Audio Myth - "DSD Provides a direct stream from A/D to D/A."

[Hiro]

Based on my measurements, many DACs have technically better performance with DSD than with PCM inputs. This probably also has sonics implications... Of course depending on where/how that DSD came to be.

 

I'm not surprised as PCM is subject to additional processing steps inside delta-sigma DACs, and there's great variability there.

[Miska]

These days, SDM is basically synonymous with ADC (for audio applications). If, as is typically the case, the native output of the SDM is wider than one bit, it is by definition not DSD. To obtain DSD, you need to filter and run it through a second (all-digital) SDM.

 

This is much less destructive and equivalent of dithering PCM to different word length.

 

For example, going from 176.4/24 to 176.4/16 with noise-shaping is significantly less destructive than going from 176.4/24 to 44.1/32.

 

Also what you can do is that since most typical multi-bit SDM output is 5.6/6.1 MHz, so while you go down to 1-bit for output you can at the same time increase output rate to 11.3/12.2 MHz which can result in bigger increase of dynamic range in audio band than you lose from the word length reduction (8 dB for typical 5-level SDM). This is what I'm doing when performing digital room correction for DSD64, I go to output DSD256. So the target format has significantly higher dynamic range in audio band than the source format.

 

To obtain 24-bit PCM, you only need to filter it.

 

Problem with most ADC chips is that the digital decimation filters they have are crappy. Since typical stop-band attenuation is something like -120 dB, that also puts limits on the PCM noise floor because the modulator noise gets aliased to the audio band. Plus you get time-domain distortions due to brickwall filter and decimation.

 

Instead, if you use for example recorder (TASCAM DA-3000 or KORG MR-2000S) with PCM4202, Grimm AD-1 or similar true 1-bit ADC, you get straight untouched modulator output and can do what ever you like with it.

 

Or alternatively you need to get multibit SDM output from some of the chips that support it and bake your own interface how to get it untouched to proper processing.

 

 

P.S. Converting to typical low PCM rates requires brickwall filter, while remodulating to some other SDM format doesn't require any rate conversions or brickwall filters at all.

[Miska]

The figure above would be more accurate if the word "oversampled" were replaced with "oversimplified."

 

Here's a practical example, Cirrus Logic CS4398 chip I've been using in my own designs before I switched over to the discrete implementation of DSC1.

 

 

I've been specifically using it in the "Direct DSD" mode. There are also chips from Wolfson (now part of Cirrus), TI and AKM that have similar direct path available for DSD.

 

At ADC side, there's for example TI's PCM4202 used in many DSD/PCM recorders:

 

There the selectable direct path from the modulator is the DSD output. Alternatively you can choose to use the built-in digital decimation filter for PCM output.

[audiventory]

I suppose, not all DAC (as audio device) use all possibilities of DAC-chip that inside.

[徐中銳]

I don't quite forget, am again with that image as my Cover Photo. Significance ? It's a superb reminder. As you can read and write Chinese, you know what those words individually mean. And of words grouped together, what does my name mean ? Why would my parents bestow me that name ?

 

In short, when Ken (石渡健) last toured New Zealand in 2006, I formulated and then asked him to write those two words because he taught me, five years previous, that 'the most important consideration in photography is light'

 

And what he recently said about DSD :

« As you are well aware, DA converters (IC Chips) have changed so much from the time of introduction… Today, you can have very high specification DAC to fulfill all High Resolution Audio formats!! However, do they sound good??? That’s the pertinent question…

 

Personally, I love old non-CMOS DAC like old Philips types (BiMOS) but unfortunately you won’t get those anymore and they are not compatible with new High Resolution Formats…

 

If we can keep everything in Analog, then of course we would stick with Analog but, as you know, that’s not possible…

 

DSD is indeed very popular but not many people know why… In my opinion, it’s related to your first question about DAC IC! Every DAC commercially available nowadays are using delta-sigma conversion for PCM… In other words, you are not getting same DA conversions we used to have with PCM!! Therefore, if you feed DSD signal to such DAC, then you bypass the delta-sigma stage!! Of course it sounds better!!! As you were remarking, Less is More applies here!!! »

I'm not well versed enough in early Leicas. What does 光健 mean?

