DSD Has Better Dynamic Rage = Misleading

[The Computer Audiophile]

I just read this post on DSD Guide about DSD and dynamic range. The post is a bit misleading, especially the sentence, "For me this analysis clearly shows that DSD has the best DR values."

 

I left the following comment (see image), that's awaiting approval to be published.

 

http://dsd-guide.com/music-lovers-creates-his-own-test-for-dynamic-range-no-surprise-dsd-wins#.WP-jL4nysUF

[The Computer Audiophile]

Glad I took a screenshot. My comment has been removed.

 

 

[Ralf11]

and then, there was this study...

 

Meyer, E. B. and D. R. Moran.  2007.   Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback.  JAES 55(9): 775-779.

 

Abstract:  Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.” The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.

[ShawnC]

46 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Glad I took a screenshot. My comment has been removed.

 

 

Try responding again, you can be first all over again.  Next time be nicer, as you are the King and proprietor of the top audio website in the world, sometimes you put fear in the competition. Or they simply didn't know how to respond.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I didn't mean to come across as not nice. Perhaps it was read that way. I just wanted to state the facts :~)

[ShawnC]

I was being completely sarcastic.  It does show how well you run your site.  You let everyone comment within reason (well beyond reason) and only moderate if needed.  But everything initially gets published. Kudos 

[ted_b]

Everyone knows red cars are faster!  That's why they get so many tickets.

 

Also, they thought you were being mean, i.e dynamic RAGE.  (It's good to be king...so fix your title).

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, ted_b said:

Everyone knows red cars are faster!  That's why they get so many tickets.

 

Ha!

[blue2]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I just read this post on DSD Guide about DSD and dynamic range. The post is a bit misleading, especially the sentence, "For me this analysis clearly shows that DSD has the best DR values."

 

I left the following comment (see image), that's awaiting approval to be published.

 

http://dsd-guide.com/music-lovers-creates-his-own-test-for-dynamic-range-no-surprise-dsd-wins#.WP-jL4nysUF

Chris I his agree the statement is ambiguous, but it may not be intentionally misleading. He may mean to say that if you buy DSD music you find on average better DR, not that the DSD format is intrinsically better. He may not have realised it can be read both ways and should take on board your comment.

Cheers

[elcorso]

My very personal opinion on what I feel when listening to DSD vs PCM.

 

- DR is, of course, limited by the recording itself.

 

- But, on very hard DR peaks, when listening to DSD, I got no colapse in nothing, call you soundstage, harmonics, distortion, etc.. But yes with PCM.

 

I would call this "Dynamic Contrast", that is different from DR.

 

With my system and several DACs I own.

 

Roch

[The Computer Audiophile]

Yay, my comment is back up :~)

[Ralf11]

The real question is what led to the mis-apprehension as to DR.

 

Maybe it was some confusion about bit depth(?)

[mansr]

What he fails to realise is that to calculate the dynamic range of a DSD recording, it must first be converted to PCM. That alone invalidates any conclusions of his.

[ted_b]

The loudness wars are primarily due to major labels asking recording engineers to make their recordings louder than the next guy, so playlists will highlight them.  These major labels primarily record in PCM and use post-processing out the wazzoo.  In contrast, small boutique labels don't apply that pressure; and some of these smaller labels (especially classical, world and some jazz) record in DSD.  Therefore, many DSD recordings have good DR.  But geez, so do many PCM recordings (those that don't have the pop commercial loudness pressures).   He's measuring the wrong statistics!

[elcorso]

45 minutes ago, mansr said:

What he fails to realise is that to calculate the dynamic range of a DSD recording, it must first be converted to PCM. That alone invalidates any conclusions of his.

 

That means there isn't any tools to measure DR from DSD directly?

 

Roch

[elcorso]

4 minutes ago, ted_b said:

The loudness wars are primarily due to major labels asking recording engineers to make their recordings louder than the next guy, so playlists will highlight them.  These major labels primarily record in PCM and use post-processing out the wazzoo.  In contrast, small boutique labels don't apply that pressure; and some of these smaller labels (especially classical, world and some jazz) record in DSD.  Therefore, many DSD recordings have good DR.  But geez, so do many PCM recordings (those that don't have the pop commercial loudness pressures).   He's measuring the wrong statistics!

 

And, when you record directly to DSD, overloading the vu meters (>0 dB) will be noticed with easy.

 

Roch

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, elcorso said:

That means there isn't any tools to measure DR from DSD directly?

It is mathematically meaningless to do so. With 1-bit resolution, you have by definition maximum loudness all the time. Only by filtering out the ultrasonic noise can you get a meaningful signal to analyse, and that necessarily means going to a multi-bit PCM format (although the sample rate can remain high if you wish).

[elcorso]

11 minutes ago, mansr said:

It is mathematically meaningless to do so. With 1-bit resolution, you have by definition maximum loudness all the time. Only by filtering out the ultrasonic noise can you get a meaningful signal to analyse, and that necessarily means going to a multi-bit PCM format (although the sample rate can remain high if you wish).

 

Thanks !

 

Roch

[crenca]

On 4/27/2017 at 8:12 AM, mansr said:

It is mathematically meaningless to do so. With 1-bit resolution, you have by definition maximum loudness all the time. Only by filtering out the ultrasonic noise can you get a meaningful signal to analyse, and that necessarily means going to a multi-bit PCM format (although the sample rate can remain high if you wish).

 

No possible way to get a meaningful range in the analogue domain (that is, of the signal after the filter/conversion)? I realize this would not be quite apples to apples, but could (is?) this done in a way that is meaningful for listeners/consumers?

[ShawnC]

Lots of great information here guys.  Too bad this isn't apart of the article comment section at the DSD-Guide.com website.  

[mansr]

46 minutes ago, crenca said:

No possible way to get a meaningful range in the analogue domain (that is, of the signal after the filter/conversion)? I realize this would not be quite apples to apples, but could (is?) this done in a way that is meaningful for listeners/consumers?

How do you propose to measure the analogue signal?

[tailspn]

As formats, DSD has +6dB greater dynamic range than PCM.

 

DSD and PCM are digitally storable formats to record and transmit analog signals, mostly audio for our interest. 0dB is a definition in recording to signify a maximum level not to be exceeded. Below 0dB, both PCM and DSD are capable of the same signal level range, better known as dynamic range. Both can express an infinitely small signal, far below the practical minimal signal transferable by practical analog electronic circuits.

 

In the case of PCM, 0dB represents the maximum binary range that the the format can represent; there's no bits left. It's a 2's compliment binary word for each sample that's either all 1's, or all 0's at 0dB (full scale). It's 2's compliment to support both positive and negative values.

 

In DSD, there are no values represented. It's the density modulation of a bit clock, who's percent of modulation is proportional to the signal level, not a numerical value of a signal level (at an instant in time). 

 

All of that is background to the fact that from the lowest signal level deliverable to a  A/D converter to the maximum that produces 0dB, the same dynamic range is expressible in both a PCM or DSD format up to 0dB. The DSD format however has an additional +6dB of headroom above 0dB that is not achievable with PCM. That's because DSD 0dB is specified as 50% modulation, allowing an additional 6dB of signal level to be represented. 

[crenca]

6 minutes ago, tailspn said:

As formats, DSD has +6dB greater dynamic range over PCM.

 

DSD and PCM are digitally storable formats to record analog signals, mostly audio for our interest. 0dB is a definition in recording  to signify a maximum level not to be exceeded. Below 0dB, both PCM and DSD are capable of the same signal level range, better known as dynamic range. Bot can express an infinitely small signal, far below the practical minimal signal transferable by practical electronic circuits.

 

In the case of PCM, 0dB represents the maximum binary range that the the format can represent; there's no bits left. It's a 2's compliment binary word for each sample that's either all 1's, or all 0's at 0dB (full scale). It's 2's compliment to support both positive and negative values.

 

In DSD, there are no values represented. It's the density modulation of a bit clock, who's percent of modulation is proportional to the signal level, not a numerical value of a signal level (at an instant in time). 

 

All of that is background to the fact that from the lowest signal level deliverable to a  A/D converter to the maximum that produces 0dB, the same dynamic range is expressible in both a PCM or DSD format up to 0dB. The DSD format however has an additional +6dB of headroom above 0dB that is not achievable with PCM. That's because DSD 0dB is specified as 50% modulation, allowing an additional 6dB of signal level to be represented. 

 

So, if you have a signal of infinite loudness, that signal could be measured by PCM to exactly infininity given an infnate bit depth, but an DSD recording of infinite sample rate could measure that same signal PLUS an extra 6dB...so infininity plus 6dB (and here I am of course thinking of Toy Story

[tailspn]

You're right! As long as the infinitely loud signal does not exceed the full scale range of PCM (0dB in DSD is the same level as 0dB in PCM), then the DSD representation will have +6dB additional headroom.

 

AND BEYOND!

[audiventory]

On 25.04.2017 at 10:39 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

I just read this post on DSD Guide about DSD and dynamic range. The post is a bit misleading, especially the sentence, "For me this analysis clearly shows that DSD has the best DR values."

 

I left the following comment (see image), that's awaiting approval to be published.

 

http://dsd-guide.com/music-lovers-creates-his-own-test-for-dynamic-range-no-surprise-dsd-wins#.WP-jL4nysUF

 

Absolutelly. It is necessary to separate dynamic range of music and dynamic range of resolution/medium.

 

Dynamic range of music is matter of record mixing/mastering.

Higher resolution of medium give more potencial (it is not guaranteed) for the wider dinamic range.