I remember back in 2003 when I was 15 my local shop was selling all of there SACD and I picked up about 50 titles at 5-8 dollars and now some of those titles is worth a bit of money. Great Video Paul
You got it, also DSD discs supports Multichannel Audio, so people buy Multichannel DSD and then play in 2 channel SACD player which defeats the purpose, look at Marantz N30 for example, atleast give HDMI out so full transport layer for all channels can be used. Oppo UDP 203 does that just like that .. because it has HDMI out which has no bandwidth issue ..
In fact I think it Is not the case. SACD Is the physical format, DSD Is the technology used to get the digital file and dsf, diff and others the real formats. Dsd Is not a format. For instance, dsd Is to PCM, dsf to wav and SACD to CD. The CD Is the physical format, .wav Is the file type and PCM the technology to digitalise the music. So are SACD, dsf AND DSD respectively
I agree with this. DSD is the technology behind the SACD format. Standard CDs and every other digital format uses Pulse Code Modulation. DSD is how the data is being stored then transferred to the conversion device. PCM is about constant sampling rate of multi-bit data and DSD is more about streaming single bit data with variable sampling rates. I'm by no means an expert on this stuff, but my understanding is the PCM is always carrying data that is being unused in the processing because it's a bit size. If we look at 1s and 0s, there a lot of zeros added fill up the and complete the bit. As an example, consider converting a standard wave file from a 16 bit CD to let's say 24 bit. This would theoretically just add 8 0s to the end of the bit. Where DSD differs is that all the data is being used then variably modulated to build the conversion to analog output. So DSD isn't handling data that could potentially cause noise during the conversion processing.
Thank you for the excellent explanation. In fact SACDs are alive and doing reasonably well in the classical music world. About half the recordings I buy are SACD, and they really do sound wonderful. Jordi Savall's recordings on Alia Vox are particularly good and almost all of them are on SACD.
Just a note to clarify things, not all SACDs have a CD layer. The ones that do are called "hybrid SACD" and they will have both the SACD and the CD logos on the case somewhere. Many SACDs are single layer, having only the DSD layer of music, and so will not play on a standard CD player. SACD is apparently much more popular in Japan. There are still many American and British Rock and Jazz discs being released in Japan regularly which are easily available from CDJapan or Amazon. A lot of Classical music is also released on SACD, not to mention music from audiophile labels like Mobile Fidelity.
@@csabakereszturi945 Pretty much no Japanese SACD has a CD layer, and there’s a good reason for this. Putting a CD layer on the disc would require them to use DTS64 instead of DSD64, or in other words losslessly-compressed DSD. The reason this is an issue is that the Japanese audiophiles hold the belief that uncompressed audio is inherently superior to losslessly compressed audio. All of the Japanese SHM-SACD releases are single layer DSD. Queen, Elton John, Black Sabbath, you name it, they’re all 2.0 single-layer DSD.
@@Gavynnnnn Maybe most Japanese SACDs don't have CD layers, because only audiophiles are buying them anyway (and they don't care for the CD layer). Having a CD layer does not at all mean that compression is used, they are on separate layers! DSD data is in its layer while CD data has its own. Don't spread misinformation.
The first company to understand and appreciate DSD was dCS Audio. They built their own dac to specifically process DSD back in the early 90s and introduced upsampling to DSD in the late 90s.. I think that they're the only ones still today pushing the boundaries of dedicated dsd dacs. It's the reason why their older cd players still sell for high prices unlike newer players using off the shelf processors
@@cengeb Thanks for your post. You are correct. They made the SACD format and then made sure no one else could use it. dCS understood the big advantage DSD had over pcm and pushed the industry forward. Phillips and Sony¨s thinking led to the end of SACD. dCS is the only reason why you now have DSD upsampling on your dacs.
The purpose of SACD and DVD audio it was also that it would be more difficult to copy. If I remember correctly, there would be a file for the disc that could trace the copy to the one who made the copy
SACD, DVD-A, BluRay music is a great idea. Just wanted to bring up my wish. That they should sell music (specially in DSD) on SD cards... even use CD jewel cases with the inner changed to hold card instead of disc. So we could buy Digital music with nice packaging. That could be easily implemented in anything that already plays audio. Seems to late in now though.
Yes, SD cards are even more compact than CDs, and they carry the superior DSD format, so you can listen to them in your phone or in a fancy receiver. We should keep this format alive !!
Actually at 0:55 it is 1982 in Japan, and Europe from what I remember; then in 1983 CD Players arrived in the United States of America, and Canada from what I read, heard, and remember. Here in Canada I remember when I finished high school in 1983 there was a news story on television presenting the compact disc, and the CD Player. Anyhow, thank you for this lecture on DSD, and SACD Paul! Now I am aware of more hi fi audio theory, and fact.
I am an unrepentant physical media kind of guy and have a significant stable of unicorns (as "The Audio Company That Must Not Be Named" like to refer to SACDs and DSD in general). The best of them are superb, better sounding than anything in my much larger CD library. "But things ain't quite that simple."* There are some really good CDs that are, for all practical purposes, the equal of most SACDs. Maybe Paul's exalted playback system in a special listening room can routinely distinguish the differences, but here in outside world of modest but still enjoyable kit, it does't really matter so much. If you have a metaphorical ivory tower, good for you; enjoy. In the end its about the music and if there is something that you want, you get it on whatever format is available. *"I've Had Enough" - Quadrophenia by The Who
@behexen250 My first SACD et al. player was a Sony DVP-NS500V (about $300) which is what sold me on the format. About 10 years ago I bought the Arcam DV135 not quite universal player (stereo only, no blu-ray; originally $1500, purchased at a factory close out for $800). About 2-1/2 years ago, the transport need replacing (a Sanyo drive I believe) and was repaired by the service contractor for brick-and-mortar (support your locals) specialist stereo dealer where it was purchased. I wanted to make sure that the replacement drive, shipped over from Arcam in the U. K., would indeed handle my unicorns and brought along an HDCD, a DVD-A, and an SACD (Mozart Symphonies 38-41, Sir Charles Mackerras conducting the Scottish Chamber Orchestra, Linn CKD 308, most highly recommended for both superb musical performance and sound quality). The dealer indulged an old customer and hooked it up in one of their listening rooms to a system frankly much better than what I have home. All three discs played just fine and the staff, including the owner, were all suitably impressed by this relatively modest player that they had not heard in years. And these guys are used to listening to dCS gear. Anyway, my point is that from my experience well recorded and mastered SACDs represent the best of digital discs, But, like everything else, not all discs occupy the same rare air and there are some very good red book CDs that nip at the heels of many less than stellar SACDs. As for the analog vs. digital debate, further affiant sayeth not.
Stephen Smith For out of this world playback, I use the PS Audio Directstream and Memory Player stack. I agree that there are recordings that rival SACD’s. Much of the ECM catalogue, for example, rivals SACD. Keith Jarrett’s output is particularly enjoyable. Discs from Channel Classics are also noteworthy. Mind you, SACD’s from the latter company are just sublime.
A DSD stream looks like a high frequency PWM signal. It's not quite the same, but very similar. The pulse width doesn't change, but the pulse frequency changes instead.
Couldn't agree more. Music originally recorded and mastered in DSD and transferred to SACDs is simply qualitatively different than CD, even HDCD recordings. The timbre of the instruments is spot on and there is a three dimensional quality that is immediately noticeable. Older recordings not originally recorded in DSD but converted to SACDs, not so much.
"Airy" is the best way to describe DSD. There is an effortless clarity to the audio, and given the context, it can be shocking how much better it sounds than PCM. Especially regarding female vocals.
Very, very few recordings are recorded and mastered in DSD, most are converted to DXD(PCM) and back to DSD before authored to SACD. Old analogue (tape) recordings certainly benefit from a DSD transfer (no messing required) so it makes sense to do this.
I have a few SACDs and they sound great. I guess the format never took off because most people either like to experience music low (as in background noise) or overly loud like in the cars you hear booming down the road. Those of us that appreciate pristine sounding music are in the minority.
Most of your public could not tell the superior nuances and the layered sounds of an SACD. For them, a song is just something in the background that they hear while they work or exercise. Most of my friends could not tell SACD and CD apart when I played them in my expensive HiFi set. That's why SACD never caught on. It wasn't "that much better" for most folks. They couldn't justify paying more for.... what ?
