DSD vs PCM: can you hear the difference?

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by Denti, Mar 19, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Espen R

    Espen R Senior Member

    Location:
    Norway
    At Munich HiFi show, the headmaster of Amphion speakers talks about reference quality source material.
    He says that 2inch analog tape is still the king. But DSD 256fs comes very close. And they have recorded some native 256 DSD recordings.

    Link:
     
    PhantomStranger likes this.
  2. patient_ot

    patient_ot Senior Member

    Location:
    USA
    I would say no, and my hearing is pretty good still as I'm not as advanced in age as some folks here (we all lose high frequencies as we get older).

    I have experimented with a couple of albums that were recorded, edited, and mixed in DSD 256 - these are solo instrument classical albums - not classic rock albums that were several generations removed and converted back and forth from PCM to DSD.

    I hear no inherent advantage of DSD whatsoever using a DSD native capable DAC. None. The albums do sound nice though, for what it's worth, but they sound fine in PCM also.

    The main appealing features of DSD I see are unique masterings only available on the format and the multi-channel stuff for those that do McH. Since I don't, I only care about the mastering.

    Downsides: there are many - overpriced albums, lack of info on provenance for many albums, no compression format to reduce file size (like FLAC for PCM) and SACDs are bogged down with copy protection that requires a whole lotta rigmarole to circumvent. In general DSD is a PITA.

    Another thing that put me off DSD recently is one store that was pushing "upgrades" to DSD512 of certain albums in their store. Bear in mind none of these albums were originally recorded at that resolution and 16/44 already has frequencies that the average person over 35 cannot hear. Dubious to say the least, but they insist these 512s are superior. BS detector is on high alert for that one.
     
    quicksrt, Fitero, john morris and 2 others like this.
  3. ghost rider

    ghost rider Forum Resident

    Location:
    Bentonville AR
    Curious did you click the link I posted did it look like something sold at a HIFI store.
     
  4. john morris

    john morris Everybody's Favorite Quadron

    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    Nope. Can't watch Utube videos without opening the Utube app. (Hey, it's a 5 year old Samsung Galaxy SIII) But I did manage to go on Utube and find the audio show video. He made a good speech. Nice smile....Didn't mention what processor chip ran the conversion. And on yes Lots of copy protection. You shouldn't buy a anything based on a Utube video either.

    You really can't buy a bad sounding Native DSD DAC unless you make it yourself. But if you want state of the art sound you have stick to expensive, overpriced gear. Don't you understand?! Give me all your credit cards....Come on! Hand them over. Gotta max out at least one of these babies to get somethin' good....Look, how can you expect to get something good when the purchase won't leave you declaring Chapter 11?

    LOL. Putting fun and joke aside here...
    LOL.. Seriously though if you buy a Professional DAC or recorder (like the Tascam DA3000) you can't go wrong. And yes the DAC in the video is good but again the high end is littered with DSD DACs. Pro gear is made for professionals who only want and use the best. And Hi-Fi shows sometimes use prototypes. And they often make changes when they go into production. So you might not get what you exactly see. happened to us once. Long story.

    Question, why is it only running DSD64? Why not 128 or 256? Or maybe it can't. Not much of a demo to run only DSD64.
    (Engineer with nose up in the air in snobbish fashion turning head to the other side.)

    But case in point: The Pro Audio show in Boston 1979. And MCI was showing off it's new state of the art 3 inch 32 track machine. Yum! (sound of thunder!). Problem was it didn't work. Not in the horizontal position any. No matter what those tired engineers at MCI tried the super silly 3 inch wide tape kept lifting up over the heads several millimeters during Record / Playback mode. The only solution was to have made the tape twice as thick. That idea didn't fly with anyone. For the Pro Audio show it just sat there with 3 inch tape on the reels not moving. So beware of audio shows. Use them as a guide oh esteemed Hoffman member.

    I iz gonna get into so much trouble but:
    The reason I say to stick to pro gear for DSD converters is because professional DAC's have NO COPY PROTECTION. (The sound of thunder and the flasing of lighting follow) Neither do professional DAT (studio has three) or professional CD records (studio has two)..
    If you buy at pro stores you avoid all that. And they usually have in store credit. And that copy protection will be a bug in your soup. Funny how the smilling guy at the HI-FI store brags about his super state of the art DAC having copy protection like it's a good thing.

    But becareful, they are items aimed at consumers that pass themselves off as pro gear.
     
    JJ Cahill likes this.
  5. john morris

    john morris Everybody's Favorite Quadron

    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    You can't hear the difference between Native DSD and PCM 24/192?.... What?!...Arrest him!

    Seriously, some can and some can't. There are people who can't hear the horrible harshness in early CD players. There was one "so called" audiophile guy who paid $6 000 on power amps, pre amp and speakers but only played MP3s.
    He insisted that a 320 kbs MP3 sounded the same as a PCM Wave file. Not kidding! And he didn't want to waste hard drive space. I am not saying that PCM vs. DSD is the same as the Wave vs. MP3 issue but you can see my point.



    Some say DSD is equal to PCM 24/192. The point is DSD is hard to screw up. It's one bit so it's hard to sound bad. Remember good PCM playback is not cheap where as great DSD playback is reasonablely priced.

    The advantage of higher sampling rates in PCM and using DSD having nothing to do with record ing high frequencies. Back in 1977 the top of the line 2 inch 24 tracks running at 15 ips were -2db down at 20 khz. If you ran them at 30 ips you were flat up to about 22 khz or -2db @ 24 khz. And most of the microphones being used bottomed out after 16 khz anyway. There is nothing above 24 khz on any analog master. And that is pushing it. And the mixing boards didn't go much above 20 khz.

    The advantage of DSD is that it is a simple (your cat couldn't screw it up) one bit system. It only records the change in voltage from one sample to the next as opposed to the absolute voltage of a sample in PCM.

    For example:
    2.234 mv, 2.234 mv, 2.234 mv, 2.234 mv, 2.235 mv, 2.236 mv.
    That's a lot of numbers to convert to binary. Lots can ahh get lost or misplaced or whatever. PCM has too much info to store. And every sample has a 24 bits to describe it? Get out of here!

    But in Sigma Delta Modulation
    0 mv, 0mv, 0 mv, 0.001 mv, 0.001 mv.
    See how easy. A child could do it. And because DSD only stores changes in voltage from one sample to the next it is more like analog.

    Does anyone understand what I just said? Because I barely did.
     
    BrilliantBob likes this.
  6. BrilliantBob

    BrilliantBob Select, process, CTRL+c, CTRL+z, ALT+v

    Location:
    Romania
    Making an analogy with video files, PCM is like a video file with only I-frames and DSD is like a video file with only 1 I-frame followed by P-frames only, 1 bit each (0 for change down, 1 for change up).

    The PCM192/24 takes 192,000 samples of an analog signal per second, each sample has a value out of 16,777,216 possibilities for 24-bit depth.

    The DSD128 use 5,600,000 bits per second to represent the analog signal changes.

    That is, DSD128 take 29 "snapshots" from the same analog signal segment for each "snapshot" took by PCM192/24.

    PCM has uniform distributed quantization error (noise) in 20Hz-20,000Hz range, the DSD noise is moved above 60KHz. DSD has lower noise than PCM in the audible range.

    Even if the math is clear, I think only a moth can really say what format output more "analog" digital signal.
     
    john morris likes this.
  7. ghost rider

    ghost rider Forum Resident

    Location:
    Bentonville AR
    Here try it again it's not a youtube link
    Merging Technologies -
     
  8. john morris

    john morris Everybody's Favorite Quadron

    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    Sorry I took so long to reply have been.
    occupied doing 5.1 mixes for a foreign television show with no automation. JOY! (As said in the manner of Stimpy in the classic cartoon Ren & Stimpy)

    No! Good converters start at $50 000 and up.



    LOL. Putting fun and joke aside, yes, the Tascsm DA3000 is an excellent DAC and recorder. and for $1300. (sale maybe $900) it rocks.