 

Briefly' date=' Hiro, can you read Japanese/Chinese ?

 

 

To understand (the picture, perhaps) better, should we make a parallel comparison to digital within photography ?

[accwai]

[...] And what he recently said about DSD :

«As you are well aware' date=' DA converters (IC Chips) have changed so much from the time of introduction… Today, you can have very high specification DAC to fulfill all High Resolution Audio formats!! However, do they sound good??? That’s the pertinent question…

 

Personally, I love old non-CMOS DAC like old Philips types (BiMOS) but unfortunately you won’t get those anymore and they are not compatible with new High Resolution Formats…[/quote']

 

Actually there are a small handful of discrete R2R DACs commercially available that don't use R2R chips. In fact, one of them uses Vishay naked Z-foil.

 

I don't quite forget, am again with that image as my Cover Photo. Significance ? It's a superb reminder. As you can read and write Chinese, you know what those words individually mean. And of words grouped together, what does my name mean ? Why would my parents bestow me that name ?

 

In short, when Ken (石渡健) last toured New Zealand in 2006, I formulated and then asked him to write those two words because he taught me, five years previous, that 'the most important consideration in photography is light'

 

I see. Rather long memory you got In any case, my taste in photography is rather more objectivist:

 

 

Hardcore reality man!

[徐中銳]

« DSD is indeed very popular but not many people know why… In my opinion' date=' it’s related to your first question about DAC IC! [b']Every[/b] DAC commercially available nowadays are using delta-sigma conversion for PCM… In other words, you are not getting same DA conversions we used to have with PCM!! Therefore, if you feed DSD signal to such DAC, then you bypass the delta-sigma stage!! Of course it sounds better!!! As you were remarking, Less is More applies here!!! »

 

I did notice how Ken could've worded that to « Most... » But one gets his point, similar to (

) :

 

 

Ultimately, the most important consideration is hearing a product with our own ears, preferably in our own homes with our... ?

 

 

And I, more and more, prefer moving images, e.g. :

[video=youtube;Nn6ctMz-dP8]

 

 

Of friendships, we all support some whom we trust... Yet, our own identity goes beyond that, 6 months ago was too soon to try talking about...

 

Do you understand Cantonese ?

[accwai]

Ultimately' date=' the most important consideration is hearing a product with our own ears, preferably in our own homes with our... ?[/font']

 

Of course. I haven't touched anything in my system in last 6 months. Just enjoying the music.

 

And I, more and more, prefer moving images, e.g. :

 

Something like this?

 

 

Actually, just realized that the entire Samsara movie is full of images that could well have been by Gursky or Burtynsky. Samsara indeed...

 

Do you understand Cantonese?

 

Yes.

[徐中銳]

Currently, of Cantonese, am keen on collecting 盧冠廷's music, not just in DSD—for it may be that I enjoy the lyrics more when played back from other formats (yes, such as through multi-bit [Philips TDA1541 S2] CD-7 Player/DAC I've kept). It started with realisation that 1995's 西游记大结局之仙履奇缘 ending song was by him (words by his wife), its recent Beyond Imagination re-recording :

 

And with a dedicated-Podcasts-amplification-setup, I listen to programmes like RTHK's 古文觀止 and 文化四合院－詩韻詞情

 

 

I've seen Fricke's Samsara ; you, how about Arthus-Bertrand's :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU

 

And :

[accwai]

Currently' date=' of Cantonese, am keen on collecting [b']盧冠廷[/b]'s music, [...] It started with realisation that 1995's 西游记大结局之仙履奇缘 ending song was by him (words by his wife), its recent Beyond Imagination re-recording :

 

I'm not that much into Cantonese songs, but this is nice. Thanks.

 

古文觀止

 

捕蛇者說, 醉翁亭記, etc. Brings back memory of high school Chinese literature

 

I've seen Fricke's Samsara ; you, how about Arthus-Bertrand's :

 

Strictly speaking I'm not an environmentalist. I don't believe Burtynstky is considered a hardcore environmentalist either. (He lives here in Toronto by the way) And certainly not Gursky. For my own photos, I'm probably closer to Karl Blossfeldt or Candida Höfer--Objectivism, kind of.

