Do I need DSD?

[Maldur]

It was natively recorded in 24/96 PCM.

 

I see, the show goes on... .

 

What specific converter is used for "native recording in 24/96"?

[kelly200269]

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

Guys just buy vinyls and give us a break

 

Hahaha! Here, here :-)

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kelly200269]

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

 

Yes, of course. And OF COURSE those releases make-up the majority of recorded music available today, don't they...?? ;-)

What exactly do you listen to? The perceived quality of your hifi, or music?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[YashN]

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.

 

Wrong again...

[kelly200269]

Wrong again...

 

Don't take my word for it.

 

Listen to the professionals...

 

http://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-can-i-record-mix-and-master-dsd

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bogi]

Yes, of course. And OF COURSE those releases make-up the majority of recorded music available today, don't they...?? ;-)

What exactly do you listen to? The perceived quality of your hifi, or music?

 

You wrote ALL and you yet emphasized it. That's my point.

 

Your show can continue ...

[kelly200269]

You wrote ALL and you yet emphasized it. That's my point.

 

Your show can continue ...

 

Why thank-you, but I think I'm gonna have to 'roll the credits' on this one ;-)

Suffice the say to the OP (who's probably either bored-stiff through boredom, or rolling around in hoots of laughter!?) that no, you don't 'need' DSD. But like with everything in this game, you pays your money and takes your choice.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Maldur]

Listen to the professionals...

Q. Can I record, mix and master in DSD? | Sound On Sound

Ok.

 

"SOS Technical Editor Hugh Robjohns replies: DSD — Direct Stream Digital — is a generic PCM digital audio data format, but one that uses only one bit at a very high sample rate."

 

Very "professional" reply...

[bogi]

Why thank-you, but I think I'm gonna have to 'roll the credits' on this one ;-)

Suffice the say to the OP (who's probably either bored-stiff through boredom, or rolling around in hoots of laughter!?) that no, you don't 'need' DSD. But like with everything in this game, you pays your money and takes your choice.

 

I aready wrote in this thread there is no better format. All depends on equipment used for playback.

 

Your show can continue ...

[Kal Rubinson]

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

Guys just buy vinyls and give us a break

I've heard that they are better upsampled to 45 or, even, 78rpm.

[davide256]

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

 

You clearly weren't buying pop records in the 70's

[Blackstone]

192KHz downloads smoke DSD in my experience. If your music is available in PCM high resolution, you aren't missing anything. The SACD ISO rips I have all sound like junk and very digital sounding compared to PCM. I think it was more important before HD Tracks got off the ground but as a music lover first audiophile second, I just don't get the hype over DSD, let alone double DSD, ect. Its a way for sub par mid fi manufacturers to try and distinguish through specs instead of building a better product. My opinion.

[firedog]

So, can you provide some evidence of this please?

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

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Just listen to native DSD recordings at NativeDSD and Blue Coast, and then drop your know it all attitude for a few minutes...then tell me those recordings aren't higher quality than the vast majority of non-DSD recordings you know of.

[firedog]

Don't take my word for it.

 

Listen to the professionals...

 

Q. Can I record, mix and master in DSD? | Sound On Sound

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

There are lots of professionals with lots of differing opinions. We can all cherry pick experts to backup our points.

 

And BTW, the tools for mixing and mastering in DSD exist and are about to come out in commercial form.

 

But, what is the point of your posts here - just to argue for the sake of arguing and annoying other people? You don't like or care about DSD; that's fine. State your opinion. It really adds nothing to the discussion to continuously post negative responses to every poster. Do you somehow think your posts about DSD are going to convince anyone of anything? Your OPINIONS are just that, and are no more valuable or knowledgeable than anyone else's. Your opinions and viewpoint aren't fact, even though you seem to think they are.

[kelly200269]

There are lots of professionals with lots of differing opinions. We can all cherry pick experts to backup our points.

 

And BTW, the tools for mixing and mastering in DSD exist and are about to come out in commercial form.

 

But, what is the point of your posts here - just to argue for the sake of arguing and annoying other people? You don't like or care about DSD; that's fine. State your opinion. It really adds nothing to the discussion to continuously post negative responses to every poster. Do you somehow think your posts about DSD are going to convince anyone of anything? Your OPINIONS are just that, and are no more valuable or knowledgeable than anyone else's. Your opinions and viewpoint aren't fact, even though you seem to think they are.

If you read my posts properly, you would understand that I'm not 'anti DSD'. Far from it. I have a very large SACD collection all (obviously) encoded in DSD, and I have a DSD capable DAC that I use.

What I object to is the misguided notion being banded around that DSD is superior to high-bit PCM as a music delivery and storage medium. It is not superior, just different.

In fact the cynic in me sees DSD file availability from vendors as nothing more than a crude marketing attempt to con consumers into paying more, and over-the-odds for the music they love. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with high-bit PCM as a music storage and delivery system, and going back to the OP's question, I maintain that you do not 'need' DSD. DSD is not an upgrade to high-bit PCM in home music replay, just different.

As for my opinions, this is a forum where opinions cab be expressed. So express away, I say!

 

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

[matthias]

There is nothing wrong whatsoever with high-bit PCM as a music storage and delivery system, and going back to the OP's question, I maintain that you do not 'need' DSD. DSD is not an upgrade to high-bit PCM in home music replay, just different.

 

For me DSD is the most "analog like" digital format.

My personal opinion is that I do not need PCM.

Anyway, all PCM is converted in a chip like the AK4490 or AK4497 to DSD before converting to analog.

DSD can be bypassed through the chip.

So I am happy.

 

Matt

[Paul R]

If you read my posts properly, you would understand that I'm not 'anti DSD'.

 

Seriously? Could have (did) fool me on that one. Just based on your writing of course, I do not know you at all.

 

 

What I object to is the misguided notion being banded around that DSD is superior to high-bit PCM as a music delivery and storage medium. It is not superior, just different.

 

Says who? The guy who prefers the sound of DSD on his system, or the guy who prefers the sound of PCM on his system? Both are correct so far as their system goes of course.

 

In another sense, DSD is superior in that superior results are obtained from less complex and/or less expensive equipment, compared to PCM equipment of the same cost. PCM is superior in that it takes up less physical space, and there are currently more DAW software packages that work with PCM.

 

Misguided is a very strong term to use when the factors that decide superior are so numerous and so unclear to so many people. And of course, which factors carry the most weight vary from situation to situation.

 

Fortunately, with today's level of technology, nobody has to choose. PCM can be converted to DSD with extraordinarily good results. PCM can be up sampled with high quality software that is, at least by audiophile standards, dirt cheap.

 

Storage is measured in terabytes today, and is not an issue. It was an issue when PCM was developed, as a 660mb CD was considered enormous storage, and easily exceeded the drive capacity of most machines. $69 for a Terabyte or two of storage in 1982 was starkly unthinkable. Today, it is blasé. Tomorrow, Petabyte storage will be considered normal in our watches and phones.

 

 

In fact the cynic in me sees DSD file availability from vendors as nothing more than a crude marketing attempt to con consumers into paying more, and over-the-odds for the music they love. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with high-bit PCM as a music storage and delivery system, and going back to the OP's question, I maintain that you do not 'need' DSD. DSD is not an upgrade to high-bit PCM in home music replay, just different.

As for my opinions, this is a forum where opinions cab be expressed. So express away, I say!

 

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

 

Everyone is welcome to their opinion of course. Mine is that DSD can be - and usually is - an upgrade to redbook LPCM. Not so much with very high sample rate LPCM, such as 352K and above. But it doesn't equal DSD128 to my ears on any of my systems until the sample rate is 352 or above.

 

-Paul

[Jud]

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

 

I find it helps to be precise and specific.

 

- Virtually all ADCs used for recording use sigma-delta modulation as a first step from analog, resulting in a DSD-like (low bit depth, MHz sample rate) bitstream.

 

- For people who want to work in PCM, these ADCs can be set to convert that initial bitstream to PCM (DXD or lower sample rate) with decimation filtering. Editing and mastering can then be done in PCM (often 24/96 resolution or lower, because most of this is done on consoles with a huge number of channels).

 

- For people who want to work in "DSD" (or whatever similar high sample rate, low bit depth bitstream comes from the ADC) there are some alternatives. Currently, it is only rarely that these alternatives don't involve some conversion to DXD (either the recording can be done "live" with virtually no editing, or what one wants to edit can be left in or converted to analog and the editing done in that domain), though apparently progress is being made on equipment that will allow more editing in DSD or similar formats. So let's suppose this is the typical production that involves some conversion to DXD. Here there are two alternatives: convert the entire project to DXD, or convert only those portions that require editing. Both techniques are in reasonably common use, so it's possible the DSD file you're listening to has mostly stayed in that format.

 

- At the listening end, the choice is not really about DSD versus PCM, except for people owning a handful of NOS/R2R DACs. The vast majority of DACs initially convert an incoming PCM bitstream to "8x" sample rates (352.8 or 384KHz), then run the result through a sigma-delta modulator that produces a DSD-like low bit depth MHz sample rate bitstream, which is then converted to analog. (In other words, this is the reverse of what happens in ADCs at the recording end.) So the vast majority of us are "listening to DSD" as converted inside our DACs. The choice, then, isn't whether to listen to PCM or DSD; it's where you want the DSD (or similar MHz sample rate low bit depth bitstream) to come from: the recording studio, computer software that will convert offline or "on the fly," or in the DAC. Many folks think that DSD coming from the studio or computer software sounds better than the conversion done by a commodity chip inside the DAC.

[sjay]

I guess i am a bit weird but i like all formats, even MP3's sound good on my setup. Sure I prefer lossless over MP3 but cant say i prefer DSD to FLAC, they both sound great to me.

[davide256]

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.

 

Not connected at all...in my system some level of digital irritants still exist with native 192/24 PCM which aren't heard if I'm playing back DSD converted to PCM. There are bad DSD recordings, usually when someone has taken a badly mastered analog tape recording from the 70's and tried to repackage as DSD but I have yet to experience "digititus" sound irritation from a DSD recording no matter how badly the DSD production turned out.

[esldude]

I guess i am a bit weird but i like all formats, even MP3's sound good on my setup. Sure I prefer lossless over MP3 but cant say i prefer DSD to FLAC, they both sound great to me.

If you like them all it simply means your gear is substandard junk, you have lousy hearing, and have never experienced really good sound.

 

Of course I am joking.

 

It probably does mean you are a wise music lover who doesn't let the details interfere with enjoying good music however you find it.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[tmtomh]

I find it extremely ironic that so many people say DSD/SACD is the "most analogue" sounding of digital formats. I don't say this critically - I agree DSD/SACD is excellent.

 

But I still think it's ironic because you can make an argument that DSD is actually the most "digital" of all digital formats. It's a 1-bit sample - each sample is either 1 or 0 - and its native signal to noise ratio is about 6dB (not 60. Six!). It produces a ton of noise, and then uses aggressive noise-shaping algorithms to push most of the noise up into the ultrasonic range. Comparatively speaking, high-res PCM is positively analogue in its format (not literally of course), describing each sample with exponentially more precision, and requiring minimal noise-shaping.

 

It's also interesting how many folks seem to prefer DSD as a playback format, while complaining of the sonic limitations of Delta-Sigma DACs.

 

All of which makes Jud's comments below totally spot-on.

 

I find it helps to be precise and specific.

 

- Virtually all ADCs used for recording use sigma-delta modulation as a first step from analog, resulting in a DSD-like (low bit depth, MHz sample rate) bitstream.

 

- For people who want to work in PCM, these ADCs can be set to convert that initial bitstream to PCM (DXD or lower sample rate) with decimation filtering. Editing and mastering can then be done in PCM (often 24/96 resolution or lower, because most of this is done on consoles with a huge number of channels).

 

- For people who want to work in "DSD" (or whatever similar high sample rate, low bit depth bitstream comes from the ADC) there are some alternatives. Currently, it is only rarely that these alternatives don't involve some conversion to DXD (either the recording can be done "live" with virtually no editing, or what one wants to edit can be left in or converted to analog and the editing done in that domain), though apparently progress is being made on equipment that will allow more editing in DSD or similar formats. So let's suppose this is the typical production that involves some conversion to DXD. Here there are two alternatives: convert the entire project to DXD, or convert only those portions that require editing. Both techniques are in reasonably common use, so it's possible the DSD file you're listening to has mostly stayed in that format.

 

- At the listening end, the choice is not really about DSD versus PCM, except for people owning a handful of NOS/R2R DACs. The vast majority of DACs initially convert an incoming PCM bitstream to "8x" sample rates (352.8 or 384KHz), then run the result through a sigma-delta modulator that produces a DSD-like low bit depth MHz sample rate bitstream, which is then converted to analog. (In other words, this is the reverse of what happens in ADCs at the recording end.) So the vast majority of us are "listening to DSD" as converted inside our DACs. The choice, then, isn't whether to listen to PCM or DSD; it's where you want the DSD (or similar MHz sample rate low bit depth bitstream) to come from: the recording studio, computer software that will convert offline or "on the fly," or in the DAC. Many folks think that DSD coming from the studio or computer software sounds better than the conversion done by a commodity chip inside the DAC.

[YashN]

Don't take my word for it.

 

Don't worry, I won't, you've already written two completely false statements already.

[YashN]

I find it extremely ironic that so many people say DSD/SACD is the "most analogue" sounding of digital formats. I don't say this critically - I agree DSD/SACD is excellent.

 

But I still think it's ironic because you can make an argument that DSD is actually the most "digital" of all digital formats. It's a 1-bit sample - each sample is either 1 or 0 -

 

Actually, it's also very analogous to analogue: Density of bits => how sound moves through air molecules.

 

Besides, there's 'fluidity' to it when you listen to a properly done system that's reminiscent of analogue.

[kelly200269]

Don't worry, I won't, you've already written two completely false statements already.

 

So if I'm 'unbelievable', what are you exactly?

Going back to your first post on this thread for instance - are you friends deluded or deaf? Which is it...??

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk