Does "one drop" pf PCM ruin DSD recordings?

[Jud]

You need to listen to it, decide with your ears and not your brain. Some people like it better, some don't, and some can't tell the difference. Once you have crossed this bridge you can begin to research your digital output formats, until then you are speculating on theories and opinions without any basis of your ability to hear any difference at all.

 

Chicken and egg thing - can't tell if it's worth it without hearing, can't hear without deciding it's worth it.

[fritzg]

You need to listen to it, decide with your ears and not your brain. Some people like it better, some don't, and some can't tell the difference. Once you have crossed this bridge you can begin to research your digital output formats, until then you are speculating on theories and opinions without any basis of your ability to hear any difference at all.

 

On advice from this forum, I've listened and compared DSD and PCM samples on my current system using JRiver to convert the DSD to 24/192 PCM. Couldn't tell a difference or at least one that was "better". Does that count as listening for myself? If not, tell me what equipment you think is necessary to compare.

[Jabs1542]

On advice from this forum, I've listened and compared DSD and PCM samples on my current system using JRiver to convert the DSD to 24/192 PCM. Couldn't tell a difference or at least one that was "better". Does that count as listening for myself? If not, tell me what equipment you think is necessary to compare.

 

That counts for a lot, and remember that some folks don't like the difference when they here it. You may want to try the trial version of HQPlayer (or any other better sounding DSD converter) before deciding this is moot - though you are well on you way towards the "I can't tell a difference" camp, which is perfectly fine.

[fritzg]

That counts for a lot, and remember that some folks don't like the difference when they here it. You may want to try the trial version of HQPlayer (or any other better sounding DSD converter) before deciding this is moot - though you are well on you way towards the "I can't tell a difference" camp, which is perfectly fine.

 

That is generous of you. I'm not sure all would agree and I am not sure I do. That may be because I don't understand why DSD is supposed to be better. I will look at HQPlayer and may listen with that.

 

I've always thought the less software conversion on the consumer end the better with digital audio. Maybe I've been wrong on that, along with the folks at HDTT who recommended the 24/192 over DSD without a DSD DAC.

[Jud]

That is generous of you. I'm not sure all would agree and I am not sure I do. That may be because I don't understand why DSD is supposed to be better. I will look at HQPlayer and may listen with that.

 

I've always thought the less software conversion on the consumer end the better with digital audio. Maybe I've been wrong on that, along with the folks at HDTT who recommended the 24/192 over DSD without a DSD DAC.

 

The thing is that your DAC internally (1) upsamples to 352.8/384 PCM, then (2) sigma-delta modulates that to a DSD-like stream, before that stream is finally converted to analog. So converting to DSD yourself doesn't actually add a conversion, it just does it in a different location (your computer). The issue then is the quality of your conversion, and whether that's better than what takes place internally in your DAC. The suggestion of HQPlayer is not a bad idea, since that is generally acknowledged to have very high quality modulators for the conversion to DSD.

 

This is also part of what's potentially advantageous about a DSD-capable DAC - there's no final conversion to PCM at the recording end, and there's no internal PCM upsampling, and no or fewer sigma-delta modulation steps in your DAC, since DSD is itself a sigma-delta modulated format.

 

Wanting to do fewer conversions is good, but we've got to look at the whole chain, including what happens in our DACs.

[Hiro]

And there's no PCM recording these days that didn't go through sigma-delta modulation (a DSD-like stage). So much for purity.

 

It's funny how often people forget about this fact.

[PeterSt]

Just similar to no DSD existing that didn't go through a PCM process. At least the change is a virtual zero if you just want to play "your music".

[Hiro]

Just similar to no DSD existing that didn't go through a PCM process. At least the change is a virtual zero if you just want to play "your music".

 

The change between formats is never zero. You can get close, but it will always be a copy of the original, and if you add the subsequent upsampling filters on playback, you're only getting further from the original.

 

But to each his own -- There will always be people who want to do as much processing as possible, downsampling, decimation, upsampling etc. and those who just want to play a raw sdm/dsd stream in NOS mode.