[徐中銳]

Pardon, took a few days break to think deeply on parallel matter...

 

And it's cultural ? We can't help but try to aspire to, if not exceed, examples set by the Classics ?

 

To keep this somewhat publicly relevant (the Asian music industry is kinda foreign too to me—takes effort deciding and locating purchases), from another recent DSD-available album I've been interested in :

 

Also superb too from Lowell :

 

I promise, as long as you reply, I'll reply. And next time, my thoughts on photography

[accwai]

[...] We can't help but try to aspire to' date=' if not exceed, examples set by the [b']Classics[/b] ?

 

Aspire to, yes. Exceed would be pretty hard to imagine. Looking at the text of the two 赤壁賦s, not a single wasted word in the whole thing. And the way the words are weaved together. Amazing.

 

Also superb too from Lowell:

 

It's from the album Beyond Imagination right? Came across it in the local Chinese media store today. I might go back and pick it up later.

 

I promise, as long as you reply, I'll reply. And next time, my thoughts on photography

 

Please do

[徐中銳]

Briefly, suggesting how the motivation for recording is similar in photography and music.

 

Robert Doisneau said :

« The most beautiful and simplest reflex of all is the spontaneous desire to preserve a moment of joy destined to disappear. The act of quickly trying to capture the fleeting moment is more calculated—an image to prove one's own world exists. »

 

His most famous photo, Kiss by the Hôtel de Ville, Paris, 1950 :

 

Ah, the matter of wanting high-resolution-reproduction ?

 

 

Incidentally, why Ken's apt to teach me about light, interview excerpt :

« I lost everything in 1975 when my partner went away. Suddenly I found myself with a huge debt—millions—and I had to sell my house and all my cars (I had ten or eleven) but it still wasn’t enough. I decided to return to my original career, fashion photography, because it was good money. I had learned photography from my father [who was an award-winning professional photographer] and it was also something special for me. It was creating art. Unfortunately, though, to make lots of money from fashion photography, you have to put up with lots of crazy customers. For example, I would accept a big-budget calendar job—some of which could cost millions—which meant I could take whichever models I wanted, with the clothes I'd selected, to any location I chose and create a beautiful pictorial story. I'd go out with a clear mental image of the series of pictures I wanted to create and come back with exactly what I'd envisaged. Then I'd present them to the client who would say : "This is beautiful. This is wonderful. But you must have taken more than twelve pictures : can we see the others ? Oh, these are good. Can we swap this picture for the one you’ve selected ? Can we change this for that ?" It felt to me like someone daubing paint over a work of art. So as soon as I had paid off my debts I gave up photography and went back to hi-fi. That was when I joined Marantz. »

 

 

Am a supporter of Lowell... Write you another time

[accwai]

Briefly' date=' suggesting how the [i']motivation[/i] for recording is similar in photography and music.

 

Robert Doisneau said :

« The most beautiful and simplest reflex of all is the spontaneous desire to preserve a moment of joy destined to disappear. The act of quickly trying to capture the fleeting moment is more calculated—an image to prove one's own world exists. »

 

Hmm... The act of taking the picture extracted the moment of joy from the world. It can't prove that whole world existed, only that little fragment. In effect, it has become a world of its own. Recording is more or less the same. Can't we just treat it as a thing in itself?

[徐中銳]

an image to prove one's own world exists

 

Purely' date=' [i']the-world-of[/i] the photographer or record-producer. And, indeed, not all photos nor music are exceptional.

 

An Emmanuel Radnitzky (aka Man Ray) quote :

« Of course, there will always be those who look only at technique, who ask 'how', while others of a more curious nature will ask 'why'. Personally, I have always preferred inspiration to information. »

 

And DSD is but « technique » ?

 

Me, am happier listening to an inspiring YouTube bootleg than to any Hi-Res Audio I'm indifferent to. E.g. best of 8 or so uploads from separate audience recordings available :

 

The title is a line from 蘇軾

 

There are much I can say (like how I find Burtynstky and Gursky), but let's keep short reply-instalments

[accwai]

An Emmanuel Radnitzky (aka Man Ray) quote :

« Of course' date=' there will always be those who look only at technique, who ask 'how', while others of a more curious nature will ask 'why'. Personally, I have always preferred inspiration to information.[/b'] »

 

I happen to like asking both how and why. I used to use view cameras mostly. Even now, I still use perspective control lenses quite a bit. These days I also do a lot of macro with focus stacking. When you go significantly beyond life size magnification, you really can't see your final image in the viewfinder. Focus stacking allows you to overcome the fundamental limitation of optics at high magnification, but it also creates a look that's rather unexpected. The only thing you can do is to give up your expectation, work with the technique and take advantage of its look.

 

And DSD is but « technique » ?

 

Technique can't be avoided. Nothing wrong with that as long as you don't ignore the content.

 

Me, am happier listening to an inspiring YouTube bootleg than to any Hi-Res Audio I'm indifferent to. E.g. best of 8 or so uploads from separate audience recordings available :

 

Now you got me intrigued. Very likely I'll pick up a copy of his "Beyond Imagination" this weekend. There seems to be many different versions, including Bluray audio, which is high res. Have to go back to the store and see exactly what they have.

 

The title is a line from 蘇軾

 

 

There are much I can say (like how I find Burtynstky and Gursky), but let's keep short reply-instalments

 

Curious to know

[徐中銳]

Pardon, busy, haven't time to write as I'd like—as best...

 

Let's, for now, riff on Herb Ritts :

« I think a lot of the time these days people are so concerned about having the right camera and the right film and the right lenses and all the special effects that go along with it, even the computer, that they’re missing the key element. That element is developing a style that’s yours and experimenting with it in until you eventually discover what makes sense to you especially. »

 

Me, in short, I believe in people rather than technologies. Say if my dear friends (or strangers I value) esteem a recording then I might make the time to investigate for myself.

 

And it may be that our systems are attuned to (very) specific musical genres, incapable of appreciating otherness ? Referring back, Man Ray's photography is distinctly different to that of Robert Doisneau ?

 

 

But what's music-reproduction ? Is it comparable to printing of film ? I recall Helmut Newton in reply to :

« Do you ever print for yourself ?

I did when I was poor and young, but I was always a very bad printer. When I met my wife June, we had no money, so I would expose the print in the enlarger and she would do the processing. But I’ve worked with the same printers in Paris for years now. Nothing gets by them. There is never any retouching, sometimes a little cropping, but mostly my pictures are full frame. »

 

No, I'm not doing DIY printing. You know who my printer is. If I change, I'll definitely try telling you—accrediting who, how and why.

 

 

DSD or PCM (or whatever) don't confine my listening choices.

 

Of Ritts, here's a 907 × 1200 pixels relic to amuse you, Jack Nicholson, Los Angeles 1986 :

[accwai]

Pardon' date=' busy, haven't time to write as I'd like—as best...[/font']

 

Let's, for now, riff on Herb Ritts :

« I think a lot of the time these days people are so concerned about having the right camera and the right film and the right lenses and all the special effects that go along with it, even the computer, that they’re missing the key element. That element is developing a style that’s yours and experimenting with it in until you eventually discover what makes sense to you especially. »

 

You need both but you do have to get your priority straight. My niece is getting into photography. When I was showing some of my travel pictures last year, she asked what kind of lens I use. I started by saying you have to have something to say before you pick which lens says it best. Then I explained how I put together my travel lens line up and what purpose each of the lens serves.

 

Equipment does affect how you say things. Take the example of these two images:

 

 

 

They were taken in the same basement studio probably 20 years apart. The first one was done on black and white film. 120mm macro lens on 4x5 camera. Lighting was a single flash head with a 8" reflector. The second one's digital. 65mm macro lens on APS-H body. The main light is probably from the same flash head or at least one of its brothers , through fiber optic light pipes. The actual image is taken as a sequence using computer controlled focusing rail, and assembled back into a single image through focus stacking software. The first one is fairly realistic. The second one does not look anything like what the eye sees.

 

Me, in short, I believe in people rather than technologies. Say if my dear friends (or strangers I value) esteem a recording then I might make the time to investigate for myself.

 

Yes, CA is very good for that

 

And it may be that our systems are attuned to (very) specific musical genres, incapable of appreciating otherness ? Referring back, Man Ray's photography is distinctly different to that of Robert Doisneau ?

 

Hard to say. Since my music taste is not that broad, I don't know how my system would perform outside of what I already tried. It plays keyboard music exceptionally well, from harpsichord to grand piano and everything in between. Also exceptional with single instruments, violin, cello, viol, flute, lute, guitar, guqin, guzheng, pipa etc. Good with small orchestra, smaller organs, big drums like taiko. Ok with large orchestra and large organs. In general, it is very good at making sense of whatever music I throw at it. It does a credible job of making sense of Radiohead. Steve Reich's Piano Phase sounds so interesting that I have no problem at all sitting through the whole thing. That's good enough for me, for now

 

No, I'm not doing DIY printing. You know who my printer is. If I change, I'll definitely try telling you—accrediting who, how and why.

 

The meaning of "printing" has changed quite a bit. In the darkroom days, all of the work of printing is done in the dark. And except for the notes that you've taken, often very vague, they don't automatically got carried over to the next session. Not very repeatable overall. But these days, everything is saved to files. If your process is calibrated well enough, its highly repeatable. I don't output to prints anymore. But for the images that I care enough, I still go through all the necessary "darkroom" work, on computer.

 

DSD or PCM (or whatever) don't confine my listening choices.

 

I don't have DSD equipment, so I don't have a choice.

[Marco]

You need both but you do have to get your priority straight. My niece is getting into photography. When I was showing some of my travel pictures last year, she asked what kind of lens I use. I started by saying you have to have something to say before you pick which lens says it best. Then I explained how I put together my travel lens line up and what purpose each of the lens serves.

 

Equipment does affect how you say things. Take the example of these two images:

 

 

 

They were taken in the same basement studio probably 20 years apart. The first one was done on black and white film. 120mm macro lens on 4x5 camera. Lighting was a single flash head with a 8" reflector. The second one's digital. 65mm macro lens on APS-H body. The main light is probably from the same flash head or at least one of its brothers , through fiber optic light pipes. The actual image is taken as a sequence using computer controlled focusing rail, and assembled back into a single image through focus stacking software. The first one is fairly realistic. The second one does not look anything like what the eye sees.

 

 

 

Yes, CA is very good for that

 

 

 

Hard to say. Since my music taste is not that broad, I don't know how my system would perform outside of what I already tried. It plays keyboard music exceptionally well, from harpsichord to grand piano and everything in between. Also exceptional with single instruments, violin, cello, viol, flute, lute, guitar, guqin, guzheng, pipa etc. Good with small orchestra, smaller organs, big drums like taiko. Ok with large orchestra and large organs. In general, it is very good at making sense of whatever music I throw at it. It does a credible job of making sense of Radiohead. Steve Reich's Piano Phase sounds so interesting that I have no problem at all sitting through the whole thing. That's good enough for me, for now

 

 

 

The meaning of "printing" has changed quite a bit. In the darkroom days, all of the work of printing is done in the dark. And except for the notes that you've taken, often very vague, they don't automatically got carried over to the next session. Not very repeatable overall. But these days, everything is saved to files. If your process is calibrated well enough, its highly repeatable. I don't output to prints anymore. But for the images that I care enough, I still go through all the necessary "darkroom" work, on computer.

 

 

 

I don't have DSD equipment, so I don't have a choice.

 

Guys, what a fantastic way of looking at things. Photo and music have a lot in common, not in the least because of the similar differences in technology (analog vs digital) and how artistic influence overtake the importance of used technique. However, there are some things that get mixed up . For one: when distortion, noise etc are higher, artistic influence tends to get a better chance of shifting the balance towards a good result. For instance: an old analog camera with lots of noise can be considered a picture with an excellent " atmosphere", a macro photo of a flower a spectacular, never before seen look at it. However magical, it's a production technique that only resembles audio in a way that could be described as turning the bass way up/down or some other way of enhancement. To me, this is like comparing apples to oranges because this way you're adding in this comparison, to a clear cut technical difference between them, artistic expression. If you catch my drift.

