Do I need DSD?

[bogi]

MQA is only the "next big thing" until you hear it. Then it's time for DSD and 24/96 PCM....

 

 

+1

 

If there is some hype, it is about MQA and not DSD (SDM). DSD is so old as SACD is. Termporary hype is always about new things, which are not yet enough evaluated.

[davide256]

Can someone recommend a good way to compare DSD to PCM?

 

I'm pretty happy with 16/44.1 PCM. I can't imagine certain albums I have sounding any better in DSD than they sound in PCM. (I'm thinking specifically of KD Lang's Ingenue, and Donald Fagen's The Nightfly.)

 

I would love to perform a direct comparison to see if I am missing out.

 

In analog terms, PCM master is cheap vinyl, DSD master is high quality vinyl. Same music recorded on both media but the chance of hearing degradation is greater with PCM master. I can't think of a single DSD recording I have that irritates/fatigues, even with conversion to PCM

[mansr]

In analog terms, PCM master is cheap vinyl, DSD master is high quality vinyl. Same music recorded on both media but the chance of hearing degradation is greater with PCM master. I can't think of a single DSD recording I have that irritates/fatigues, even with conversion to PCM

I think those who record to DSD are more careful about making a good production, and this is why DSD recordings tend be good, not because of the format per se.

[kelly200269]

In analog terms, PCM master is cheap vinyl, DSD master is high quality vinyl. Same music recorded on both media but the chance of hearing degradation is greater with PCM master. I can't think of a single DSD recording I have that irritates/fatigues, even with conversion to PCM

 

What degradation are you referring to exactly? There is no greater chance of 'degradation' (is that a new technical term I haven't heard of before? ;-) ) than with PCM than with DSD.

And as for likening PCM to cheap vinyl...? Someone stop me PLEASE!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kelly200269]

I think those who record to DSD are more careful about making a good production, and this is why DSD recordings tend be good, not because of the format per se.

 

So, can you provide some evidence of this please?

No? Because it's not true in the slightest.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[duxservit]

Still thinking over a Rega dac-r, a gungnir, a chord mojo, a couple models from teac. I'll use a mac mini I just got and a seagate personal cloud NAS. Not sure if I need DSD. I don't understand the technical aspects of it. If a dac can receive a signal at any current format frequency and decode it, how come it can't do it if it's streamed? How does the dac even know it's streamed? Doesn't the music player pull the signal into its memory and send it from the ram anyway? (I'm planning on using software that does that). And do I even care? That is, is DSD really the future? I've read such positive things about the rega and the gungnir but they don't do DSD. Thanks for helping out the new guy. -Dave

 

If you know that you'll be listening to many DSD files (e.g. you have many SACD discs), then I'd recommend getting a DAC that supports DSD64 or DSD128.

 

If you are happy with 24/96 quality or even CD/Redbook quality, then stick with a good PCM-only DAC (which will probably be cheaper than DSD-capable DACs).

 

Personally I'm a big fan of DSD (on SACD and downloads), but I don't see DSD becoming mainstream anytime soon (judging from the limited number of SACDs and from the popularity of "low-res" music streaming services).

[kumakuma]

So, can you provide some evidence of this please?

No? Because it's not true in the slightest.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Which part of his post are you disagreeing with?

[Pat Case]

Still thinking over a Rega dac-r, a gungnir, a chord mojo, a couple models from teac. I'll use a mac mini I just got and a seagate personal cloud NAS. Not sure if I need DSD. I don't understand the technical aspects of it. If a dac can receive a signal at any current format frequency and decode it, how come it can't do it if it's streamed? How does the dac even know it's streamed? Doesn't the music player pull the signal into its memory and send it from the ram anyway? (I'm planning on using software that does that). And do I even care? That is, is DSD really the future? I've read such positive things about the rega and the gungnir but they don't do DSD. Thanks for helping out the new guy. -Dave

 

I've listened to DSD and PCM. I've listened to PCM converted from DSD. To my ears, on my pretty good system, the major differences still came down to things that I have no control over, namely recording and production quality.

 

In the end, I opted for an Audio Research DAC 8 - yeah, I know, it's five year old technology! The folk who research and retail this stuff will always come up with one more thing for you to buy and all on the promise of better or perceived better output. I fear that with the advent of MQA you are already too late in your conversion to DSD it's dated technology.

 

Having said all of that, I still listen to DSD and SACD disks through an Oppo BDP 95

[kelly200269]

Which part of his post are you disagreeing with?

 

Ermmm... ALL of it.

For starters, VERY few recordings are made in DSD. Apart from PCM, most high-bit, non-PCM recordings are recorded recorded in DXD. DXD can then be 'pushed'/converted to either PCM or DSD downstream.

And as for the comment about production values of PCM recordings? Sorry, but that's utter tosh. And here's the evidence: Listen to Lyn Stanley, Lost in Romance. By the poster's 'logic', this recording should be non-PCM. Wrong. It was natively recorded in 24/96 PCM.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bogi]

I think those who record to DSD are more careful about making a good production, and this is why DSD recordings tend be good, not because of the format per se.