SACD is on disc and requires an SACD player and DSD is a file that can be streamed via the internet or from a hard disc. Otherwise they are the same. It is still open to debate whether DSD sounds better than high res PCM or whether they can be distinguished in blind testing. Personally I find DSD a bit more spacious and smooth sounding and PCM a bit crisper/precise. However, I'm still not convinced we even need sampling rates higher than 16/44 redbook CD. In my experience, the quality of the recording and the equipment used is far more important than high res, I have plenty of redbook cd's and 16/44 files that sound spectacular and better than some of my high res files - but that's just my opinion.
What John describes is exactly how I hear the difference in sound comparing formats. I also agree that the best cds sound superior to some of my SACDs.
SACD is a disc format that ONLY uses DSD 64. DSD itself is an audio signal recording format, specifically 1 bit Pulse Density Modulation and used in varying bit rates - commonly now DSD256. It works very differently to PCM, Pulse Code Modulation and is arguably because of the way it works, closer to the original analogue signal.
The DSD actually resembles the human nervous system as you explain DSD. Many pulses per second when it need to send much information, like encreasing force in a muscle or a loud sound from the ear to the brain. It is limited by the nerves ability to regenerate afther each actionpotential.
COOOL!!! I friggin love drawing connections between seemingly unrelated topics! Also, I truly believe that humans, without realizing it, are unraveling the mysteries of biology thru development of digital systems. And I mean “believe,” because I have zero examples at the ready lol. But maybe this is one?
Not to confuse the crowd any further, but if you get the opportunity, try out some music recorded on JVC's XRCD format. Sounds really, really nice. The most DSD-sounding CD I've heard. (DSD is definitely best, high rate DSD the absolute best) but as far as a disc that will play in a CD player, XRCD sounds amazing. There are a limited but nice number of recordings able to be had in XRCD. Would love to hear comments if you are familiar with the format! -L
Yeah, I have a few XRCDs. They do tend to sound very good. Tina Turner's Private Dancer is particularly great sounding on XRCD. Have you ever heard of SHM-CD? It's marketed as if the extra clear plastic it's made of makes a difference, which I doubt, but many of them are carefully remastered much like the XRCDs were, so I have found that they typically sound fantastic. You should check them out if you get a chance.
Though I love my SACDs I have two major issues. 1 you cannot export the digital audio by fiber optic. This means you either need a premium player with a good built in dac to get the desired quality. Newer ones can use HDMI but I am not aware of any dacs that support this connection. Second you cannot rip these discs for convenience or to use your own usb dac. I understand They want to protect their ip but I have to really want it on sacd for me to purchase.
there are actually ways to rip SACDs, the oldest PlayStation 3 got a hack for this exact purpose. Also most Oppo based multi-disc players (mainly Oppos and Cambridge Audios, there are some others too) can be flashed with a custom Linux and are then able to rip the SACDs DSD files to a harddrive. Google will give you a ton of further info on this topic.
HDMI licensing it's a plus not every company is willing to pay for their DACs, as you would find that on AVRs already which are the main target for driving the audio from commercial media players. This is my understanding of it, although there could be more/different reasons applied to HDMI
Question--What about regular CDs (not SACD)that have the DSD logo on them? I have a few of those, but really don't notice much difference from another version of same cd that does not have the DSD logo. What is the sound difference with the DSD logo discs? thanks for any intel there.
Great question… and sorry to see no one answered…but you may have likely found your answer by now. But for others who just come across this as i have - the answer lays in the playback system. One cannot play back DSD on a regular CD player. If you put a CD with DSD encoding into a regular CD player, the player will only play the red-book/regular CD layer. So, in this case, you will not hear a difference because you are only hearing the NON_DSD portion of that disc. Likewise, some SACD players do not automatically default to playing the SACD /DSD layer - the user must go into the set up and tell the player to select that layer. (Otherwise, it will default to the regular CD layer.) Lastly, (but definitely not least), many SACD players have an internal DAC of entry level quality. It’s just there to covert the DSD to PCM…and then it outputs the same thing from its digital/RCA/SPDIF outputs…just regular CD quality. To hear DSD played back correctly, you would need to use either an output specifically designed to allow the full DSD file to be output and converted by an external DAC (usually made by the same manufacturer as the SACD player due to licensing issues), or the player must covert it and output it through analog outputs (not digital outputs.) In case of the latter, of course your preamp or receiver then needs to have analogue inputs to receive the high quality signal. So, in most all cases, if the user wasn’t aware of this, then, they are either simply listening to the CD layer on the disc, or far lower than DSD quality converted PCM. And, for sure, in these cases, it will be quite hard to tell a regular CD from a CD w/ DSD as a seperate layer on the disc… :) Hope that makes sense. M
Hi Paul, i agree with You that DSD is the best, the big issue is that there are few (not so expensive) SACD/DSD Transport out there, the one that i found are super expensive, so right now i have an Oppo, but will be great if You launch a good SACD transport/server, why this mix: Most people has SACDs that want to convert or store on a server, so You can build a very good catalog via Roon or any other software, so in my case i have many SACDs i want to have them all in a Server/storage so my options are Innuos Zenith, Wyred 4 sound (server) or Roon nucleus with a internal SSD. My suggestion for You is please launch a great SACD Transport/Server but its important the price. i want to buy the DirectStream DAC from PS Audio, but is super expensive, so i went for Auralic Altair G1, that is a great DAC/Stream/Server but the price is achievable. regards
I just ordered Freddie Hubbard “Hubtones”. On Blue Note Records, it’s a SACD and it wasn’t cheap.. $30 bucks , and I have a SACD player so I’m looking forward to listening to it..
cut/paste of my comment on "does DSD have a future" th-cam.com/video/AsjIS9BKIfY/w-d-xo.html Speaking to Max Townshend way back in 2001 (having some work done on my Rock II TT), he also found DSD (SACD) to be nearer to analogue than PCM (DVD-A). DSD was actually developed as a raw, legacy-compatible AND future-proof format for archiving the massive CBS analogue catalogue when Sony acquired it in 1987, it wasn't envisaged as a studio or consumer format at the time. One reason many early SACD's sound so good is that they are effectively direct transfers of these raw, warts-and-all transcriptions (no infernal Sonic NoNOISE et al).
Paul, Am I understanding you correctly that your new transport will support SACD? I thought I read elsewhere that it would not. Will it still connect via I2S to the DAC to play as DSD?
I think pauk is all in on dsd. I cant see there being any new products feom ps audio not capable of sacd when they are currently investing in a complete dsd studio.
This defines why many formats fail: Call medium different from format, different names for players, manufacturers using different terminology. That's failed so many times you'd think companies would get it by now. Philips was right from the start with Compact Cassette and the CD: One simple, single brand, and strict rules what is allowed to be called by it. Cheap licensing, and no mucking about with it. Similarly VHS become standard by simply being VHS: format, medium, players, manufacturers all using same three letters.
Time to upgrade my 90's Denon CD player! I don't know what CD's have SACD on them, but I'm sure it's easy enough to find out. Thanks for the great info, Paul.
Very easy to find out... none ;) It is the other way round. These days, even expensive CD players often don't have SACD capability because the manufacturer would have to pay the license fee, while basically nobody needs it anyway. I had a Denon in the 90s, they had so many cool features, which are really naff in hindsight, like arranging the tracks of a CD so to best fit them on a cassette tape, fade in/out, pitch control, a million direct access track buttons :)
I picked up a bunch of sony bluray players with sacd capability (no longer available in sony low end hdmi bluray players) and am right now listening to Pink Floyd in 5.1 DSOM. 5.1 sacd remixes sound pretty awesome but regular 2.0 sacd doesn't seem too much better than redbook to my tin ears and midfi system. Some favorite 5.1/2.0 sacds: Elton John Captain Fantastic, Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, Dire Straits Brothers in Arms, Bob Dylan Blonde on Blonde, Norah Jones Come Away with Me, Roy Orbison, Black and White Night, John Hiatt Bring the Family, Allman Bros. Fillmore East, Derek and Dominoes Layla. Not all sacds are 5.1's. Most are 2.0. So it is good to check if you want 5.1 mixes. Don't assume. Also, not all 5.1 mixes are that great. But some sound like great care was taken to make it a unique listening experience. I have averaged under $20 per sacd new and used. 5.1 sacds also have a 2.0 sacd version and a 2.0 redbook version so you can play them on any cd player for the redbook or sacd player for the sacd or cd versions.
