Hi-Rez Highway

New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.

Return to Hi-Rez Highway

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

DSD vs PCM

86.84.65.100
Posted on February 8, 2015 at 12:40:48
peterapperup
Audiophile

Posts: 22
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: January 13, 2015




This download comes highly recommended from different high-end forums.
It has been recorded in DSD and in PCM on two different recorders, both versions sounds very good.
But which version should I choose?
Is DSD just a hype and is PCM the future or...?

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: DSD vs PCM, posted on February 8, 2015 at 13:21:46
HighEndWire
Audiophile

Posts: 1624
Joined: August 2, 2002
 If the original studio master is PCM, why convert it?

 

Read the post again! nt, posted on February 8, 2015 at 18:59:04
oldmkvi
Audiophile

Posts: 10581
Joined: April 12, 2002
 /

 

Buy both, tell us what you think! nt, posted on February 8, 2015 at 19:28:25
oldmkvi
Audiophile

Posts: 10581
Joined: April 12, 2002
 /

 

The more samples the better. /t, posted on February 9, 2015 at 06:32:14
reuben
Audiophile

Posts: 1639
Joined: September 28, 2004
 .
Dark energy? Ridiculous!
We live in an electric universe.

 

RE: The more samples the better. /t, posted on February 9, 2015 at 07:47:12
ahendler
Audiophile

Posts: 5151
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Joined: January 24, 2003
 Not according to the Nyquist theorem. Twice the highest frequency will perfectly reconstruct the information
Alan

 

Then why does HiRez PCM and DSD sound better than 16/44.1?, posted on February 9, 2015 at 08:09:52
oldmkvi
Audiophile

Posts: 10581
Joined: April 12, 2002
 Why does 44.1/16 converted to 2X DSD sound better?
I'm guessing you'll say it doesn't.
That's not my experience.

 

There are all sorts of reasons it could sound better - including psychology [nt], posted on February 9, 2015 at 09:42:53
Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26456
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
  Since: February 6, 2012

 

So there's no point at all in Comparisons. You like what you like, I like what I like-, posted on February 9, 2015 at 09:50:44
oldmkvi
Audiophile

Posts: 10581
Joined: April 12, 2002
 End of story.

 

Well. . . , posted on February 9, 2015 at 10:10:12
Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26456
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
  Since: February 6, 2012
 . . . I'm sure you would agree that psychology CAN be a factor in audible preferences. Maybe it's not the decisive factor, but who can say? It still might be the biggest factor. I'd say that repeatability and correlation with objective measurements are also important. But truthfully, there are so many factors that can enter in to our preferences (e.g., the types of distortions which produce a "warm" sound) that I think it's impossible to sort it all out.

And here's something else to think about: if you play a 480i VHS tape and watch it on a 4K television (without any special processing) is the picture going to look better than on a non 4K television?

 

A Record played on a better turntable will sound better., posted on February 9, 2015 at 10:26:43
oldmkvi
Audiophile

Posts: 10581
Joined: April 12, 2002
 I think better Resolution will always sound better, regardless of source.

 

You're thinking of digital in analogue terms, posted on February 9, 2015 at 11:57:27
Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26456
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
  Since: February 6, 2012
 Sometimes, more resolution is just redundant resolution, as when, say, 16/44.1 files are placed in 24/192 (or, for that matter, 2 X DSD) containers, and then some listeners pretend that the resulting files are hi-rez. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip, and you're never going to get better resolution than the original 16/44.1 file. Of course, one might PREFER the 2 X DSD container for the original file (as you seem to - and BTW, nothing wrong with that), but that preference could be based on all sorts of reasons as we discussed earlier.

 

RE: The more samples the better. /t, posted on February 9, 2015 at 14:27:09
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "Not according to the Nyquist theorem. Twice the highest frequency will perfectly reconstruct the information"

The Nyquist Theorem is mathematics. It applies under particular assumptions, namely band limited signals. Unfortunately, in the real-world there is no such thing, only approximations. Therefore, the theorem does not guarantee perfect reconstruction. The most that can be said is that the approximation will be "good enough" but that is a matter of opinion.




Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Then why does HiRez PCM and DSD sound better than 16/44.1?, posted on February 9, 2015 at 14:37:25
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Filters are used in playback of digital files. If you upsample the important filters are in the computer, not in the DAC. Different filters sound different, so this is a sufficient explanation. (There are other considerations, but they will depend on specifics of the DAC.)

I use a Mytek Stereo192-DSD DAC. Upsampling 44 kHz to 176.4 is a big improvement, at least with some of the filters offered by HQPlayer. This is because the Mytek uses the stock filters in the SABRE chip and these are not so good. With this setup the results are further improved by upsampling to DSD128. Here there is the further issue that HQPlayer uses a different sigma-delta modulator than the Mytek, again an explanation for different sound. There are more complexities peculiar to an individual system. If the DAC (or software upsampler) doesn't filter out high frequency images and other trash this may or may not matter, depending on the analog components downstream of the DAC.


Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: You're thinking of digital in analogue terms, posted on February 9, 2015 at 14:46:52
Dave_K
Sometimes, more resolution is just redundant resolution, as when, say, 16/44.1 files are placed in 24/192 (or, for that matter, 2 X DSD) containers, and then some listeners pretend that the resulting files are hi-rez.


I know there were a fair number of SACDs and DVD-As made from 48k PCM masters, and a few 44.1k (e.g. Nora Jones, JT, Donald Fagan). But as far as I know there is no way to tell whether the PCM master was 16-bit or 24-bit from a spectrogram.

So I'm not sure the accusation of Redbook upsampling can be supported, even if it might be true in some cases. Mark Waldrep has been spreading FUD about it, but as far as I know he hasn't any evidence. Do you know of any that I've missed?

To my ears, a SACD sourced from a 24/48k PCM recording can still offer a nice improvement over the CD. Just last night I was listening to Alison Krauss Forget About It, a 24/48k recording. The SACD is much nicer sounding than the CD, even after converting it from DSD to 24/88.2k for playback in my current system. I would love to have the original 24/48k for comparison.

 

Basically, I don't disagree with anything you say, posted on February 9, 2015 at 16:00:39
Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26456
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
  Since: February 6, 2012
 Yes - I agree that you can't tell the bit depth from a spectrograph. But spectrographs are still useful to see actual frequency response, as well as to check whether the uncorrelated noise dusting (typical of the DSD files used on SACD's) is present.

I think Mark Waldrep's point is that for a recording to be considered hi-rez, every stage along the production process should be hi-rez, from microphones to finished files. He just had a column a couple of days ago where he praised other companies for their commitment to this hi-rez production methodology, including 2L, Naxos, Linn, Chesky, Pentatone, Channel Classics (as well as, of course, his own AIX label). Over on one of the other discussion boards here, Archimago linked to some tests he had done with some PONO downloads comparing them to other source files in terms of dynamic range and frequency extension. His PONO downloads, although touted as hi-rez, were sometimes more compressed (in both dynamics and frequency) than files ripped from CD's. Other posters have had better luck with PONO downloads - we need to get info on a critical mass of these downloads before we can say whether the majority of their hi-rez downloads are actually hi-rez. Basically, I think Waldrep is just worried that the term hi-rez audio is going to get diluted and cheapened.

I also agree with you that "a SACD sourced from a 24/48k PCM recording can still offer a nice improvement over the CD" - no question about it. Still, I'd rather avoid that last conversion (or transcoding or whatever it is) to DSD, so I look for the availability of hi-rez PCM downloads for recordings mastered in PCM. (It would be the same with DSD: I would want my download to stay in the same format as the master.) In any case, I've got plenty of SACD's derived from PCM masters, and I still enjoy them very much (despite my general principles!).

 

RE: Then why does HiRez PCM and DSD sound better than 16/44.1?, posted on February 9, 2015 at 17:01:04
ahendler
Audiophile

Posts: 5151
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Joined: January 24, 2003
 It doesn't
Alan

 

RE: DSD vs PCM, posted on February 10, 2015 at 14:19:58
Chris R
Audiophile

Posts: 302
Joined: December 1, 2001
 The one that will sound the best is the one that your equipment will play the best. But on equally good playback systems, if you can tell the difference between the two, then you are worth billions to the recording industry. All audio engineers want such ears.

 

Agreed!!, posted on February 12, 2015 at 07:09:56
rlw
Audiophile

Posts: 3347
Location: Near West Palm Bch, FL
Joined: August 29, 2006
 The whole DSD vs PCM debate is akin to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They both sound terrific and are better than anything else we have ever heard...
-RW-

 

RE: DSD vs PCM, posted on March 13, 2015 at 07:44:10
peterapperup
Audiophile

Posts: 22
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: January 13, 2015



from the Sound Liaison website;
[qoute] Impromtu (Tony Overwater & Bert van den Brink), was recorded direct to PCM and direct to DSD with two seperate recorders.[/qoute]

 

RE: DSD vs PCM, posted on March 16, 2015 at 07:15:55
ted_b
Audiophile

Posts: 803
Joined: January 14, 2001
 Peter, What is your DAC? DACs have sweetspots. Find yours (the sample rate or format that seems to sound best to you) and then either find music that fits that sample rate or format...or upsample to it via your pc source. I own several DACs and each have their own favorites. My Meitner loved DSD, my Chords are much better than the Meitner at PCM, my Myteks sound best at DSD128 (as per Tony's post), yadyada.

 

RE: DSD vs PCM, posted on March 18, 2015 at 18:23:44
fantja
Audiophile

Posts: 15519
Location: Alabama
Joined: September 11, 2010
 Was the master recorded in DSD or PCM?
Thanks! for sharing.

 

and ..., posted on March 19, 2015 at 10:41:59
TBone
Audiophile

Posts: 4197
Joined: April 5, 2000
 from my experience ... converted 16.44/48 to higher sampling formats - soften's the overall sound quality, rounds instrumental impact, and adds a hashy/grainier type quality to higher frequencies.

Some may prefer this effect, and perhaps to some degree, softening the sound of bright/tilted/compressed redbook isn't such a bad idea.

However, with well mastered redbook (few and far between I realize), they are STILL best heard via a top performing redbook player.

tb1

 

RE: Basically, I don't disagree with anything you say, posted on April 1, 2015 at 17:47:51
flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011
 Part of the "disappointment" with 16/44 CDs or files compared to DSD or higher bit depths/sample rate PCM can be attributed to the sample rate (down)conversion, dithering and noiseshaping choices made by the mastering engineer. There are many ways to get to the final result, and poor algorithms or inappropriate choices in filter steepness and phase characteristics lead to rather nasty artefacts which show up as "harshness" and all the bad things one reads constantly about CD audio.
When upsampling or format converting, you may get a more subjectively pleasing result, but it can't undo the original damage (including embedded jitter from the ADC stage).

On my reference system, I can produce 16/44 files that are virtually indistinguishable from the high resolution masters (which are indistinguishable from the source). Close A/B comparisons can show up the differences, but played in isolation they are sufficiently close that guess work would be required unless one was intimately familiar with the source to know what to listen for.
Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

 

RE: Basically, I don't disagree with anything you say, posted on April 30, 2015 at 03:13:12
jamestavegia@gmail.com
Audiophile

Posts: 275
Location: Atlanta, GA
Joined: November 26, 2013
 I have often wonders about whether it wound not be better to take a higher bit rate master and rather than crunch the numbers back to redbook just do a playback transfer through a great DA and then into another great AD to 16/44.1 and compare and use the one that sounds better.

The decimation programs may be better now, but I thought that there we compromises if the higher bit rate was not a multiple of 44.1. so it may be that if the tracking masters were 2496 if might be better to do it manually? Just curious. I would be through a DCS stack it would be pretty special.
Jim Tavegia

 

RE: Basically, I don't disagree with anything you say, posted on April 30, 2015 at 14:50:06
flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2558
Joined: January 11, 2011
 If the high resolution master is an integer multiple of the 44.1kHz, then it is a trivial process to convert to 44.1kHz by dropping the unwanted samples (i.e the inverse of oversampling). The problem isn't so much that the bandwidth is limited, but the cumulative effect of filter characteristics used throughout the recording-playback chain as well as jitter induced "distortion". The additional problem is introduced in the dithering process when the bit depth is reduced.
My own experiments show that a high resolution master is demonstrably better than 16/44. Of that, in my experience, there is no question. It is the equivalent viewing an upscaled DVD image then compaing to a true 1080p image. On superficial examination at the "normal" viewing distance, there is little to choose between them. However, move closer to the screen and the differences become more obvious. The same applies to noise-shaping and dithering - modern algorithms are based on a psycho-acoustic model (such as iZotope MBIT+) and these are optimised based on expected playback volume. If the playback volume deviates significantly from the expected level, then differences may be noted by the listener. In other words, the mastering engineer needs to understand the requirements of the listener with respect to the musical content. Classical piano is highly revealing of dithering and noise-shaping "errors" especially if the piece has a lot of pianissimo sections. If the noise shaping is too aggressive, then spurious artefacts may be heard on very low amplitude level notes in the midband. I have many commercial CDs that exhibited this and I originally thought there was something wrong with my playback system! It wasn't until I experimented in my own recordings that I realised that I could induce the same "distortions" on playback as well as eliminate them depending on the noise-shaping and dither amplitude chosen.

My point was really to highlight that early CDs were disappointing largely due to the technical limitations of the A/D equipment in terms of filter characteristics and timing precision as well as poor linearity of the DACs and reconstruction filter implementation, combined with simpler dithering. More advanced dithering schemes combined with noise-shaping characteristics based on psycho-acoustic models now provide a much better result, but are still no substitute for the high resolution master if ultimate quality is desired.
Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

 

RE: Basically, I don't disagree with anything you say, posted on May 2, 2015 at 13:55:49
Jabs1542
Audiophile

Posts: 90
Location: Virginia
Joined: December 18, 2014
 I agree with Ted, your DAC most likely has a sweet spot. My Hilo likes PCM at 24:192 and my Lampi likes DSD128. Download enough different samples of the same thing, or play with up converting software like HQPlayer and find your DAC's preferred format. Then download that format or upsample/downsample to it.

 

RE: The more samples the better. /t, posted on May 10, 2015 at 13:45:01
Lee of Omaha
Dealer

Posts: 1800
Location: Omaha NE
Joined: September 8, 2006
 For recording data, yes. For reconstructing analog data from digital, as in a real-world vice theoretical DAC, no. Real-world filters don't have brick walls without phase anomalies.

That's why DACs sound so different.

More samples is a phenomenon of diminishing returns. I like the heck out of SACDs. I suspect any higher sampling rate or bit depth would be a waste. To reason in analog, would an amp with a 1000dB signal-to-noise ratio sound better than one with a 100 dB signal-to-noise ratio?

I think well-execute 96 kHz/24 bit is good enough.

 

RE: DSD vs PCM, posted on May 25, 2015 at 08:08:30
jamestavegia@gmail.com
Audiophile

Posts: 275
Location: Atlanta, GA
Joined: November 26, 2013
 I have a crazy affordable Steinberg UR-22 ($150) usb interface that sounds great and does up to 24/192. I like 2496 only because it sounds great and I can burn them to DVD-Rs. 24/192 through my Steinberg is all I could ever want listened to through my AKG 701's.

The Steinberg also has analog out so I can run it to my stereo and it has a separate control for that. I also had to mic/line in jacks if I ever wanted to use it to get audio into my computer, but I just use it for a playback device. A steal for $150 from Sweetwater Sound.
Jim Tavegia

 

RE: DSD vs PCM, posted on May 26, 2015 at 11:55:03
doak
Audiophile

Posts: 636
Location: New Orleans
Joined: June 4, 2000
 Gets my vote for best answer. ;)

 

RE: DSD vs PCM, posted on June 7, 2015 at 12:40:31
peterapperup
Audiophile

Posts: 22
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: January 13, 2015
 There are two masters; one DSD and one PCM.
see more at their website.

 

Page processed in 0.054 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]