 

There is IMO no better format, there is equipment which plays better PCM or DSD.

 

It's better to compare DSD with HiRes PCM than with CDs. In the case of HiRes PCM good production is also more likely expected.

[kumakuma]

And as for the comment about production values of PCM recordings? Sorry, but that's utter tosh. And here's the evidence: Listen to Lyn Stanley, Lost in Romance. By the poster's 'logic', this recording should be non-PCM. Wrong. It was natively recorded in 24/96 PCM.

 

Not sure how a single data point is "evidence" of anything.

 

In my opinion, the care taken during the recording and remastering stages are much more important than the format of the recording.

[4est]

I think you are missing the simple point that most DACs convert to SDM internally, and that many (myself included) have discovered that it sounds better converted to SDM in the computer via HQPlayer algorithms than via the internal DAC ones.

Ermmm... ALL of it.

For starters, VERY few recordings are made in DSD. Apart from PCM, most high-bit, non-PCM recordings are recorded recorded in DXD. DXD can then be 'pushed'/converted to either PCM or DSD downstream.

And as for the comment about production values of PCM recordings? Sorry, but that's utter tosh. And here's the evidence: Listen to Lyn Stanley, Lost in Romance. By the poster's 'logic', this recording should be non-PCM. Wrong. It was natively recorded in 24/96 PCM.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[matthias]

DXD can then be 'pushed'/converted to either PCM or DSD downstream.

 

DXD is PCM actually.

 

Matt

[Pat Case]

Not sure how a single data point is "evidence" of anything.

 

In my opinion, the care taken during the recording and remastering stages are much more important than the format of the recording.

 

Bravo!

[kelly200269]

Not sure how a single data point is "evidence" of anything.

 

In my opinion, the care taken during the recording and remastering stages are much more important than the format of the recording.

 

I don't disagree with you there at all. What I DO disagree with, is the misguided notion that DSD recordings sound better than PCM masters. They do not.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[esldude]

So, can you provide some evidence of this please?

No? Because it's not true in the slightest.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Don't know I can provide evidence. It seems a reasonable conclusion. Recording in DSD you don't have the same chances to mix channels after the fact, do various processing of the digital stream, do editing the way you easily can with PCM. These facts would lead most thoughtful recording people to handle DSD sessions a bit differently than PCM. Add the fact DSD catalogues tend to be made of non-pop material and that alone lends credence to the idea.

 

This doesn't mean one cannot or does not take the same care in PCM recordings. Some do just that. Part of mansr's point is not that one inherently sounds better than the other, but one has limitations the other lacks and forces one to be more careful.

[bogi]

I don't disagree with you there at all. What I DO disagree with, is the misguided notion that DSD recordings sound better than PCM masters. They do not.

 

DSD recordings typically sound better on suitable delta sigma DACs. Explanation in that case is simple: Studio conversion tools used to create DSD recording from PCM mix are of higher quality than similar HW based processing within delta sigma DAC chip, when PCM recording is played out.

[k6davis]

I think you are missing the simple point that most DACs convert to SDM internally, and that many (myself included) have discovered that it sounds better converted to SDM in the computer via HQPlayer algorithms than via the internal DAC ones.

+1

 

The DAC manufacturers appear to have voted for DSD. (Ducking!!)

 

I have enjoyed the sound of all of my music upsampled to DSD for years. So much so that I abandoned PCM playback altogether by purchasing a Lampizator DSD only DAC, which I feed only DSD256 upsampled by HQPlayer.

 

I'm not one of the more technically inclined members of this board, but my understanding is that DSD is simpler to convert to analog, with less invasive filtering. In addition, DSD does not even require conversion to analog by a DAC chip. My Lampizator DAC does not have one. The changing amplitude of the bits in a DSD signal *is* an analog waveform that the DAC plays back without conversion. So much of the benefit of DSD lies in the simplicity of playback as opposed to the recording stage. Again, all caveats to my lack of deeper knowledge about the topic. I'm sure someone will correct me or add more scientific detail.

 

This is not to say that "PCM" DAC don't sound excellent, but the vast majority of them convert all PCM input to SDM/DSD anyway. Better to do so with a powerful, upgradable computer of your choosing, with software of your choosing, than to leave it to a $7 DAC chip.

 

All that said, comparing PCM to DSD using recordings, even of the same albums, is a waste of time. The masters are usually not the same and sadly, due to the trend toward compression and loudness or a heavy hand on the EQ in one direction or another, the higher res recordings (PCM or DSD) often suffer in comparison to their Redbook counterparts. What I definitely like is the sound of (all) my recordings upsampled to DSD by HQPlayer.