Be careful. Most SACD's are sourced from PCM (maybe that's why you think sacd's sound similar to red book). They upsample pcm to dsd. If you want dsd in its purest form then buy from native dsd or mobile fidelity.
didn't you mean to say SACD has DSD so a SADC player can play standard CD but Sony just really incorporated Copyright protection within SACD just to recreate the old Sony protected catalog of music library for another generation in new sales of music and hardware?
If DSD and SACD are "one and the same," what's the difference between CD's that say DSD on the back, and CDs that say both DSD and SACD? I know that CDs that only say DSD do not require an SACD player, but played on a regular CD player, are DSD discs comparable to SACD?
Well Paul... first things first: Your PS Audio stack (Gain Cell and M700s) are awesome. I'm enjoying them a lot. Since I purchased them, I added a streamer and Buchardt S400 speakers. This system sounds like a $20,000.00 one. I see you mentioning Gus Skinas and his DSDs recording quite a bit. Is there any way to purchase his recordings? Thanks.
So does that mean a SACD player will always be able to read DSD disks? My Oppo detects whatever I pop in, so if I have a DSD format will it just read it as SACD? Also, wasn't there some licensing limitation from Sony regarding all this?
@@Victor_31_ it's in the specs, one of the reason SACD was developed, so you can't have a perfect digital copy. Once it's in an SACD, you can't get the DSD
@3:20 to @4:07 - You talk about comparing the oscilloscope readings of PCM and DSD, saying that the former looks like digital bits, and the latter resembles the analog waveform, and thus can be heard as music if played back without D to A conversion. I assume you mean that it would be recognizable, but sound terrible, as it hasn’t truly been converted. Regardless, that’s such an interesting fact that I need to make sure I’m interpreting it correctly. Am I? If this is true, I would love to look into this further. Tried searching, but Google’s stupid algorithms always show basic ass results like “how to” or “VS” regardless of the input lol. Can you share any sources of info on this fact per chance? Are there maybe examples of recordings? Or would you maybe be interested in doing a video solely on comparing PCM and DSD waveforms, with some close ups on the oscilloscope, but also allow us to hear the unconverted digital waveforms? (Would that even be possible with PCM? I’m thinking it’s a bunch of +DC pulses, so maybe no? I wonder what I’d hear! So curious, but far too lazy and ill-equipped to figure out a way to try for myself lol.) Anyways, thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge with the world!
DSD (specifically 1 bit Pulse Density Modulation) is actually an ANALOGUE capture system it is NOT DIGITAL as the incoming audio signal is captured in a varying density of 1's and 0's bits analogous to the incoming signal. It does not capture the signal as definite value DIGITAL words. For this reason it offers the best in terms of both detail capture and robustness (it doesn't deteriorate like tape) for audio signals at present, with the added advantage of being storable, downloadable and streamable through a 'digital' network - what's not to like?
Wow wish the hell (I) knew half of what you were talking about ,only part was the pcm my ole rc radio is in that ,still your VERY interesting to listen to
I was told that the reason Sony stopped producing SACDs was because some astute artist who recorded on the label attempted to obtain three lots of royalties (one for each of the layers on a multi-channel SACD) for every recording that had sold and I think the artist won the court case that resulted, so Sony decided enough was enough.
Hey Paul, have you heard DSD256? I’ve used Merging Technology’s Pyramix system to record at DSD256 and it’s absolutely incredible! I’m a huge fan of DSD but it’s hard to do record productions with DSD without using an analog mixing desk which is another ball of wax (one that I love but is often hard to justify given current recording budgets). I know you guys have Sonoma which to my knowledge is limited to DSD64, so I’m curious to know if you have had any experience with DSD256.
I love me some SACD, and they are still available. Sadly both the high end Pioneer and Panasonic Bluray players do not play the format, and audiophile SACD players are expensive to the extreme.
Sony UHD players play SACD Sony X800 - UHD - 2D/3D - SACD - Wi-Fi - Dual HDMI - 2K/4K - Region Free Blu Ray Disc DVD Player - PAL/NTSC - USB - 100-240V 50/60Hz for World-Wide Use & 6 Feet Multi System 4K HDMI Cable www.amazon.com/dp/B075VDQD4Q/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_GxPBEbQWPJEMW
Bestbuy has a Sony Blu-Ray DVD player (BDP-S6700) with SACD playback for under $80. The player and remote are bare minimum, but it plays SACD beautifully via digital coaxial cable. It has become my dedicated SACD player. I have others DVD and Bluray players for just movies.
Unfortunately, the SACD players back in the day weren't very good. I auditioned the Sony XA777ES twice with Wilson Sophia speakers. In an all Mark Levinson system, the 777 had a saccharine like quality compared to the ML player (long forgot the model). Compared to an Arcam FMJ-33 player thru an Ayre integrated amp, the Sony was a slight improvement on SACD's compared to the 16 bit layer on the Arcam. But it totally wimped out on orchestral music, and was not as good on 16 bit discs. I eventually purchased a Phillips SACD1000 when the price was knocked down to a grand, but it was nothing special.
I have a Sony xa9000es which is the later model of xa777es and it plays SACD layer as good as some players a few times more expensive but it doesn't play CD as good. I think it uses 6 dacs in parallel for each channel to reduce noises. I also has a XA5400ES which is better both in SACD and CD playback although it is not built as solid as the XA9000ES. SONY is the developer of SACD and thus should have built decent equipments to demonstrate it. I think they have a SACD player sold in Japan for over US 10K.
SACD is overkill for stereo. The only good use of SACD is for multi-channel. The CD is an exact copy of the master that was used to create it up to 22.05 KHZ. If you don't believe me, look up the Nyquist theorem. So there is no need for stereo SACDs. Unless the mastering is better of course.
I have a couple of Monty Alexander CDs that were said to be derived from original DSD recordings and that they still benefit from some of the enhancements of DSD despite the conversion to CD. What's the story to this? Also, where does DVD-Audio fit in? Is DSD also superior to this?
SACD is twenty year old technology created by Sony/Phillips as a replacement for their CD 'cash cow' based on encoding onto disc Sony's DSD transfer programme, itself created to preserve its deteriorating analogue tape library in a simple Hi Definition format that could be converted as necessary. It offered a 'higher resolution' and also multichannel playback system. Most discs are hybrids, having an SACD layer only readable by certain players and a separate CD layer readable by any CD player. Many discs are multichannel (5.1) with an additional track encoded with this on the SACD layer, though only playable on multi channel systems of course. Many DVD/Blu-Ray players will 'play' SACD's but in most cases the DSD is converted to PCM. SACD specification works at DSD64 and offers no benefit over an equivalent DSD64 download and as DSD is commonly now recorded at DSD256 bit rate it's plain out of date as it cannot work at this bit rate. We don't need plastic optical discs, just more darn plastic, packaging and transport impact totally pointless and injurious to our planet. DSD (specifically 1 bit Pulse Density Modulation) is actually an ANALOGUE capture system it is NOT DIGITAL as the incoming audio signal is captured in a varying density of 1's and 0's bits analogous to the incoming signal. It does not capture the signal as definite value DIGITAL words. For this reason it offers the best in terms of both detail capture and robustness (it doesn't deteriorate like tape) for audio signals at present, with the added advantage of being storable, downloadable and streamable through a 'digital' network - what's not to like?
On direct stream audio only a few audio CDs were made, one from Elvis Presley's only one was made, From Memphis Tennessee, I have the original CD and I bought the new one five years later direct stream digital, more analog close to the original LP you can live with it
FLAC is just a file format not a recording format. PCM and PDM (DSD) are recording formats and they work in different ways. DSD I would strongly argue is not digital :)
Can someone help me find an AV receiver that allows dsd input via hdmi? It’s very hard to find and often I find manuals unclear (or maybe I don’t know what to look for) Also do all AV receivers receive PCM via HDMI (if not dsd) and so some do both?
"Much more analog like", said Paul. That means , analog format is the way to go. DSD, on paper kills vinyl. In terms of sound, at least for me, acoustic instruments sound much more realistic with analog. Playing my piano and listening to a good solo piano album on vinyl, is the closest to the real thing.