    I spent much time reviewing the DA3000 and talking to colleagues who use it. One guy engineer I know uses 12 to 16 of them in cascade mode for live recording. He swears by the Tascsm DA3000. I quote, "As trustworthy as a dog." The Tascam uses dual mono analog stages. But only at the output stages. Why doesn't it have dual mono operation throughout? Or is the input preamps not important? It is minor kibble but nevertheless it is strange.

    Important is the reference level setting. It can be set to: - 9, -14, - 16 (default), - 18 and - 20.
    0 VU in 24 bit systems is - 18 dbfs RMS (U.S.)
    0 VU in 24 bit systems is - 20 dbfs RMS (EU)
    If you live in North America set it to - 18.

    Hint: If you are using two or more digtial devices such as: The DA3000, CD Recorders, digital reverb units, digital mixers, etc then you should always use a master clock.
     
  9. john morris

    john morris Everybody's Favorite Quadron

    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    Your explanation is easy to understand at least and makes more sense as an actual 1 bit system.
    As for noise; both the noise in PCM and DSD is way below that of the analog noise floor. You could never hear it.
     
    BrilliantBob likes this.
  10. john morris

    john morris Everybody's Favorite Quadron

    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario

    Check below. Brilliant Bob explains the DSD system much better. The system I have just described would need at least 5 bits to work. But the idea is correct. Just change in voltage. But just up or down as Bob explains it.
     
  11. john morris

    john morris Everybody's Favorite Quadron

    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    Thanks but I went to Utube and saw it. But again every Native DSD DAC is high-end. You can make a bad sounding Native DSD DAC unless you make it yourself.

    I say buy Pro gear because professional DSD/PCM DACs allow you to turn the annoying copy protection OFF.
     
  12. john morris

    john morris Everybody's Favorite Quadron

    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    I love that as you say, "Unique Masterings."
    You can avoid all that irritating copy protection by buying professional DACs. You just turn the copy protection off.
     
  13. john morris

    john morris Everybody's Favorite Quadron

    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    Ahhh, I am afraid you have a point.
     
  14. patient_ot

    patient_ot Senior Member

    Location:
    USA
    Can you rip the DSD layer of an SACD with those professional DACs? I'm guessing you need a disk transport of some type - what, specifically, would that be?

    AFAIK I know the only way to rip an SACD is by using a NAS setup with a particular type of SACD/Universal Disc Player and hacking the firmware. That's more hassle than what I want to deal with.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2019
  15. patient_ot

    patient_ot Senior Member

    Location:
    USA
    RE: the misplacement, got any proof to back that up? By proof I don't mean crap from a company that's hawking DSD and using those b.s. debunked stairstep diagrams.

    This and your above point would only be relevant if we using ancient card punch computers to decode audio, but we don't do that. Maybe someone is still using a rare type of computer that is a big box with a child inside running a card punch system? Nowadays we even have cell phones with more processing power and memory that people could've dreamed of 20 or 30 years ago.
     
  16. john morris

    john morris Everybody's Favorite Quadron

    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    Me and my big mouth. We only deal in files or tape. But the reason you have to "hack" to make a copy DSD - DSD is because of the copy protection. I make DSD to DSD copies all the time. It is your consumer converter that goes...."That SOB is trying to copy the priceless DSD music!" and throws up that copy flag.

    No one bothered to hack CD or DAT recorders in the old days. If they wanted to make a copy they just purchased a pro recorder.

    The DSD signal goes to the converter. It is the converter that recognizes the copy flag and stops the operation. We just go through the menu of the converter to where it says copy protection and turn it OFF. But if your whole DSD setup is one piece than that won't work. If your DSD/player isn't capable of outputting a Native DSD signal then I guess you are in trouble.

    All of our DSD is a file sent via web or DSD files on a Flash Drive sent via courier. We never deal on SACD's. Well to hear how the production disks sound. Find a transport that will output Native Virgin DSD and buy a professional DSD converter.