[Hiro]

The thing is that your DAC internally (1) upsamples to 352.8/384 PCM, then (2) sigma-delta modulates that to a DSD-like stream, before that stream is finally converted to analog. So converting to DSD yourself doesn't actually add a conversion, it just does it in a different location (your computer). The issue then is the quality of your conversion, and whether that's better than what takes place internally in your DAC. The suggestion of HQPlayer is not a bad idea, since that is generally acknowledged to have very high quality modulators for the conversion to DSD.

 

This is also part of what's potentially advantageous about a DSD-capable DAC - there's no final conversion to PCM at the recording end, and there's no internal PCM upsampling, and no or fewer sigma-delta modulation steps in your DAC, since DSD is itself a sigma-delta modulated format.

 

Wanting to do fewer conversions is good, but we've got to look at the whole chain, including what happens in our DACs.

 

Spot on.

[PeterSt]

On advice from this forum, I've listened and compared DSD and PCM samples on my current system using JRiver to convert the DSD to 24/192 PCM. Couldn't tell a difference or at least one that was "better". Does that count as listening for myself? If not, tell me what equipment you think is necessary to compare.

 

Fritz,

 

When not careful you may end up with a problem you originally never had. If you don't hear differences to this respect, you have answered your own question (original post) and although a whole world may disagree, you apparently don't have any problem, certainly not with the "one (more) drop". Think about this, because what you just did through JRiver I tend to call 10 of those drops. And worse.

 

Of course "we" like to talk you into problems just the same, but maybe this is why by now a sufficient amount of threads like this exist. But I am not much into talking problems into myself, nor into you. I don't care as long as all sounds superb to me, which is does.

And I sleep well on that.

[PeterSt]

The change between formats is never zero. You can get close, but it will always be a copy of the original, and if you add the subsequent upsampling filters on playback, you're only getting further from the original.

 

Hiro, great apologies, because a small typo changed my intent :

 

At least the change is a virtual zero if you just want to play "your music".

 

ChanCe I wanted to say. Oh boy.

[Jud]

Just similar to no DSD existing that didn't go through a PCM process. At least the chance is a virtual zero if you just want to play "your music".

 

Yes. I mentioned both, Hiro picked his favorite.

 

Edit: Actually, Peter, I was a bit stronger than you were with my "no pure DSD" statement, since even outside of popular music, most pieces will require post-production that today can't be done in DSD. Thus they're bounced to "DXD" (352.8 PCM) for the post-production, then back to DSD.

[Hiro]

Yes. I mentioned both, Hiro picked his favorite.

 

Jud, I picked the one that doesn't get mentioned nearly as often.

[Jud]

Jud, I picked the one that doesn't get mentioned nearly as often.

 

And Peter picked the one that doesn't get mentioned nearly as often by you!

[Hiro]

And Peter picked the one that doesn't get mentioned nearly as often by you!

 

I'm sorry, but I'm first to call out "DSD recordings" upsampled from PCM.

[Jud]

I'm sorry, but I'm first to call out "DSD recordings" upsampled from PCM.

 

Hiro, I'm poking fun at your general liking for DSD (please note winkie in previous message).

[PeterSt]

The change between formats is never zero. You can get close, but it will always be a copy of the original, and if you add the subsequent upsampling filters on playback, you're only getting further from the original.

 

So let's say this is allowed to lead its own life. And why not, because it's legitimate, no matter springing from my typo;

 

So Jud, you are familiar with iZotope small chanGes, right ? Of course I am too with changing filters and such. Difference : I look through the analyzer before I am satisfied, and what I'm satisfied with is what I see (knowing what I want to achieve).

Visual changes can be very very minor, which is also how I tune my own (new) filtering these days.

The audible difference ? 2 second work, no matter what track (so to speak).

 

And then we might think that it doesn't matter all that much when turning the whole track (yes) upside down and imply changes (visually huge now) and even hope for the better when all sprung from some original, no matter that was "mangled" to begin with ?

 

Still, in my view, when PCM is converted to DSD the right way, DSD has a chanCe, because all what really happens is that we upsample AND filter further than PCM can do it (like my 16x in practice). But I said "the right" way and this is not how I see it done. But never mind that for now, because it's about the possibility for the better.

If this "right way" is not applied, we end up with piles of noise out of the audio band, and next hope that or our amps won't notice and if they do our speakers won't notice. And might we prevent that with a nice analogue filter we hope that "we" don't notice.

 

There's so much difference in the both means if you look at the resulting signal that we're better off if we don't hear the difference anyway (could be Fritz). But if we do, it beats me how it can be for the better. All IOW : no single "drop" allowed if I was asked the question. But I said that in my first post right away.

 

Please notice : this all is totally unrelated to when all can be kept native (either DSD or PCM) and is played through a DAC which doesn't mangle with it.

[Hiro]

Hiro, I'm poking fun at your general liking for DSD (please note winkie in previous message).

 

Jud, I like the idea of a native sdm format. As, after all, 99.99% of converters out there are utilizing sigma delta modulation.

[fritzg]

Fritz,

 

When not careful you may end up with a problem you originally never had. If you don't hear differences to this respect, you have answered your own question (original post) and although a whole world may disagree, you apparently don't have any problem, certainly not with the "one (more) drop". Think about this, because what you just did through JRiver I tend to call 10 of those drops. And worse.

 

Exactly. That's is why I did not consider that a fair test of what I understand DSD to be, a chain of listening to digital audio that is distinct from PCM. So the intent of my original question remains.

 

If listening to DSD converted to PCM before it goes to a 24/192 is insufficient to hear the "greatness" of DSD, what equipment is? The point is the DSD chain, right? What is the minimal DSD chain required to hear a difference between the DSD version of something like Duke Ellington's Indigos vs. the 24/192 version?

[PeterSt]

What is the minimal DSD chain required to hear a difference between the DSD version of something like Duke Ellington's Indigos vs. the 24/192 version?

 

I'm afraid you can't put it like that. I think that I have reached the stadium of having a superb system that by now resembles reality in some kind of optima forma. Took me something like 8 years with the notice that by now about everything is made by ourselves (PC, software, DAC, active speakers). And sure I hear EVERY small change, smaller than small and indeed within a few seconds.

There's no real recipe and it will cost some $$$ anyway.

 

But if I were you I really wouldn't care. Unless of course you are seeking for the vastly better, but in that case it would be my advice to not seek that in the PCM vs DSD realm, which btw you originally (thread) are or were not doing.

 

May it help : I have a DSD DAC for I think two years by now. Just curious. But don't you think I even get it out of its box in all this time, because someone like me rather invests in improving his current chain. And does *that* help.

But I am a bit not-so-common Fritz.

 

Peter

[fritzg]

But if I were you I really wouldn't care. Unless of course you are seeking for the vastly better, but in that case it would be my advice to not seek that in the PCM vs DSD realm, which btw you originally (thread) are or were not doing.

 

May it help : I have a DSD DAC for I think two years by now. Just curious. But don't you think I even get it out of its box in all this time, because someone like me rather invests in improving his current chain. And does *that* help.

But I am a bit not-so-common

 

I think I follow what you are saying here. But for me to be clear, I am improving my audio chain. And the starting of this topic with it's provocative title was a kind of last attempt by me to see if there was something intrinsic about DSD's format (or PCM's on the "inferior" side) that makes a difference and if there was a way for me to experience the DSD difference or not in order to determine if I wanted to make such an investment in what I view as a very niche market with questionable advantages.

 

It looks like there is not an agreement on how one can experience the difference DSD supposedly makes.

 

So, if even the ability to be able to experience the difference between DSD and 24/192 PCM is elusive, and if no difference can be heard with the equipment available, it does appear to me that you are correct and I was earlier in that DSD is much ado about nothing and not worth caring about. If one wants to have a better listening experience, seek the best recording/mastering and improve the audio chain (apparently according to the posts elsewhere in this forum, especially the cables! <grin>) There really isn't an advantage to one format over the other and for the small amount of music that is only available in DSD, it will sound just fine converted on the software end.