@@joebloggs8636 1x12v linear psu + 5v Linear psu - Plextor cd drive - through custom, or fancy usb cables on black bottomed or mam-a disc running from a laptop on battery, burnt at 7am. If I cannot get an idea of one of Paul's favourite music CD so that I can rip a version, burn it and send to him via post from UK (not before light treatment, of course), ill be left with no alternative than to make a copy of Platinum All-Time Favorites from Sesame Street. I think it's1995 - still music.
Interesting that you guys are so invested in DSD since most of today’s music consumption is via a streaming service. DSD isn’t a viable format for streaming because of the amount of data it requires. Enter MQA but that’s another kettle of fish. Love the vids, Paul!
I use discs, streaming, vinyl, downloaded DSD- you name it, I play it. The only format that is sitting in a drawer, unused, is cassette tape. Why be limited by formats?
Yes it is. When you rip an SACD with a 5 channel layer it rips to a 5ch dsd file. How to play that file back is pretty difficult as you would need a surround sound dsd capable dac.
Some find solace in tiny grooves crudely impressed onto fine grained plastic, which the poor tip covered in dust and surrounded by motor and sound pressure related vibration is supposed to follow precisely down to the nanometer, suspended above the wobbly surface at a varying angle, filing the surface a little each time it does so, before it's output is amplified and equalized to match approximated RIAA curve, before finally reaching the amplifier. It's actually amazing ... it works at all.
Thanks. I today tried listening to a sacd file downloaded as .iso from web using foobar 2000 through topping E30. Sounds great. And then converted to dsf file with SONORE just to rip dsd files to connect to the same dac through VOLUMIO and PI4 since they can cope with dsd files but not sacd. You know? I sensed a SLIGHT difference. Better the SACD. Was it the type of conversion (free and fast instead) or was something of a placebo effect? AND another question...Many people say several SACDs with dsd files actually are "PCM-disguised" or something like that because there are internal conversions to pcm within the process of playing them
Sony spend lots of money developing proprietary formats…for everything. They (sometimes) license those formats to other manufacturers and collect royalties from any sale of gear. Want proof? Remember how it was often said that Sony lost the home video wars? No. They simply worked out ways of encoding information on that tape to record higher quality images. Then they worked out how to record it digitally. When Betamax sold for home it was between $600 and $1000. When the format became Pro, those decks were $20-$50 thousand dollars and they revolutionised TV Video production. Even better, they did it for $20 years. Sony is great at playing the long game and it so often wins.
Simply put, SACD is the media, DSD is the data format for the information that is contained on an SACD. But to what Paul is saying, I honestly do not hear a significant difference between DSD and 24 bit 192 kHz PCM. To edit/master DSD, you need to convert it to PCM then reconvert back to DSD, so you are getting PCM's greasy fingers in your DSD anyway.
Converting to analog requires Analog (source) -> DSD (recording)-> Analog (mixing) -> DSD (distributed format)... The double conversion compromises the sound with high frequency noise as the source signal is hit with a second analogue delta-sigma modulator. PCM mixing is by far the most common route, but then it sounds like PCM.
If you want to stay under $1k US then a Sony Blu Ray player sending via HDMI to a receiver capable (licensed) for SACD decoding (mine is Yamaha) delivers a fine sound at mid-fi prices. But the sound quality depends more on the sound engineering teams than on the SACD format. It’s hard to A-B compare CD to SACD on a hybrid disc but as best I can tell using a Schiit Asgard class A headphone amp and Oppo PM3 headphones, the SACD gives a better sense of space (treble and soundstage) and maybe better bass articulation. The differences are NOT as dramatic as typical MP3 streaming quality to CD quality. However Sony tended to put their best-sounding recordings on SACD so buying one has never disappointed me.
So - blue ray audio ? standard DVD sound ( is there such ?).... better than CD, meaning separate CD player ... at 70 I doubt I could hear any difference.... 9.000 hz is tops.
. @@westelaudio943 I've read a bit of info, just casual google so maybe not correct - is high resol. audio standard on 'BluRay ' players ? , seems so. actually seems like some / many standard DVD's can play high Resol. audio as well. thus with a modern 'bluRay there is no 'need' for a separate costly DAC - If someone wants a separate high end stereo system or some such that is a different subject. ? the digital format is not just frequency : ' it stops at 20,000 hz. > more important I gather is the ' frequency steps' in digital systems - higher resol. audio has much smaller steps and thus closer to natural sound > is this somewhat correct ?
DSD is not the same as SACD. DSD is a low-bit recording system, SACD is a consumer-release format. DSD does not use a standard recording method -it can be 4 bits, 8 bits or even 16. And because it decimates and oversamples, DSD is PCM with a higher sampling rate. But even here, mikes, for reasons of self-noise, don't capture much above 25kHz. Chat rooms & forums have shown that most people prefer (high-bit recorded) CD to SACD. .
I'll have to step in and correct what you said. DSD is not PCM with a higher sample rate. Sorry. DSD is PDM (Pulse Density Modulation) which is fundamentally different than PCM (Pulse Code Modulation). DSD is a 1-bit system of greater or lesser density. One of the distinguishing factors of DSD is the ability to convert it directly to analog with a converter. The PDM stream needs only a low pass filter to create analog, where PCM requires a decoder.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio Is it true that DVD-Audio is uncompressed PCM through a decoder and my understanding is the big advantage to SACD is the ease of conversion?
@@thekittencult DVD Audio isn't really a standard (like CDs are). DVD Audio is typically of a higher sample and bit rate than CD, and thus better sounding, but it's not required by the format. So this means it CAN be better, and probably IS better, but that's not a guarantee. SACD is easier to decode and much closer to analog.
Technically, plain old CDs still outsell vinyl more than 2 to 1. The thing is that each individual vinyl record averages about twice the price of a CD, that's the reason their gross sales are similar in dollars, but not nearly in units sold. There's a lot of music out there that will never be available on vinyl, so I wouldn't throw away the CD player.
@British Naturalist yes CD can contain and hold a wider dynamic range. But that don't matter if AND when the songs and material have lower dynamic range than a LP can contain. I have Lady gaga the album joanne that is also recorded digitally that has LESS dynamic range on CD and digital download than on the LP version of the same album. So if a format has one trillion dB in dynamic range and you put a song on that format that has 50dB in dynamic rang do not mean that it will have more than 50 dB just because it CAN contain a trillion dB.. That is something we need to understand! Nobody will take a LP and convert it back to digital and think that they got back the quality of the vinyl master. Because vinyl is LOSSY format and with that said the record label knows that it is a kind of copy protection. It is one reason that some record labels release LPs with higher dynamic range. Another is that it is easier to add loudness (that contains also compressions) on a digital format like the CD and digital download (good to consume in noisier envirioment). And it is those that will be played in in competition with other record labels (on radio stations/streamed). But that is certainly a exception. (It is like that most of the cars that is produced today can go in 220 km/h but the majority of those cars will never utilize that capability in their whole life span, and are they so much better than the cars that only can only do 200 km/h.)
@@brianmoore581 Good point Brian, I hadn't considered it that way previously. Likely because the RIAA, talks in dollar terms & claims that at the midway point of this year vinyl equalled or bettered the sales of cd's. Whilst the US is the biggest individual market, that doesn't give a worldwide picture. Classic rock albums apparently are the biggest sellers on vinyl, which tends to indicate it's the older generation getting back into vinyl the most. Although, reports make mention that if the younger generation buys physical media it is almost always vinyl. Therefore, that tells me, that it is those who collected cd's in the past continue to do so today at ever dwindling rates. Otherwise, consumers nowadays are not getting into cd's. Of course all of this pales into insignificance, considering that digital takes up the bulk of sales by a long margin, mostly in the form of streaming and not downloads. Young people today barely download, they just stream. If they bother to have physical music, including downloads for the sake of discussion here, it's mainly vinyl. All food for thought.... Cheers!
@@nostro1001 yeah music as something to be purchased is dying. Today with a little software you can download any music video you can find on TH-cam, extract the audio, and have your music absolutely free. You don't have to pay for downloads. That's where we're at now. The only reason to purchase music -- aside from your own sense of honor -- is if you are getting something better than what you can get for free. That means vinyl or SACD or higher resolution downloads. CD isn't perceived as necessarily better than what is easily available absolutely free. That's why sales are dropping (in my opinion). Also, the music market is much more fragmented than it was in the past. There are many good artists who remain pretty obscure because they aren't mainstream. It seems that there are a few genres that get most of the attention but rarely produce anything of merit. But there is an abundance of really good music still being made today, it's just getting harder to find it, and the people who make that music aren't rewarded for their work like they were in the past. Or maybe I'm just getting old.