    FYI: The Universal vault of 2008 destroyed over a half million masters. (Universal purchased Motown for $88 million dollars back in the late 80's....I think) All those masters are backed up on hard drives and such but the originals are gone. That's why some HD files you get are 24/48 or 24/88.2, or 24/44.1 because they backed up a long time ago. Keep in mind the industry didn't really move to 96 khz until the mid 90's. For example the Sony DASH 3348HR (1992) was 24/48. All DASH multitracks were 16 bit until the early 90's.
    A lot of the time masters will not be shipped to anyone because Universal just doesn't have them. That's why we get more and more often PCM files of 24/96, 24/192, 24/88.2, 24/48, 16/48, 16/44.1. Or sometimes we get both DSD and PCM. Many multitracks now only exist as Pro Tool files of 24/192. The 8 track of Hair only exists now on a 1/2 DASH tape at 16/48.
    A few Queen albums were recorded on two synchronized 2 inch 40 track Stevens. And those would be a bugger to transfer because there is only a few 2-inch forties in the world that are even operational. And Stephen machines had a rude habbit of breaking down too often.
    Anyway the old days of remaster stuff from analog is pretty much over or it is coming to an end. Most companies won't even allow their masters to leave their hands.
     
  17. elvisizer

    elvisizer Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Jose
    it's not quite that hard- you need a sacd player that has a chipset that supports ripping (like my oppo 103) and a computer, no firmware hacking or NAS required.
     
  18. john morris

    john morris Everybody's Favorite Quadron

    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    Sorry but you sound angry. In never said I was 100% sure on DSD. Don't appreciate the straw man.
    Brilliant Box explanations on DSD so much better. I suggest you read that.
    How did you think PCM worked? For CD every 1 in 44100 per second second two pieces of information are recorded. Time and voltage. It is binary of course. That is simple. If you want to see a child in a box that is your issue. It is processing power that allows digital to work.
    What did you think a sample was? Every sample can be up to 16 bits long. That is 16 0's and 1's. What did you think these zeros and ones were recording?.The analog voltage.

    Please go and read about this. This is old info and I don't feel like arguing about things that we already know.
     
  19. patient_ot

    patient_ot Senior Member

    Location:
    USA
    What I am saying is that processing power needed to play back PCM for the end consumer in 2019 is basically irrelevant.
     
  20. patient_ot

    patient_ot Senior Member

    Location:
    USA
    Interesting. My issue with the copy protection mainly deals with the SACD format. If the labels would release a wider selection of DSD files digitally that actually sounded better than current versions available to the consumer as PCM downloads or CDs then it wouldn't be as much of an issue. That's before we get to issues like pricing and the lack of a lossless compression format for DSD.
     
  21. RPM

    RPM Forum Resident

    Location:
    Easter Island
    Other examples of such players?
     
  22. DSD has a lossless compression, it's called DST (Direct Stream Transfer) and it's used on every single multichannel SACD marketed. For SACD's with only a stereo track up to 80 minutes there's no need to use DST.
     
    john morris likes this.
  23. patient_ot

    patient_ot Senior Member

    Location:
    USA
    No need? Some of the DSD 256 files I've got are huge. Around 8GB for one album. Being able to use a stereo lossless compression format on them would be helpful, especially for portable use.
     
    quicksrt likes this.
  24. I was talking about SACD. I know that DSD is a data hungry format. When I ripped my SACD's to ISO's and then extracted their tracks both stereo and multichannel with ISO2DSD I have to click on "DST" so date that is compressed on SACD's get decompressed and on a pure DSD state to be played on my Sony X-800 and Fiio X-3, then I see how much date uncompressed DSD takes. Some multichannel albums are even 15 Gigs.
    I don't know if DST works with DSD 128 and higher as it was developed for SACD back in the 1990's and there was only DSD 64, higher sample rates of DSD didn't exist.
     
  25. patient_ot

    patient_ot Senior Member

    Location:
    USA
    I think this covers some of the issues I was talking about in more detail:

    Archimago's Musings: MUSINGS: On DSD, tagging, compression and conversion... Time for WavPack 5.
     
    quicksrt likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine