Jump to content
IGNORED

Do I need DSD?


Recommended Posts

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...??

 

They're clever.

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

« Hope this helps. » :

Hi Teresa,

 

The difficulty that everyone has in the beginning with understanding DSD/DSM/SDM/PDM (confusing already, too many terms describing the same thing) is attempting to define/understand "DSD" in terms of Pulse Code Modulation. They're completely different processes using completely different techniques to arrive at completely different results. Their only commonality (from our interest) is they're both used to encode and deliver music.

 

To your question; yes, it's incorrect to call ANY type of DSM Pulse Code Modulation (I prefer the term Pulse Density Modulation, for it describes the end result, not the process used to achieve it). The reason is simple, there's no ABSOLUTE VALUE present in "DSD". PCM, on the other hand, is only a series of 2's compliment binary words VALUES at some bit depth, and at some discrete sampling rate.

 

"DSD" (insert your favored term) is a very simple concept, implemented through a complex modulation process of modulating a bit clock with an audio signal to produce a varying density bit stream proportional to the audio signal's amplitude. The only thing "digital" about the RESULTING bit stream is that it's storable and retrievable in a digital media. For 1-bit two level (DSD), that's all there is. It's an analog signal expressed in the density of bits within a continuous bit stream.

 

To make "DSD" useable beyond just playing it back, several processes have been used to date, including conversion into PCM, and employing parallel multi-bit PDM techniques. The latter is simply used to create a digitally processable digital VALUE based system acceptable to a digital processing system.

 

Hope this helps.

 

I have a question.

 

If I understand correctly in Delta-Sigma Modulation (DSM) the change in the signal is encoded rather than as an absolute value as in PCM.

 

DSD is a trademark and the actual process is DSM but many here use DSD interchangeably with DSM.

 

So my question is: Does multi-bit DSM encode the same way as single-bit DSM? If so is it incorrect to call any type of DSM (change in signal) PCM (absolute value)?

 

11613andreas1.jpg @tailspn

 

«

an accurate picture

Sono pessimista con l'intelligenza,

 

ma ottimista per la volontà.

severe loudspeaker alignment »

 

 

 

Link to comment
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

 

So when people point out factual errors, your response is insults? Don't know what other forums you're accustomed to, but that doesn't go over so well here.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
So when people point out factual errors, your response is insults? Don't know what other forums you're accustomed to, but that doesn't go over so well here.

 

They were not 'pointing out factual errors'. If you look at the earlier posts in this thread there is a way to do that, and this post had nothing to do with highlighting factual errors.

This post was 'personal', hence my 'personal' retort.

Now let's keep 'personalities' out of further posts in this thread, shall we?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
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.

I was getting disturbed about some of the utter misinformation on thread. Then, a sudden outburst of facts and common sense. Thanks.

 

Sent from my SM-G900I using Computer Audiophile mobile app

Link to comment
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.

 

Not I. May I offer a counter view please; your statement has them reversed. DSD (Pulse Coded Modulation) in fact IS an analog representation of a continuous physical event through the modulation of a clocked bit stream. In this case, the modulating signal is the changing air pressure in the spectral band we call sound, transferred to electricity by a microphone. The process is made practical due to the very high ratio between the bit clock carrier frequency, and the highest frequency of the modulating signal.

 

The flaw in the statement "It's a 1-bit sample - each sample is either 1 or 0" is the word Sample. PCM has Samples, DSD does not. Actually, PCM is misnamed, for it's not a modulated stream at all. It's more accurate name is Pulse Coded Measurements. PCM is a series of discrete level measurements, expressed in a 2's compliment binary digital word form, analogous to the individual frames in motion picture film. And like film, each sample/frame is a discrete stand alone measured level/picture.

 

DSD is not a string of samples; it's the modulation of a clocked bit stream where the modulating level establishes the density (presence or absence) of the clocked bits. Full 100% modulation is all 1's on the positive level side, and all 0's on the negative. Alternating 1's and 0's is the no or zero signal level, and 50% modulation is defined as 0dB, or max desired signal level. Additionally, unlike PCM, there's no digital value contained or expressed (the reason it can not be processed in a digital computer, only stored and retrieved).

 

The other fact, explained and expressed by others here is the vast majority (+99%) of all A/D and D/A conversions are front and rear ended by Sigma-Delta Modulators in one form or another. It's safe to say that in any music you can purchase recorded or transferred to "digital" in the last 10-15 years started with a DSD like signal conversion, and was converted to PCM later in the recording process.

 

And I agree with you, DSD is excellent!

Link to comment

I think DSD is not interesting at all. The reason I think this has nothing to do with the format itself. But more to do with the hardware/software needed.

 

As far as I know many streamers like Bluesound, Sonos etc do no support DSD. The most Avid supports of DSD use a software to resample PCM to DSD, while that maybe sounds great. I presume most people prefer ready to use streamers, which are no able to resample. Finally the amount of DSD music available is neglectable.

 

So if most audiophiles are unable to resample PCM to DSD and if there is almost no DSD content available. Then I ask you what is the point of DSD?

 

Try finding non-classical/jazz/blues music in DSD. Most music is only available in 16/44.1 (ignoring analogue formats)

[br]

Link to comment
Use the free trial version of the software available here - AuI ConverteR 48x44 - HiEnd audio converter ISO DFF DSF WAV FLAC AIFF - to upsample a track or tracks of your choice to DSD128, then listen to it/them through your DAC and see what you think.

 

great - thanks Jud!

Front End: Neet Airstream

Digital Processing: Chord Hugo M-Scaler

DAC: Chord Dave

Amplification: Cyrus Mono x300 Signatures

Speakers: Kudos Titan T88

Link to comment
I presume most people prefer ready to use streamers, which are no able to resample. Finally the amount of DSD music available is neglectable.

 

So if most audiophiles are unable to resample PCM to DSD and if there is almost no DSD content available. Then I ask you what is the point of DSD?

 

The point is that many of us report better sound with our DACs when doing software based PCM to DSD conversion. Miska did also measurements which show the difference, see his blog. For me it is personally not much important that 'most audiophiles are unable to resample PCM to DSD'. I am listening on my setup - my HW, my SW, my audio equipment, my ears and my brain. If others use streamers, which are unable to upsample, I am perfectly OK with that. But it has no influence on me how I am listening to music.

 

Everyone is providing here his own opinion. Do not search for truth if PCM or DSD is better. The answer is very individual. No matter how many people enjoy DSD. If they really enjoy that, they have reason for that. This forum connects many people who are able to use their computers with HQPlayer, are able to setup NAA and much more. I agree that within other audiophile forums or communities you probably will not find so big concentration of people doing so. But it doesn't mean that DSD is pointless. If we all would be so conservative that we do only what majority of people do, then we could hardly switch to newer technologies or solutions. For me it is no argument what majority of audiophiles do. I found on this forum very interesting how many people experiment here and try new things. That's the best value of this forum IMO.

i7 11850H + RTX A2000 Win11 HQPlayer ► Topping HS02 ► 2x iFi iSilencer ► SMSL D300 ► DIY headamp DHA1 ► HiFiMan HE-500
Link to comment
I think DSD is not interesting at all. The reason I think this has nothing to do with the format itself. But more to do with the hardware/software needed.

 

As far as I know many streamers like Bluesound, Sonos etc do no support DSD. The most Avid supports of DSD use a software to resample PCM to DSD, while that maybe sounds great. I presume most people prefer ready to use streamers, which are no able to resample. Finally the amount of DSD music available is neglectable.

 

So if most audiophiles are unable to resample PCM to DSD and if there is almost no DSD content available. Then I ask you what is the point of DSD?

 

Try finding non-classical/jazz/blues music in DSD. Most music is only available in 16/44.1 (ignoring analogue formats)

 

The point is that many of us report better sound with our DACs when doing software based PCM to DSD conversion. Miska did also measurements which show the difference, see his blog. For me it is personally not much important that 'most audiophiles are unable to resample PCM to DSD'. I am listening on my setup - my HW, my SW, my audio equipment, my ears and my brain. If others use streamers, which are unable to upsample, I am perfectly OK with that. But it has no influence on me how I am listening to music.

 

Everyone is providing here his own opinion. Do not search for truth if PCM or DSD is better. The answer is very individual. No matter how many people enjoy DSD. If they really enjoy that, they have reason for that. This forum connects many people who are able to use their computers with HQPlayer, are able to setup NAA etc and much more. I agree that within other audiophile forums or communities you probably will not find so big concentration of people doing so. But it doesn't mean that DSD is pointless. If we all would be so conservative that we do only what majority of people do, then we could hardly switch to newer technologies or solutions. For me it is no argument what majority of audiophiles do. I found on this forum very interesting how many people experiment here and try new things. That's the best value of this forum IMO.

 

Perhaps not streaming hardware, but streaming services like Qobuz or Tidal do work with upsampling software like Audirvana Plus or HQPlayer/Roon.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
The point is that many of us report better sound with our DACs when doing software based PCM to DSD conversion. Miska did also measurements which show the difference, see his blog. For me it is personally not much important that 'most audiophiles are unable to resample PCM to DSD'. I am listening on my setup - my HW, my SW, my audio equipment, my ears and my brain. If others use streamers, which are unable to upsample, I am perfectly OK with that. But it has no influence on me how I am listening to music.

 

Everyone is providing here his own opinion. Do not search for truth if PCM or DSD is better. The answer is very individual. No matter how many people enjoy DSD. If they really enjoy that, they have reason for that. This forum connects many people who are able to use their computers with HQPlayer, are able to setup NAA and much more. I agree that within other audiophile forums or communities you probably will not find so big concentration of people doing so. But it doesn't mean that DSD is pointless. If we all would be so conservative that we do only what majority of people do, then we could hardly switch to newer technologies or solutions. For me it is no argument what majority of audiophiles do. I found on this forum very interesting how many people experiment here and try new things. That's the best value of this forum IMO.

 

I agree with you to a certain extent.

 

I use a Auralic Aries LE streamer which gets it content from a Synology 214 NAS. I have ripped my CDs to uncompressed FLACs.

That means that 100% of my digital content is 16/41.1 I have no idea if the Aries LE can handle DSD. But it rather moot since I do not own DSD

and the Aries cannot resample it. I know for certain my DAC cannot handle DSD, a Wadia 12.

 

So for me personally I have zero interest in DSD. I see no added value for me. Thus when I buy a new DAC I want a DAC which is best for PCM

so most likely I'll buy a R2R DAC (Schiit, Metrum EC Desgin etc).

 

This forum has tought me many things. I has made me doubt if USB is suitable for audio and that most DACs are (non R2R) are not for me.

[br]

Link to comment
I have no idea if the Aries LE can handle DSD. But it rather moot since I do not own DSD

and the Aries cannot resample it. I know for certain my DAC cannot handle DSD, a Wadia 12.

 

So for me personally I have zero interest in DSD. I see no added value for me. Thus when I buy a new DAC I want a DAC which is best for PCM

so most likely I'll buy a R2R DAC (Schiit, Metrum EC Desgin etc).

 

I am perfectly OK with that. Your audio chain, your decision, your way.

i7 11850H + RTX A2000 Win11 HQPlayer ► Topping HS02 ► 2x iFi iSilencer ► SMSL D300 ► DIY headamp DHA1 ► HiFiMan HE-500
Link to comment
I think DSD is not interesting at all. The reason I think this has nothing to do with the format itself. But more to do with the hardware/software needed.

 

As far as I know many streamers like Bluesound, Sonos etc do no support DSD. The most Avid supports of DSD use a software to resample PCM to DSD, while that maybe sounds great. I presume most people prefer ready to use streamers, which are no able to resample. Finally the amount of DSD music available is neglectable.

 

So if most audiophiles are unable to resample PCM to DSD and if there is almost no DSD content available. Then I ask you what is the point of DSD?

 

Try finding non-classical/jazz/blues music in DSD. Most music is only available in 16/44.1 (ignoring analogue formats)

 

Yep, that is perfectly true. On the other paw, systems like JRiver Media Center, HQPlayer, Audirvana+, and other's can take that stream and transcode it to DSD, then stream it to your player neat as a pin.

 

Better yet, they can also do that with 16/44.1 files sitting on your mass storage device, transcode and stream it to your player on demand that is.

 

Of course, they can also convert to high sample rate PCM, which also sounds better to some folks on their systems. Not to everyone of course, but hey - it's a cheap and fairly reliable way to improve sound quality. For some of us that is. ;)

 

-Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
I think DSD is not interesting at all....Try finding non-classical/jazz/blues music in DSD. Most music is only available in 16/44.1 (ignoring analogue formats)

 

This is the major dealbreaker with the format from my perspective.

If I am anything, I am a music lover and a pragmatist.

Link to comment

My system runs as follows: Daphile / USB Regen / Matrix X-Sabre DAC / balanced connection to Jeff Rowland Concentra Integrated Amplifier / Monitor Audio Studio 10 Speakers / all music streamed natively, no DSP at all.

 

I can report PCM is just amazing on this system; but DSD has this subjective and seductive quality, hard to put in words, it is, undoubtedly, better to my ears.

Link to comment
This is the major dealbreaker with the format from my perspective.

 

Yes, the vast majority of music outside of classical, jazz, and blues (which tends to be almost exclusively acoustic music) is studio produced. With all the processing entailed in most studio recorded music, there's no benefit to the clear transparent recording qualities of DSD. Actually, those attributes get in the way, since the final recording bares little resemblance to the original recorded tracks.

 

Unfortunately for the acoustic music recording industry, the "studio" produced is the significant majority of music produced today.

Link to comment
Try finding non-classical/jazz/blues music in DSD. Most music is only available in 16/44.1 (ignoring analogue formats)

 

Well, I can name a few Artists with Audiophile DSD/SACD releases outside that particular field: Dead Can Dance, Steely Dan, Dire Straits, Pixies, Vangelis, Jeff Beck, The Human League, Rush, Genesis, The Allman Brothers Band, The Police, Stevie Wonder, Peter Tosh, The Doors, Kraftwerk, The Band, Cowboy Junkies, Beck, Tears for Fears, Tangerine Dream, Talk Talk, Pink Floyd, Gerard Presencer, 10cc, Camel, The Velvet Underground & Nico, Groove Armada, Mike Oldfield, Bob Dylan, The Style Council, Marvin Gaye, The Alan Parsons Project, The Pretenders, Fleetwood Mac, Roxy Music, Simple Minds, Cat Stevens, Elvis Presley, Deep Purple, Elton John, John Lennon, Michael Jackson, Roger Waters, David Bowie, The Carpenters, Billy Joel, Jeff Buckley, Black Sabbath, Peter Gabriel, Supertramp, The Rolling Stones, The Who, Aimee Mann.

Link to comment

Many pop & rock albums were released on SACD. Here you can search your favorites: SA-CD.net - Titles - together 10661 titles up to now.

 

The pop & rock albums were produced/mixed in PCM and then converted to DSD.

i7 11850H + RTX A2000 Win11 HQPlayer ► Topping HS02 ► 2x iFi iSilencer ► SMSL D300 ► DIY headamp DHA1 ► HiFiMan HE-500
Link to comment
Well, I can name a few Artists with Audiophile DSD/SACD releases outside that particular field: Dead Can Dance, Steely Dan, Dire Straits, Pixies, Vangelis, Jeff Beck, The Human League, Rush, Genesis, The Allman Brothers Band, The Police, Stevie Wonder, Peter Tosh, The Doors, Kraftwerk, The Band, Cowboy Junkies, Beck, Tears for Fears, Tangerine Dream, Talk Talk, Pink Floyd, Gerard Presencer, 10cc, Camel, The Velvet Underground & Nico, Groove Armada, Mike Oldfield, Bob Dylan, The Style Council, Marvin Gaye, The Alan Parsons Project, The Pretenders, Fleetwood Mac, Roxy Music, Simple Minds, Cat Stevens, Elvis Presley, Deep Purple, Elton John, John Lennon, Michael Jackson, Roger Waters, David Bowie, The Carpenters, Billy Joel, Jeff Buckley, Black Sabbath, Peter Gabriel, Supertramp, The Rolling Stones, The Who, Aimee Mann.

 

Of course these are not examples of native dsd recordings...what is the point?

Link to comment
The pop & rock albums were produced/mixed in PCM and then converted to DSD.

There is many recordings made in analog domein and "printed" to analog tape. Now such tapes are archived directly to DSD and after that SACD is released. PCM is not involved at all, the sound is very often just stunning.

Sorry, english is not my native language.

Fools and fanatics are always certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.

Link to comment
On the other paw, systems like JRiver Media Center, HQPlayer, Audirvana+, and other's can take that stream and transcode it to DSD, then stream it to your player neat as a pin.

 

Better yet, they can also do that with 16/44.1 files sitting on your mass storage device, transcode and stream it to your player on demand that is.

 

And they can also do that with Red Book (and higher) quality streams from Tidal, Qobuz, etc.

 

--David

Listening Room: Mac mini (Roon Core) > iMac (HQP) > exaSound PlayPoint (as NAA) > exaSound e32 > W4S STP-SE > Benchmark AHB2 > Wilson Sophia Series 2 (Details)

Office: Mac Pro >  AudioQuest DragonFly Red > JBL LSR305

Mobile: iPhone 6S > AudioQuest DragonFly Black > JH Audio JH5

Link to comment

 

Yes, the Police SACDs are outstanding SQ. And no added volume compression - songs with DR of 14 and even 16! Good thing they were done a long time ago. Today they'd be at least somewhat volume compressed.

 

Many of us have found that the best analog tape transfers to digital are in DSD....

Main listening (small home office):

Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments.

Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three .

Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup.
Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. 

All absolute statements about audio are false :)

Link to comment

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...