DSD vs PCM: can you hear the difference?

I love mine, that's for sure.

 

I am jealous. Where do you live?... I have beer and those expensive Cape Cod chips. That are $5 a bag.

 

Had a Sony SCD-1 since near the beginning of introduction but just gave it away ‘cause it wasn’t working. I followed that with the Cambridge CXU which I just gave to a relative budding audiophile as I didn’t want to change discs anymore. Unfortunate as I have years of unopened SACDs sitting in a big CAN-AM disc cabinet. I have now decided to go totally with streaming and got a Gold Note DS-10 installed in my main system two days ago. I’m really new to serious streaming.

 

Bryston with an Oppo as your transport.

 

No

 

It's interesting to look back at the beginning of this thread, from 2016, when a player that could decode DSD without conversion apparently cost $3,500. Now you can get a USB DAC that can do it for around $200, maybe even less.

 

Sounds good to me. When it comes to DSD you really want to raw file.

 

Mmmmm.....we have come along way haven't we?

 

The lossless compression for DSD you're talking about it's called DST, Direct Stream Transfer, and if I'm not mistaken it was developed by Philips. An SACD that features both a stereo and a multichannel mix of the same material needs to use DST. First because you can't fit a 74 minutes Stereo and 5.1 album on an single layer disc (I don't know of a any dual layer SACD disc other than hybrid SACD's that feature a Red Book layer) and second because of data transfer rate. Reading an SACD at single speed,that is basically/physically a DVD disc, that has a data reading rate of around 8/9 megabits/sec you can't play a DSD 5.1 mix, it needs a higher bit rate and that is achieved thanks to DST. So DST as far as I know is only used on SACD's.

 

DST was developed by Fons Bruekers and his team at Philips Research Labs (the "Natlab") in Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

DST is optional for stereo-only program, but mandatory for 2-ch + M-ch program. There are dual-layer SACDs (non-hybrid) -- Roger Waters' In The Flesh is one I remember.

DST is only used on SACDs because it was developed specifically for 1-bit signals.

As I recall, SACD is not bound by the data transfer limitation of DVD-V/DVD-A.

 

Maybe if I kept more in the loop about all this I might get hired at a studio.

 

DST was even mentioned and its logo shown on advertising brochures intended for we consumers. But one can't remember everything that reads on brochures even more if they are from 20+years ago so don't be so hard on yourself.

 

I wish they were more people like you in the world. Thanks.

 

Thanks but, hell NO!!!

 

Yeah...I could tell because when I put one on in 2001 or whenever, I immediately....in my gut...reached for the multitrack tape deck transport. I hadn't used a multitrack tape machine in probably 5 years at that point. But, hearing a tape transferred to SACD I instinctually reached for the transport having never heard that sound outside a studio.

I think the "harder" can be a lot of things that the analog was just more "that"...and SACD replicated it. I was sure we'd all be recording to nothing but DSD machines in short time. Note: never take stock advice from me.

 

After listening to some SACD's sourced from analogue master tapes directly transfered to DSD (Michael Jackson's Thriller, Boston's S/T, Carole King's Tapestry...) and a couple of native DSD recordings (The Film Music Of Jerry Goldsmith, the soundtrack for Star Trek Nemesis) I thought DSD was going to catch on and used on big recording projects for any music genre.
I was WRONG.

 

Yes....mmmmm......Very true.
When I use to transfer 2 inch 16/24 track tape to PCM it made a good copy but....something was lost. Hard to put into words. But with DSD the digital recording just sounded like the analog tape. To me anyway...You couldn't tell the difference. Same with the quarter inch or half inch two track transfers.
Once it leaves out loving hands is another matter.

There was a project two years ago where a well known client wanted a remix of some 70's album. She wanted it mixed straight from the 2 inch 16 track. I told her that the DSD258 transfer sounds exactly the same. She didn't believe us and until we showed her. That would never be the case with PCM 24/192. Not saying PCM 24/192 or more recently 24/352.8 is not super fantastic but DSD sounds more analog to our ears. Although PCM top of the line converters are getting pretty close.

 

Why put down Canadians and overhype Europeans?

What type of Hitachi did you own?

 

A lot of musicians and producers just LOVE the sound of analog. They love the natural compression that happens when recording drums to analog. Unfortunately most people see digital as digital. I heard a quote from someone last year that is typical.of this bias, "Nothing beats vinyl." This person had no stereo system and he didn't work in the business. It wasn't from his experience but he was merely repeating what someone had had told him.
1. the original master beats. (Some exceptions)
2. a quarter inch 2 track reel to reel 15 ips copy beats it.
3. A native DSD file beats it.

Vinyl, properly cut from a master or good copy; properly washed (does the mean cleaned), cleaned and played back on a audiophile belt drive turntable with a Line Contact stylus through a good phono preamp can sound amazing and yes, kick digitals 101010000101 As* to the curb.

But in my day many records were just not being done right. 1981 - 1990. There was a good reason CDs took over:

- The so called "virgin vinyl" was made with so little of it that it didn't take much to warp the record. I would rather have 150 grams of old recycled vinyl than 50 grams of Virgin vinyl.

- Often not cut well. Noisy and full of pops and clicks and other fudgegogc.
- warped
-Noisy as if they were selling you a badly worn record.
- NOT cut from an orginal master of anything close to that.
- packaged poorly. I purchased ELO'S, ON THE THIRD DAY , ELDORADO and FACE THE MUSIC from The Hudson's Bay Store in 1981 for full price in Toronto. My Brother purchased his records from Columbia House. His ELO records all came with lyric sheets. What did I get? .... Just a crappy blank inner sleeve and a noisy poppy record.. You had to order from the States to get the record the way the band wanted it. This was new. Both Fly By Night, Caress Of Steel, Farewell To Kings and Hemispheres used to fold open and the lyrics were written on the inside. Over time they dropped that. Many records in the 70's open up with the lyrics on the inside. This was dropped later. Instead you got an inner sleeve with the lyrics on one side and a picture of the inside of the album on the other side. Not ideal but it was o.k. and then they dropped that. And all we got was a brown inner sleeve. Or worse one of those transparent inner sleeve things.

Many people have found memories of vinyl. So do I - from the 70's. The records from the 1983 - 1990 were horrible. And the 45 rpms were always in bad shape. As if someone had played them for a year before you got it.

Sure those with elliptical needles and Nitty Gritty cleaning machines were having a ball. But do you know how bad a noisy new record sounds on a $120 Dual turntable with not even an elliptical stylus cleaned with nothing but a felt pad cleaner? Sucks and blows major league!

In 1988 I replaced my $120 Dual turntable with a $520 Sony CD changer. The CD player ATE the record player for breakfast in one gulp and asked for seconds. The only reason vinyl has caught on now is because that is often the only way you get the sound of the master. Sorry vinyl lovers but it isn't 1985 anymore. We have long past the day where ALL CD players sounded harsh and had little detail and tiny 2 D sound stage. The quality you get today in a $400 USB DAC would have been $10 000 player back in 1993.

 

I got my first “perfect sound (to squeeze your head) forever “ Magnavox player back in the early 80’s.
The first thing I missed about vinyl other than the sound was the “Vinyl Ritual” performed every time I put on a platter.
Redbook CD improved over the years with a lot really good sounding material from many sources.


When SACD came out I bought a Sony SCD-1 hoping this would be IT. Unfortunately I got carried up in the hype that this was a “great step up in SQ” and I spent my time chasing technologically improved SACD discs.

The real shift for me took place a short time ago when I got a decent DAC/Streamer and started to be literally “blown away “ by music presented in ALL different resolutions.
I think, for me anyway,it all comes down to the recording and mastering expertise. That is what we should be searching out.

I’ve reached the point where I can concentrate on the quality of Music not the equipment although discussing it is still great fun.

 

Yes, I too have been "blown away" by how all resolutions are awesome from iTunes Library via my OPPO 205's DAC to Pre-Pro. SACD did not ring my bell until I had the equipment to enjoy multi-channel SACDs, which seem to me to have a greater depth and breadth than the stereo versions of same music. Interestingly enough, stereo SACDs sound no better from my OPPO than they do from my 20 year old Sony DVP-S9000ES DVP/CD/stereo SACD Player.

 

Please see below.

Poor Europeans...

 

My first recollection of listening to an SACD disc in my bedroom on my system (at the time, Marantz SR-7000 A/V receiver and B&W DM601's and CC6 as center channel,the subwoofer was also a B&W but I don't remember the reference, it was also from the 600 series) listening to the E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial hybrid-multichannel SACD was a loud "yes! you got it right this time!", I was playing the stereo mix. The 5.1 mix was even better with better dinamics, better imaging on the front and ambiance on the surrounds with deep bass on the 0.1 just to help themain front channels that also have deep bass.
All this from a 550 Euros Sony player.
I then played Michael Jackson's Thriller, Boston's S/T, The Film Music Of Jerry Goldsmith (only the stereo mix, the 5.0 mix puts you in the middle of the orechestra, an unnatural perspective to me) and I was amazed with every single one of them. I thought with hybrid discs and SACD player lowering in price CD was dead, little I knew that physical format was on the way to be phased out and record labels were not bothering with a new format, remixing albums into surround for people that were more interested on lossy sound files. I partially blame the "forbbiden bitten fruit" for that with their new gadget, the iFock.

 

Just a question for all of you who re following this thread: why do people buy an overpriced gadget like the iFock that can't even play 96/24, 192/24 or DSD? Isn't this ripping people off?

 

I made the argument 20 years ago that for SACD, I had a $125 Sony that performed as well as the universal Pioneer Elite that cost $579. I went with the Pioneer because a)I could afford to and b) it sounded INFINITELY better playing a redbook CD, which I correctly predicted would be most of what I would play in it. Like 18 years later, I replaced it with an Oppo (105 I think) that sounds basically the same on SACD....and better STILL on redbook. Redbook playback continues to get better as tech applies DSP bandaid and on chip filters get more advanced....and ironically as HD is used in mastering FOR redbook....but, SACD still sounds like it did in 2000 or 99--whenever I first heard it.

Well, implementation is god of all audio. And, you can improve the sound of an iThing 100 fold by using a bit perfect application and external DAC and headphone amp. I'm not familiar with the specific unit you mention, but the FACT is that 99% of what is available to consume is redbook. The #1 concern SHOULD be that sounding the best it can.....and "most people" honestly have bought the "science" that HD digital is snake oil.

But, also--on a mobile platform? I mean I don't care. And I think in my circles, I'm the weirdo who buys HDTracks and mail orders vinyl....who uses 48khz mp4 on my phone....I mean I am "the sound quality guy"--and I don't care. On headphones walking my dog? In my car sitting in traffic? HD doesn't make THAT level of difference.