[mansr]

Don't know I can provide evidence. It seems a reasonable conclusion. Recording in DSD you don't have the same chances to mix channels after the fact, do various processing of the digital stream, do editing the way you easily can with PCM. These facts would lead most thoughtful recording people to handle DSD sessions a bit differently than PCM. Add the fact DSD catalogues tend to be made of non-pop material and that alone lends credence to the idea.

 

This doesn't mean one cannot or does not take the same care in PCM recordings. Some do just that. Part of mansr's point is not that one inherently sounds better than the other, but one has limitations the other lacks and forces one to be more careful.

Recording in DSD is a very deliberate choice by the producer, one only someone who cares about the result would make. That various destructive editing processes are impossible is an extra bonus.

 

A PCM recording can of course be done with just as much care and skill, and the result will be just as good, but the format choice alone is no indication in this case.

[kelly200269]

Don't know I can provide evidence. It seems a reasonable conclusion. Recording in DSD you don't have the same chances to mix channels after the fact, do various processing of the digital stream, do editing the way you easily can with PCM. These facts would lead most thoughtful recording people to handle DSD sessions a bit differently than PCM. Add the fact DSD catalogues tend to be made of non-pop material and that alone lends credence to the idea.

 

This doesn't mean one cannot or does not take the same care in PCM recordings. Some do just that. Part of mansr's point is not that one inherently sounds better than the other, but one has limitations the other lacks and forces one to be more careful.

 

ANY and ALL mixing of a multi-track DSD recording is done by converting the single-bit stream to PCM. Hence all mixing of a DSD recording is done in PCM.

You cannot release an album/master 'unmixed'. Therefore all DSD-captured recordings involve mixing in PCM.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kelly200269]

Recording in DSD is a very deliberate choice by the producer, one only someone who cares about the result would make. That various destructive editing processes are impossible is an extra bonus.

 

A PCM recording can of course be done with just as much care and skill, and the result will be just as good, but the format choice alone is no indication in this case.

 

Please refer to my last post about mixing/editing of DSD signals/recordings.

It could legitimately be argued that mixing DSD recordings involves more signal manipulation and conversion errors (in having to convert to PCM to mix/edit) than recording and mixing in PCM.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mansr]

ANY and ALL mixing of a multi-track DSD recording is done by converting the single-bit stream to PCM. Hence all mixing of a DSD recording is done in PCM.

You cannot release an album/master 'unmixed'. Therefore all DSD-captured recordings involve mixing in PCM.

 

There are recordings done with a single stereo pair of microphones released with no mixing or editing. Some others use multiple microphones and an analogue mixer into a stereo DAC with no subsequent processing. These techniques are not inherently superior, but they tell us something about the values pursued by the producer, and such recordings frequently sound great.

[bogi]

Therefore all DSD-captured recordings involve mixing in PCM.

 

Not all. Field acoustic recordings may not require mixing or analog mixing can be involved.

https://www.nativedsd.com/information/about-dsd

https://www.nativedsd.com/faqs

[Maldur]

1) Modi Multibit is just the lowest end R2R offering from Schiit, they have several others with greater effective bit width (given SNR considerations, anything > 21 bits effective is marketing fluff), and there are several other (mostly more expensive) R2R vendors, including some with fully discrete resistor ladders

 

And? If anything over 21 bits is fluff (maybe so) this is not excuse using 16bit technology, if 16bit is maximum, then we talk only about Redbook CD.

 

Jason Stoddard (from Schiit) answered to similar question @2014:

"There's still a ton of manufacturers using R2R."

 

Jason: "A ton? No. And if you count R2R vs sigma-delta DACs sold, you're talking 0.01% or less. Sigma-delta is everywhere, not just in standalone DACs, but in players and phones and tablets and computers and DAPs and everywhere.

 

R2R is nearly dead as a technology, except for a few heroic efforts using discrete R2R arrays, a few still using the last of the 6000 PCM1704s in the world, NOS stuff using 16- and 18-bit chips...that's it."

 

I agree with Jason.

 

2) What list are you talking about? Schiit, for example, uses instrumentation R2R chips, for which there are multiple vendors

 

Multiple vendors... but only one producer - Analog Devices. Schiit uses AD5547 from Analog Devices. 18Bit AD1865 and 20Bit AD1862 are out of production, like a PCM1702/PCM1704 and Philips TDA154x series. So there is only 14Bit AD5557, 16Bit AD5547, 18Bit AD5781 and 20Bit AD5790/91 in production.

An instumentation/industrial purpose chip is measured & optimised for a bit different set of specs than audio. Very nice, if chip is also good for audio...

 

3) most music available is at Redbook resolution at best (and much allegedly "hi res" remastering is no better, sometimes worse, than originally released Redbook).

As i say earlier - all PCM audio is from Sigma-Delta ADC converters. After converting DSD is decimated to PCM, mainly to Redbook. Redbook is the worst widespread storage format for PCM. Remastering is another topic.

 

Time to move on.

[alfe]

After PCM>DSD 512 next is MP3>DSD 512.

Guys just buy vinyls and give us a break