[Jud]

So, if even the ability to be able to experience the difference between DSD and 24/192 PCM is elusive, and if no difference can be heard with the equipment available, it does appear to me that you are correct and I was earlier in that DSD is much ado about nothing and not worth caring about. If one wants to have a better listening experience, seek the best recording/mastering and improve the audio chain (apparently according to the posts elsewhere in this forum, especially the cables! <grin>) There really isn't an advantage to one format over the other and for the small amount of music that is only available in DSD, it will sound just fine converted on the software end.

 

Is it possible for you to access a reasonable DAC that can do DSD? It's so much simpler for you to do this with an album like the Rickie Lee Jones "Traffic from Paradise" DSD download and see whether it blows you away (it did me - had a big goofy grin I couldn't get off my face) than any of the talking we can do here.

 

The only reason I mentioned this is the remarks about "much ado about nothing" and "not worth caring about." The opportunity to hear music like this is definitely more than that. Now whether the most affordable DACs that will play DSD will still blow you away on music like this, I don't know, but there are some affordable ones out there: Amazon.com: Geek Out 450 USB DAC and Headphone Amplifier: Electronics Amazon.com: iFi Nano iDSD USB DAC Headphone Amp 24Bit/384kHz iPhone,iPad,Android: Electronics

[fritzg]

Is it possible for you to access a reasonable DAC that can do DSD? It's so much simpler for you to do this with an album like the Rickie Lee Jones "Traffic from Paradise" DSD download and see whether it blows you away (it did me - had a big goofy grin I couldn't get off my face) than any of the talking we can do here.

 

That would be wonderful, Jud. I love Rickie Lee Jones. Have since the 70s and would relish the opportunity to properly compare a DSD download to a 24/192 one. But I don't know what a "reasonable DAC that can do DSD" is. The UFO that Blue Coast sells? DirecStream DAC from PSAudio? I've put the $200 ones you cited from Amazon in the category of JRiver and maybe HQPlayer as being not good enough to represent the format.

 

Looks like the Pono will soon play DSD files. Would that be a reasonable DSD DAC?

 

I'm not being snarky, this is the reason I started this thread was to try ascertain what it is that makes DSD special and how that can be reasonably and faithfully experienced.

[EuroDriver]

FWIW

 

Today we ran a comparison of Hugh Masekele Stimela Coal train on a WS 2012 with AO in Minimal server mode using HQP player to

a) play 16/44 redbook upsampled to DSD 256 using Polysinc and DSD 7 modulator

 

b) Acoustic sounds DSD 64 remastering done by Gus Skinas and using HQ Player to upsample with poly-short-mp FIR integrator and SAC noise filter

 

The first observation is that AO Minimal server mode helped a) a lot whereas b) was improved less

 

a) was very clear and clean, but the bass was perceived to be noticeably stronger and there was glare on the trumpet

 

b) was also very clear and clean, but the bass was weaker, but the redeeming virtue was the non glaring trumpet

 

For Geoff Armstrong, b) was the clear winner. For me, my unsophisticated ears could be persuaded to go for a, as it had more slam and impact

 

I have to tell a story about how unsophisticated by listening can be, I actually preferred the noise being injected into the AC line by a Sonos Connect's SMPS ! When the Sonos was on, but connected to nothing other than the wall AC outlet, I actually thought the sound was more lively. I know better now, but that's how easily I could be fooled

 

In summary for source format, it's a matter of taste but what is becoming clear is to do PCM play back well, you have to throw a lot of computational resources at it and you need to be able to mitigate the RF noise that it generates.

 

when we run HQ Player in Win 8, there is no contest, b) DSD 64 is streaks ahead of a) Redbook

 

DSD Playback is easier / cheaper to do well than PCM playback

 

For me, the way forward is a DSD256 only DAC and HQP Player to process everything. For music where the timbre is important I would look for a truly native DSD download, as untouched as possible by PCM

[jhwalker]

I've put the $200 ones you cited from Amazon in the category of JRiver and maybe HQPlayer as being not good enough to represent the format.

 

This is a mistake - both the Geek Out and the iFi Nano iDSD are excellent DSD-capable DACs. I have both (+ the iFi Nano's big brother, the Micro) and any would let you hear DSD in all its glory