[YashN]

Photo and music have a lot in common

 

I think video (including photo) and audio are very different:

 

For video/photo, fidelity isn't given a lot of importance (effects, B & W, re-touching are commonplace and accepted/wanted).

 

It's the complete opposite in audiophilia.

[Marco]

I think video (including photo) and audio are very different:

 

For video/photo, fidelity isn't given a lot of importance (effects, B & W, re-touching are commonplace and accepted/wanted).

 

It's the complete opposite in audiophilia.

 

You can only see those effects used for commercial targets (cosmetic, fashion), or when other forms of artistic expression are wanted(for instance movies). There are almost no photo or video editors that haven't got a calibrated (Eizo etc) screen, so they can fiddle around with color filters, dynamic range etc to get to a certain atmosphere. The same counts for music, with the exception of classical music and similar productions, yet even there you find a lot of multi microphone setups.. Besides, the world is full of fans of euphonic equipment. That might not even be a deliberate goal for many. Fact is: almost no audio equipment is truly transparent and every component adds to the mix. When you add that all up, it's not hard to imagine that almost everyone listens to their own view (or best money can buy) of what HI Fidelity is. Regarding photo or video: how many people at home see what the editor can see? Almost nobody has a oled calibrated screen, or have a true 12 bit color monitor. Same goes, again, for hifi: a lot of very low distortion amps drive speakers that distort percentages and don't go from 20-20KHz. We just have to accept we live with all these flaws, but going forward means you have to take the flaws and perfect them. Otherwise: wed only be fixing things as if living in Cuba. Nice cars there, but I'd rather drive a newer car, as well as listen and philosophies about the best format;-)

[徐中銳]

Recalling Nabokov, in his Lectures on Literature, Proust section :

« Middleton Murry wrote that if you try to be precise you are bound to be metaphorical. »

I trust analogies help appreciation... New light...

 

Incidentally, take « Chinese-food », glimpse the following :

 

It's more than the label, it's the particular practise ? Likewise DSD, PCM (or whatever) ?

[Marco]

Recalling Nabokov' date=' in his [i']Lectures on Literature[/i], Proust section :

« Middleton Murry wrote that if you try to be precise you are bound to be metaphorical. »

I trust analogies help appreciation... New light...

 

Incidentally, take « Chinese-food », glimpse the following :

 

It's more than the label, it's the particular practise ? Likewise DSD, PCM (or whatever) ?

 

Allright, one more analogy then: what picture do you think resembles the real world better: a photographer taking a picture with a state of the art lens and full frame body, or the same photographer (same framing etc) with an analog camera from the 70's? Just to make a point: looking at wild life photography or athletes with current camera's make all the details come out, as well as being better at low level light, there's true color there and you don't need to scan them to get them online, don't cost a fortune, will do fine in humid conditions, and don't need that much, if any, post processing. I mean: it's all in the hands of the photographer, but better gear delivers more pictures. Some of them being great as well. To audio: what if the better (more transparent, higher resolution, closer to the source) format were available: what would be the better choice of recording in and what would be the better playback format? Btw: it doesn't mean the other format is laughable. But IMHO dsd is the better format for playback. Hard to get all the bits out maybe(which in my opinion is almost true for any sdm vs multi-bit case), but that's like the old digital cameras: it'll be fixed soon...

[徐中銳]

Briefly, say if you're advocating tea. Whose product, how's it served ?

Who will be arguing purely for :

[Marco]

Briefly' date=' say if you're advocating tea. Whose product, how's it served ?[/font']

Who will be arguing purely for :

 

I hope I am not holding you back to respond to the thread and questions asked, am I? Maybe someone with deep knowledge of tea rituals could explain what this has got to do with the DSD path from A/D or D/A and if it`s more direct than PCM?

 

I am quite confident nobody is interested in seeing anymore tea or food related video`s.