the music that I like sounds better to me in DSD, but this happens only very occasionally, and even then it doesn't sound as good to me as some of the best sounding PCM recordings. The key difference IMO is that DSD has a tendency to smooth out some of the raw edginess that is part of the analog musical signal that went into the ADC, whereas the best PCM AD/DA loop that I have heard in a recording studio was always fully indistinguishable from the live mic feed. The smoothing character of DSD can sound pleasing at times but, IME, this preliminary feeling quickly dissolves when you can hear that it's not true to the analog original. If you had the memory of a goldfish, maybe it would work. Link to comment
spdif-usb Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 I figured that's where you are going with this. You completely misunderstood Tom's reference to analog. He's not, in this example, trying to prove any sonic "DSD sounds more analog-like" thing. The fundamental problem that people like you have with Tom's explanation is you try to understand DSD in the frame of previous digital sampling knowledge. There are no real samples, per se. When viewed as an analog modulation of a free-running pulse stream, just like FM radio is the modulation of a fixed high frequency sine wave carrier, then it's really simple. And the reason it can't be handled in an editing vein. This "analog" discussion had nothing to do with (marketing) folks who want one format to sound more like vinyl than the other....you raised that, not me! I never doubted the fact it's really simple when viewed this way. Just like I never doubted the fact Redbook CD is the perfect sound forever when viewed in such way that you are ignoring the also really simple fact that it's not, and, on top of that, I don't think it was me who has specifically dragged the sound of vinyl into this discussion. If you had the memory of a goldfish, maybe it would work. Link to comment
spdif-usb Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 What's your agenda spdif? I don't have any. Do you? If you had the memory of a goldfish, maybe it would work. Link to comment
YashN Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 What's amusing about it is that Lipshitz & Vanderkooy have already mathematically proven that the old "it's closer to analog" claim is in fact marketing B.S. (Before Science). In DSD, the quantization error, which, by definition, is an artifact that is entirely digital in nature as it has nothing to do with analog in any way whatsoever, is always going to be there no matter what, or at least a significant part of it is. (Even, if the correctly dithered DSD output of the ADC remains "bit perfect" all the way on its way into the DAC). In PCM, dither can be applied in such way it fully replaces the quantization error, and, partly as a result, correctly dithered 24/192 PCM captured by the most accurate ADCs currently is closer to analog than any DSD recording. There are so many wrong things in this post. It doesn't seem you understand the real nature of DSD nor how audio is actually transmitted through the air at all... ...among many, many other wrong notions. Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623 DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels Link to comment
YashN Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Yes, that's a method some producers use, as do many mastering engineers. IMO, that's more for fashion, and for those project's and producer's preference for the "tape" sound. If you believe the analog sound quality coming from the microphones through a quality mixing desk is the ultimate achievable level of realism, then straight to a quality DSD A/D converter is all that's necessary. And indeed, that's good to hear as Michal from Mytek was saying in one of the RMAF panels. On the other hand, I don't think it is for fashion, it is because of the sound. Additionally, not solely for the 'tape' sound, but rather for the analog processing chain sound (and the difficulty in processing DSD in its digital form). Of course, some also like the 'tape' sound and can add tape in the signal chain somewhere to add this. In an acoustic recording, where the producer/engineer has control of the environment (a session recording in an empty concert hall or church), with the optimal selection and placement of microphones to match the space, along with the participation of the artists to "play to the hall," can yield a recording only needing editing. Unfortunately that's very expensive to produce, so many of the current acoustic recordings are live concerts. These then usually require allot of post process sweetening to add life to the now dead hall, and remove the audience noises. Most recordings of this type are recorded over two or three concerts, so the editing task is about the same. Right, and that's how Cookie proceeds at Blue Coast with DSD. Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623 DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels Link to comment
spdif-usb Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 There are so many wrong things in this post. It doesn't seem you understand the real nature of DSD nor how audio is actually transmitted through the air at all... ...among many, many other wrong notions. Don't make me laugh, please. It hurts when I laugh. If you had the memory of a goldfish, maybe it would work. Link to comment
Paul R Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 This is EXACTLY the kind of aggressive marketing mumbo jumbo I have been referring to. I think it is just a popular scien e explanation, correct so car as it goes. You could also describe DSD as a high speed digital cam or one of those rotating cylinders used in music boxes or player pianos, and not be all that far off. Perhaps there is some bit of marketing in there, but what does't have marketing involved with it? HiRes PCM tracks at HDTracks or Pono? (grin) ---------- edit- Guess I should have read all th way through the thread before making a comment. Here we have an example of audiophilisticoffed techchangeitis. Someeone who spent a lot of money of technlogy at the peak of one technology, where a newer tech easily and cheaply exceeds the peak of the older tech. Annoying, ain't it? Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
spdif-usb Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 I think it is just a popular scien e explanation, correct so car as it goes. You could also describe DSD as a high speed digital cam or one of those rotating cylinders used in music boxes or player pianos, and not be all that far off. Perhaps there is some bit of marketing in there, but what does't have marketing involved with it? HiRes PCM tracks at HDTracks or Pono? (grin) ---------- edit- Guess I should have read all th way through the thread before making a comment. Here we have an example of audiophilisticoffed techchangeitis. Someeone who spent a lot of money of technlogy at the peak of one technology, where a newer tech easily and cheaply exceeds the peak of the older tech. Annoying, ain't it? Tech advancements can be both a blessing and a curse. I would gladly listen to DSD files on my Astell & Kern AK240 instead of a Redbook CD that has a Dynamic Range value of 5. If you had the memory of a goldfish, maybe it would work. 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