@@brianmoore581 Interesting discussion Brian & interesting take! Just to touch on your final thoughts regarding artists, obscurity & the mainstream. I view that almost as a polar opposite. There's always been great music by obscure artists. Mainstream typically requires solid backing from large commercial companies and of course genre of music in line with whatever is popular at a given time. It's far a few between when artists outside of this 'formula' gain really big commercial acceptance. Without thinking too hard, I guess a band like Nirvana broke that mould in the early 90's (spawned the grunge scene etc). Prior, some of the punk bands in the UK hit the charts and broke the commercial 'formula' of their time. I'm sure there are plenty more examples those were just quickly off the top of my head. Notwithstanding commercial success, I believe that non-commercial music is readily accessible like never before. I have said this for many years now. As a huge collector of music, the Internet has given 'easier' access, whereas days gone by it was really hard to find out about different types of music. And I don't mean genre specific like jazz, blues or classical, even though they aren't they don't comprise huge slice of the commercial market. People into 'long-standing' genres of music have always known where to find out about the latest releases, up and coming artists, new classical recording and so on. It's the genuinely non-commerical music that is so much easier to seek out. Anybody can now go to specific sites and listen, buy and download music. Of course as there's TH-cam, which enables anybody to stumble on non commercial music. A few simple searches and anybody can find music they are interested in. Then there's a multitude of free music mags for those that like reading. In days gone by you'd have to buy a magazine. Even the well known mags are free to view online. And let's not forget social media (which I don't use), but think about how fast information flows with it. What is perhaps harder is that there is so much more music available at our fingertips (literally). So, wading through so much of what you don't like to find a few gems is rather awkward. I've got an extremely broad, likely eclectic taste in music & wading through music is a pleasure for me, rather than a chore for others. I think we are in crazy good times with the selection of non-commercial music we can all hear with ease. Cheers!
sony launched SACD as a 2-channel stereo format. - all the lay, expensive sacd players were 2-channel, sony then panicked, when DVD-Audio launched offering multi-channel, changed horses, SACD 'came' multi-channel. confused consumers, failure in marketplace - we lost viable, superb stereo format, which potentially could have become the new standard for hifi use, pleasing to analog LP hardcore enthusiasts. of course, as usual. convenience overtook sound-quality considerations, we got strongly marketed streamed MP3. its unforgivable, as most in the audio community, for example Bob Fine at Mercury, who told his wife, CD sampling rate is too low, knew that the CD was inadequate, for universal adoption.
just use FLAC and don't bother with all that crap after all if you don't enjoy the music you won't like it more in other format btw the difference with these formats is just companies trying to get Bigger piece of the pie FLAC is open source and Lossless so what more do you want
Super Audio CD is actually DVD with DSD 64 recordings on it. Most of the music whose never recorded (dugital) in DSD format but eventually just converted to it from PCM. The DSD 64 roughly equals to 96 KHz 20 bit 120 dB (which is consider also as our hearing capacity regarding dB range). Today their is no need for perusing for DSD recordings (nor it as native format) the 24 bit 96 KHz Flac will just do fine when you convert it near real-time into DSD (DoP) the delta - sigma modulation will do it's thing & it will sound more natural because of it while all data needed whose there (in flac) to begin with.
Although SACD/DSD has more bandwidth and resolution than CD red book, it suffers from a lack of dynamic reproduction. SACD is superior in hifi terms but lacks musicality in comparison to CD because of it.
I prefer that the actual master data stream hits my DAC in a bit perfect way without any resolution compression, file size compression or sample rate conversion. That's the absolutely ideal scenario. DSD in itself does not add anything.
Angelwars Not really. Which music digital master do you think was in fact genuinely mastered in DSD in the studio? Rather, in the digital studio gear PCM rules and your digital bit perfect FLAC file is identical with no loss. Thus I prefer FLAC. Studio gear that claim DSD compatibility actually transcode the DSD audio to high‑resolution PCM (24/96 or 24/192, for example), do all the signal processing at that resolution, and then transcode the result back to DSD. Thus, what’s the point? Your DAC might internally run the conversion to analog audio as delta-sigma modulated stream and that’s where people get confused, as DAC companies heavily advertise this approach as more precise in recreating the analog signal.
@@ThinkingBetter I agree very little music is recorded in DSD and most of that is mixed in DXD - however it makes sense to convert back to DSD for playback (speak to the audio engineers). Also it 's interesting the number of people converting PCM to DSD 'on the fly' before it hits their DAC's. The advantage seems to be that most DAC's output stage is Sigma Delta based and so feeding it DSD is more compatible for it. My view is DSD is NOT digital as I've mentioned elsewhere - it captures the signal in a very different way to PCM digital.
Angelwars I’m leading audio engineering and generally in any audio architecture you aim at minimizing or avoiding any lossy transcoding when the goal is best audio fidelity. When all digital recordings are based on PCM as master format or at least used PCM internally in the equipment, DSD becomes a format introducing loss to the signal relative to a bit perfect master file. Thus if you let your DAC take the bit perfect PCM master file data and your DAC uses a bit stream sigma delta approach internally, you have the best compromise. Do you have even one song that was mastered in DSD without actually using PCM for any signal mixing, EQ, effect or other DSP processing in the studio? I don’t think such music exist...thus DSD is always a transcoded format. But, for a given restricted bandwidth (or file size) of data, DSD can do better than PCM in audio fidelity.
@@ThinkingBetter yes i have many albums recorded in DSD and mixed in analogue back to DSD - no PCM conversions (look at nativedsd.com or blue coast records). I take your points but my main viewpoint having spoken to many experienced sound engineers is that DSD is basically a superior way of capturing audio compared to PCM at present.
1) @6:50 "DSD -- That's the best sounding digital form of audio. Period. End oh story." Paul, on what basis have you concluded that DSD sounds better than PCM? Have you used a quality transport, such as the Innuos Statement, to feed a bit-perfect, (virtually) noise-free and jitter-free PCM datastream to a high-end DAC, such as the Aesthetix Romulus Eclipse? I want to take you at your word. But without you specifying the equipment that you used, to draw your conclusion, I cannot confirm that you drew the correct conclusion. I need positive confirmation, via knowing the equipment used in your PCM listening test, and also the equipment used in your DSD listening test. I know that you have recorded both DSD and PCM, at the same time, in your Octave Records studio, and that the DSD recording won. But I do not know why DSD won, because I do not know what equipment you used for each recording format. 2) I thought that SACD was 2x Redbook?
Its not quite - DSD is simpler and somewhat more sophisticated in that the top end frequency doesn't just stop at 44.1 k or 2x red book at 88.2k - DSD is not defined by this and so if we use DSD 2.8 mhz the frequency response goes beyond 44.05 kHz barrier of PCM - and extends on to about 60 kHz before it fizzles out. So the roll off is very gentle compared to a sudden brick wall halt. Of course when PCM gets crazy high like 192kHz or 384 kHz these issues are irrelevant.
CD is just fine for utility listening, but CD was intended to cover the hearing resolution that 98% of the population possess with a commercially viable solution. Once you've been in front of a system with copious amounts of resolution, the difference becomes clear. It's rather like the difference between the taste of a $20 bottle of wine and a $200 bottle. Some months ago I was fortunate enough to listen to a piece directly on the Sonoma Mastering System at Octave Studios and never before have I heard such richness. Some systems sound good, and some sound so good they put an indelible smile on your face. Just thinking of that audio still makes me smile today.
@@FooBar89 I understand that your assertion is not correct and appears to be based on myth, and that's not based on opinion. I've been designing 24+ bit DSP gear and writing DSP code for audio since 1988 so I have an informed opinion when it comes to digital audio. I've read both the Red Book and the Yellow Book as well as countless technical articles in engineering trade publications and I know a fair deal about the underlying effort to create CD-DA. For DSP hacking, back in 1990 I added my own digital audio interface to a Sony CDP-101 (the 1st commercially available CD player), wrote a pitch shifter on a Motorola DSP56001, and discovered that Alvin the Chipmunk is just Dave Seville's voice shifted up an octave. According to Kees Schouhamer Immink who came up with the encoding used in CD-DA, _"Modern digital audio equipment accepts many different sampling rates, but the CDtask force opted for only one frequency, namely 44.1 kHz. This sampling frequency was chosen mainly for logistics reasons"_ . The 44.1KHz frequency is an artifact of stripping out the audio portion of the Philips video laserdisc technology and it's linked to NTSC video. They also considered using 44.075 KHz which was derived from PAL video laserdiscs, but 44.1 was easier to remember. The size of the disc comes from the wife of Sony's vice-president deciding that she wanted Beethoven's Ninth Symphony to fit on a CD and the slowest rendition they had in the catalog was a 74:33 long performance from 1951 conducted by Wilhelm Furtwängler. What an amazing surname. So you see, it's all rather arbitrary. The sample rate is based on NTSC video and not being the end all of audio reproduction. I'm sure you believe NTSC covers over 100% of the needs for 100% of the population also, no? It was never intended to be perfect, it was intended to sell something that was good enough and recycled out of Philip's commercially failed laserdisc technology that had already been the subject of considerable R&D investment and progress. LPs can have far higher bandwidth although their signal to noise ratio is lower. CD resolution is also frequency dependant; a 440Hz sine wave will be represented by just over 100 samples and it will be recreated beautifully, but an 8K component of a cymbal hit will only be captured by 5.5 samples, leading to generation of a considerable quantity of artifacts, or spectral smearing and noise if you prefer. Some people just dismiss those artifacts and claim they're either out of band or below the noise floor but others like myself will cry foul to that claim. All the gear I've designed (outside of inexpensive DSP effects units for guitar) for the last few years has been 192KHz, 24 bit. I feel 192/24 is the minimum level of digital for PCM audio that comes closest to covering 100% of the needs for 100% of the population.
I remember back in 2003 when I was 15 my local shop was selling all of there SACD and I picked up about 50 titles at 5-8 dollars and now some of those titles is worth a bit of money. Great Video Paul
So DSD is the format and a SACD is the physical medium to play DSD from.
You got it, also DSD discs supports Multichannel Audio, so people buy Multichannel DSD and then play in 2 channel SACD player which defeats the purpose, look at Marantz N30 for example, atleast give HDMI out so full transport layer for all channels can be used. Oppo UDP 203 does that just like that .. because it has HDMI out which has no bandwidth issue ..
In fact I think it Is not the case. SACD Is the physical format, DSD Is the technology used to get the digital file and dsf, diff and others the real formats. Dsd Is not a format. For instance, dsd Is to PCM, dsf to wav and SACD to CD. The CD Is the physical format, .wav Is the file type and PCM the technology to digitalise the music. So are SACD, dsf AND DSD respectively
@@leonardopapantoniou4227 Spot on!
I agree with this. DSD is the technology behind the SACD format. Standard CDs and every other digital format uses Pulse Code Modulation. DSD is how the data is being stored then transferred to the conversion device. PCM is about constant sampling rate of multi-bit data and DSD is more about streaming single bit data with variable sampling rates.
I'm by no means an expert on this stuff, but my understanding is the PCM is always carrying data that is being unused in the processing because it's a bit size. If we look at 1s and 0s, there a lot of zeros added fill up the and complete the bit. As an example, consider converting a standard wave file from a 16 bit CD to let's say 24 bit. This would theoretically just add 8 0s to the end of the bit. Where DSD differs is that all the data is being used then variably modulated to build the conversion to analog output. So DSD isn't handling data that could potentially cause noise during the conversion processing.
Thank you for the excellent explanation. In fact SACDs are alive and doing reasonably well in the classical music world. About half the recordings I buy are SACD, and they really do sound wonderful. Jordi Savall's recordings on Alia Vox are particularly good and almost all of them are on SACD.
Just a note to clarify things, not all SACDs have a CD layer. The ones that do are called "hybrid SACD" and they will have both the SACD and the CD logos on the case somewhere. Many SACDs are single layer, having only the DSD layer of music, and so will not play on a standard CD player. SACD is apparently much more popular in Japan. There are still many American and British Rock and Jazz discs being released in Japan regularly which are easily available from CDJapan or Amazon. A lot of Classical music is also released on SACD, not to mention music from audiophile labels like Mobile Fidelity.
Very few don’t have a CD layer, which I don’t listen to anyways.
@@csabakereszturi945 plenty of them don't have a CD layer. I have several hundreds of SACDs. About 25% of my SACDs don't have a CD layer.
@@csabakereszturi945 Pretty much no Japanese SACD has a CD layer, and there’s a good reason for this. Putting a CD layer on the disc would require them to use DTS64 instead of DSD64, or in other words losslessly-compressed DSD. The reason this is an issue is that the Japanese audiophiles hold the belief that uncompressed audio is inherently superior to losslessly compressed audio.
All of the Japanese SHM-SACD releases are single layer DSD. Queen, Elton John, Black Sabbath, you name it, they’re all 2.0 single-layer DSD.
@@csabakereszturi945 I have quite a number of single layer SACDs and excellent they are
@@Gavynnnnn Maybe most Japanese SACDs don't have CD layers, because only audiophiles are buying them anyway (and they don't care for the CD layer). Having a CD layer does not at all mean that compression is used, they are on separate layers! DSD data is in its layer while CD data has its own. Don't spread misinformation.
Its a shame it never really took off. I have a couple of SACD's and they sound fantastic!
at that time unfortunately the shark was MP3
@Fernando Martinez recorded in DSD, or PCM to DSD converted?
The DRM turned most consumers off.
I have many blu ray/sacd combos. To me the sacd always sounds better
I like my HDCDs alot but i'm a dynamics junky lol And normally HDCD have awesome reccordings
Sir you have explained very briefly about SACD and DSD, Thank you very much Paul Sir
The first company to understand and appreciate DSD was dCS Audio. They built their own dac to specifically process DSD back in the early 90s and introduced upsampling to DSD in the late 90s.. I think that they're the only ones still today pushing the boundaries of dedicated dsd dacs. It's the reason why their older cd players still sell for high prices unlike newer players using off the shelf processors
EMM LABS, Meitner was involved in developing DSD with Philips sony. All others followed.
@@cengeb Thanks for your post. You are correct. They made the SACD format and then made sure no one else could use it.
dCS understood the big advantage DSD had over pcm and pushed the industry forward. Phillips and Sony¨s thinking led to the end of SACD. dCS is the only reason why you now have DSD upsampling on your dacs.
@@stephens2r338 emm labs..meitner was involved in the devopment of dsd...
The purpose of SACD and DVD audio it was also that it would be more difficult to copy. If I remember correctly, there would be a file for the disc that could trace the copy to the one who made the copy
SACD, DVD-A, BluRay music is a great idea. Just wanted to bring up my wish. That they should sell music (specially in DSD) on SD cards... even use CD jewel cases with the inner changed to hold card instead of disc. So we could buy Digital music with nice packaging. That could be easily implemented in anything that already plays audio. Seems to late in now though.
Yes, SD cards are even more compact than CDs, and they carry the superior DSD format, so you can listen to them in your phone or in a fancy receiver. We should keep this format alive !!
Actually at 0:55 it is 1982 in Japan, and Europe from what I remember; then in 1983 CD Players arrived in the United States of America, and Canada from what I read, heard, and remember. Here in Canada I remember when I finished high school in 1983 there was a news story on television presenting the compact disc, and the CD Player. Anyhow, thank you for this lecture on DSD, and SACD Paul! Now I am aware of more hi fi audio theory, and fact.
when SACD and DVD audio came along, the music industry had major problems with copying CDs. at that time, people downloaded MP3 songs
I am an unrepentant physical media kind of guy and have a significant stable of unicorns (as "The Audio Company That Must Not Be Named" like to refer to SACDs and DSD in general). The best of them are superb, better sounding than anything in my much larger CD library. "But things ain't quite that simple."* There are some really good CDs that are, for all practical purposes, the equal of most SACDs. Maybe Paul's exalted playback system in a special listening room can routinely distinguish the differences, but here in outside world of modest but still enjoyable kit, it does't really matter so much. If you have a metaphorical ivory tower, good for you; enjoy. In the end its about the music and if there is something that you want, you get it on whatever format is available.
*"I've Had Enough" - Quadrophenia by The Who
@behexen250 My first SACD et al. player
was a Sony DVP-NS500V (about $300) which is what sold me on the format. About 10 years ago I bought the Arcam DV135 not quite universal player (stereo only, no blu-ray; originally $1500, purchased at a factory close out for $800). About 2-1/2 years ago, the transport need replacing (a Sanyo drive I believe) and was repaired by the service contractor for brick-and-mortar (support your locals) specialist stereo dealer where it was purchased. I wanted to make sure that the replacement drive, shipped over from Arcam in the U. K., would indeed handle my unicorns and brought along an HDCD, a DVD-A, and an SACD (Mozart Symphonies 38-41, Sir Charles Mackerras conducting the Scottish Chamber Orchestra, Linn CKD 308, most highly recommended for both superb musical performance and sound quality). The dealer indulged an old customer and hooked it up in one of their listening rooms to a system frankly much better than what I have home. All three discs played just fine and the staff, including the owner, were all suitably impressed by this relatively modest player that they had not heard in years. And these guys are used to listening to dCS gear.
Anyway, my point is that from my experience well recorded and mastered SACDs represent the best of digital discs, But, like everything else, not all discs occupy the same rare air and there are some very good red book CDs that nip at the heels of many less than stellar SACDs.
As for the analog vs. digital debate, further affiant sayeth not.
Stephen Smith For out of this world playback, I use the PS Audio Directstream and Memory Player stack. I agree that there are recordings that rival SACD’s. Much of the ECM catalogue, for example, rivals SACD. Keith Jarrett’s output is particularly enjoyable. Discs from Channel Classics are also noteworthy. Mind you, SACD’s from the latter company are just sublime.
@@clothyardshafts Yes, Keith Jarrett is one of the grand masters. Definitely in the same class as Horowitz and Rubinstein.
I had a lingering feeling that sacds were the same as dsd.... Thanks for making it easy to understand.
A DSD stream looks like a high frequency PWM signal. It's not quite the same, but very similar. The pulse width doesn't change, but the pulse frequency changes instead.
Nice way to understand it. If one knows PWM I'm sure they'd be able to visualize PFM.
Couldn't agree more. Music originally recorded and mastered in DSD and transferred to SACDs is simply qualitatively different than CD, even HDCD recordings. The timbre of the instruments is spot on and there is a three dimensional quality that is immediately noticeable. Older recordings not originally recorded in DSD but converted to SACDs, not so much.
"Airy" is the best way to describe DSD. There is an effortless clarity to the audio, and given the context, it can be shocking how much better it sounds than PCM. Especially regarding female vocals.
Very, very few recordings are recorded and mastered in DSD, most are converted to DXD(PCM) and back to DSD before authored to SACD. Old analogue (tape) recordings certainly benefit from a DSD transfer (no messing required) so it makes sense to do this.
@@angelwars3176 That's correct, and it's a shame.
I have a few SACDs and they sound great. I guess the format never took off because most people either like to experience music low (as in background noise) or overly loud like in the cars you hear booming down the road. Those of us that appreciate pristine sounding music are in the minority.
Most of your public could not tell the superior nuances and the layered sounds of an SACD. For them, a song is just something in the background that they hear while they work or exercise. Most of my friends could not tell SACD and CD apart when I played them in my expensive HiFi set. That's why SACD never caught on. It wasn't "that much better" for most folks. They couldn't justify paying more for.... what ?
SACD is on disc and requires an SACD player and DSD is a file that can be streamed via the internet or from a hard disc. Otherwise they are the same.
It is still open to debate whether DSD sounds better than high res PCM or whether they can be distinguished in blind testing. Personally I find DSD a bit more spacious and smooth sounding and PCM a bit crisper/precise. However, I'm still not convinced we even need sampling rates higher than 16/44 redbook CD. In my experience, the quality of the recording and the equipment used is far more important than high res, I have plenty of redbook cd's and 16/44 files that sound spectacular and better than some of my high res files - but that's just my opinion.
That’s true.
What John describes is exactly how I hear the difference in sound comparing formats. I also agree that the best cds sound superior to some of my SACDs.
SACD is a disc format that ONLY uses DSD 64. DSD itself is an audio signal recording format, specifically 1 bit Pulse Density Modulation and used in varying bit rates - commonly now DSD256. It works very differently to PCM, Pulse Code Modulation and is arguably because of the way it works, closer to the original analogue signal.
The DSD actually resembles the human nervous system as you explain DSD. Many pulses per second when it need to send much information, like encreasing force in a muscle or a loud sound from the ear to the brain. It is limited by the nerves ability to regenerate afther each actionpotential.
COOOL!!! I friggin love drawing connections between seemingly unrelated topics!
Also, I truly believe that humans, without realizing it, are unraveling the mysteries of biology thru development of digital systems. And I mean “believe,” because I have zero examples at the ready lol. But maybe this is one?
the same as CD-Audio and PCM
And, now I know! Thanks, Paul!
Not to confuse the crowd any further, but if you get the opportunity, try out some music recorded on JVC's XRCD format. Sounds really, really nice. The most DSD-sounding CD I've heard. (DSD is definitely best, high rate DSD the absolute best) but as far as a disc that will play in a CD player, XRCD sounds amazing. There are a limited but nice number of recordings able to be had in XRCD. Would love to hear comments if you are familiar with the format! -L
Yeah, I have a few XRCDs. They do tend to sound very good. Tina Turner's Private Dancer is particularly great sounding on XRCD. Have you ever heard of SHM-CD? It's marketed as if the extra clear plastic it's made of makes a difference, which I doubt, but many of them are carefully remastered much like the XRCDs were, so I have found that they typically sound fantastic. You should check them out if you get a chance.
Though I love my SACDs I have two major issues. 1 you cannot export the digital audio by fiber optic. This means you either need a premium player with a good built in dac to get the desired quality. Newer ones can use HDMI but I am not aware of any dacs that support this connection. Second you cannot rip these discs for convenience or to use your own usb dac. I understand They want to protect their ip but I have to really want it on sacd for me to purchase.
there are actually ways to rip SACDs, the oldest PlayStation 3 got a hack for this exact purpose. Also most Oppo based multi-disc players (mainly Oppos and Cambridge Audios, there are some others too) can be flashed with a custom Linux and are then able to rip the SACDs DSD files to a harddrive. Google will give you a ton of further info on this topic.
Even DACS from PS Audio have HDMI input.
HDMI licensing it's a plus not every company is willing to pay for their DACs, as you would find that on AVRs already which are the main target for driving the audio from commercial media players. This is my understanding of it, although there could be more/different reasons applied to HDMI
Thank you Paul that makes things very clear about SACD. Great videos keep making them :-)
HRx is the best sounding digital format out there and is the format closest we can come to the digital master.
I tried to search this in Google, but came up empty. Could you please provide a link?
Wow didn't know that SACD and DSD were the same, I actually learned something today haha.
And yes it sounds fantastic!
5.1 surround on SACD
Sacd is just a disc. Dsd goes onto the disc.
Question--What about regular CDs (not SACD)that have the DSD logo on them? I have a few of those, but really don't notice much difference from another version of same cd that does not have the DSD logo. What is the sound difference with the DSD logo discs? thanks for any intel there.
Great question… and sorry to see no one answered…but you may have likely found your answer by now.
But for others who just come across this as i have - the answer lays in the playback system. One cannot play back DSD on a regular CD player.
If you put a CD with DSD encoding into a regular CD player, the player will only play the red-book/regular CD layer.
So, in this case, you will not hear a difference because you are only hearing the NON_DSD portion of that disc.
Likewise, some SACD players do not automatically default to playing the SACD /DSD layer - the user must go into the set up and tell the player to select that layer. (Otherwise, it will default to the regular CD layer.)
Lastly, (but definitely not least), many SACD players have an internal DAC of entry level quality. It’s just there to covert the DSD to PCM…and then it outputs the same thing from its digital/RCA/SPDIF outputs…just regular CD quality.
To hear DSD played back correctly, you would need to use either an output specifically designed to allow the full DSD file to be output and converted by an external DAC (usually made by the same manufacturer as the SACD player due to licensing issues), or the player must covert it and output it through analog outputs (not digital outputs.) In case of the latter, of course your preamp or receiver then needs to have analogue inputs to receive the high quality signal.
So, in most all cases, if the user wasn’t aware of this, then, they are either simply listening to the CD layer on the disc, or far lower than DSD quality converted PCM. And, for sure, in these cases, it will be quite hard to tell a regular CD from a CD w/ DSD as a seperate layer on the disc… :)
Hope that makes sense.
M
Hi Paul, i agree with You that DSD is the best, the big issue is that there are few (not so expensive) SACD/DSD Transport out there, the one that i found are super expensive, so right now i have an Oppo, but will be great if You launch a good SACD transport/server, why this mix:
Most people has SACDs that want to convert or store on a server, so You can build a very good catalog via Roon or any other software, so in my case i have many SACDs i want to have them all in a Server/storage so my options are Innuos Zenith, Wyred 4 sound (server) or Roon nucleus with a internal SSD. My suggestion for You is please launch a great SACD Transport/Server but its important the price. i want to buy the DirectStream DAC from PS Audio, but is super expensive, so i went for Auralic Altair G1, that is a great DAC/Stream/Server but the price is achievable. regards
I just ordered Freddie Hubbard “Hubtones”. On Blue Note Records, it’s a SACD and it wasn’t cheap.. $30 bucks , and I have a SACD player so I’m looking forward to listening to it..
cut/paste of my comment on "does DSD have a future" th-cam.com/video/AsjIS9BKIfY/w-d-xo.html
Speaking to Max Townshend way back in 2001 (having some work done on my Rock II TT), he also found DSD (SACD) to be nearer to analogue than PCM (DVD-A). DSD was actually developed as a raw, legacy-compatible AND future-proof format for archiving the massive CBS analogue catalogue when Sony acquired it in 1987, it wasn't envisaged as a studio or consumer format at the time. One reason many early SACD's sound so good is that they are effectively direct transfers of these raw, warts-and-all transcriptions (no infernal Sonic NoNOISE et al).
Thanks Paul. Great explanation 👍🏼
There are still lots of SACD's released in Japan.
SACD closing in on its 17,000th release.
Will your new CD transport be available as an internal upgrade for the Perfectwave Transport like the Directstream was for the Perfectwave DAC?
Paul, Am I understanding you correctly that your new transport will support SACD? I thought I read elsewhere that it would not. Will it still connect via I2S to the DAC to play as DSD?
I think pauk is all in on dsd. I cant see there being any new products feom ps audio not capable of sacd when they are currently investing in a complete dsd studio.
This defines why many formats fail: Call medium different from format, different names for players, manufacturers using different terminology. That's failed so many times you'd think companies would get it by now.
Philips was right from the start with Compact Cassette and the CD: One simple, single brand, and strict rules what is allowed to be called by it. Cheap licensing, and no mucking about with it.
Similarly VHS become standard by simply being VHS: format, medium, players, manufacturers all using same three letters.
The one on your desk looks pretty cool!
Time to upgrade my 90's Denon CD player! I don't know what CD's have SACD on them, but I'm sure it's easy enough to find out. Thanks for the great info, Paul.
Marvin Gaye's "Midnight Love" is the only SACD album I got and the only one available that I care enough about to buy. Kinda slim pickings.
Very easy to find out... none ;) It is the other way round. These days, even expensive CD players often don't have SACD capability because the manufacturer would have to pay the license fee, while basically nobody needs it anyway. I had a Denon in the 90s, they had so many cool features, which are really naff in hindsight, like arranging the tracks of a CD so to best fit them on a cassette tape, fade in/out, pitch control, a million direct access track buttons :)
@@thegrimyeaper I have a few, Dire Staits, Super Tramp and others, there is some good music if you look. You pay for them though.
@@Baerchenization one of the main reasons they dont have it is it would require a DVD laser to read the dsd data.
@@thegrimyeaper oh brother
same calm voice :)
is sacd a type of cd that has a hi-res layer and a cd layer, sacd being able to hear every string plucked on a guitar/chello?
correct me if i'm wrong But for most websites that sell hi-res music it is the most flac
I picked up a bunch of sony bluray players with sacd capability (no longer available in sony low end hdmi bluray players) and am right now listening to Pink Floyd in 5.1 DSOM. 5.1 sacd remixes sound pretty awesome but regular 2.0 sacd doesn't seem too much better than redbook to my tin ears and midfi system. Some favorite 5.1/2.0 sacds: Elton John Captain Fantastic, Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, Dire Straits Brothers in Arms, Bob Dylan Blonde on Blonde, Norah Jones Come Away with Me, Roy Orbison, Black and White Night, John Hiatt Bring the Family, Allman Bros. Fillmore East, Derek and Dominoes Layla. Not all sacds are 5.1's. Most are 2.0. So it is good to check if you want 5.1 mixes. Don't assume. Also, not all 5.1 mixes are that great. But some sound like great care was taken to make it a unique listening experience. I have averaged under $20 per sacd new and used. 5.1 sacds also have a 2.0 sacd version and a 2.0 redbook version so you can play them on any cd player for the redbook or sacd player for the sacd or cd versions.
Be careful. Most SACD's are sourced from PCM (maybe that's why you think sacd's sound similar to red book). They upsample pcm to dsd. If you want dsd in its purest form then buy from native dsd or mobile fidelity.
didn't you mean to say SACD has DSD so a SADC player can play standard CD but Sony just really incorporated Copyright protection within SACD just to recreate the old Sony protected catalog of music library for another generation in new sales of music and hardware?
SACDs also have 5.1 sounds
Not always, it is optional.
Great explanation... thx a lot Paul.
If DSD and SACD are "one and the same," what's the difference between CD's that say DSD on the back, and CDs that say both DSD and SACD? I know that CDs that only say DSD do not require an SACD player, but played on a regular CD player, are DSD discs comparable to SACD?
Does DSD uses an analogue signal? If yes so does it need any dac ? Or we can directly play it on amp?
Well Paul... first things first: Your PS Audio stack (Gain Cell and M700s) are awesome. I'm enjoying them a lot. Since I purchased them, I added a streamer and Buchardt S400 speakers. This system sounds like a $20,000.00 one. I see you mentioning Gus Skinas and his DSDs recording quite a bit. Is there any way to purchase his recordings? Thanks.
So does that mean a SACD player will always be able to read DSD disks? My Oppo detects whatever I pop in, so if I have a DSD format will it just read it as SACD? Also, wasn't there some licensing limitation from Sony regarding all this?
TASCAM DV1000 is true DSD recording playback, not SACD...DSD is the recording to make SACD, ya can't get DSD data off a SACD
@@cengeb who told you that?
@@Victor_31_ it's in the specs, one of the reason SACD was developed, so you can't have a perfect digital copy. Once it's in an SACD, you can't get the DSD
@@cengeb you may be surprised if you read on HDMI extraction of DSD :)
@@Victor_31_ TASCAM DV-RA1000 true DSD recorder and playback, like a few other Tascam units...and a Korg mr-2 portable DSD recorder
@3:20 to @4:07 - You talk about comparing the oscilloscope readings of PCM and DSD, saying that the former looks like digital bits, and the latter resembles the analog waveform, and thus can be heard as music if played back without D to A conversion. I assume you mean that it would be recognizable, but sound terrible, as it hasn’t truly been converted.
Regardless, that’s such an interesting fact that I need to make sure I’m interpreting it correctly. Am I?
If this is true, I would love to look into this further. Tried searching, but Google’s stupid algorithms always show basic ass results like “how to” or “VS” regardless of the input lol. Can you share any sources of info on this fact per chance? Are there maybe examples of recordings?
Or would you maybe be interested in doing a video solely on comparing PCM and DSD waveforms, with some close ups on the oscilloscope, but also allow us to hear the unconverted digital waveforms? (Would that even be possible with PCM? I’m thinking it’s a bunch of +DC pulses, so maybe no? I wonder what I’d hear! So curious, but far too lazy and ill-equipped to figure out a way to try for myself lol.)
Anyways, thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge with the world!
Anyone?
Why is it, Paul, that you like DSD/SACD more than PCM DVD-Audio and Blu-ray-Audio ? Why is it that DSD has a more analog sound than Uncompressed PCM ?
DSD (specifically 1 bit Pulse Density Modulation) is actually an ANALOGUE capture system it is NOT DIGITAL as the incoming audio signal is captured in a varying density of 1's and 0's bits analogous to the incoming signal. It does not capture the signal as definite value DIGITAL words. For this reason it offers the best in terms of both detail capture and robustness (it doesn't deteriorate like tape) for audio signals at present, with the added advantage of being storable, downloadable and streamable through a 'digital' network - what's not to like?
Wow wish the hell (I) knew half of what you were talking about ,only part was the pcm my ole rc radio is in that ,still your VERY interesting to listen to
Why does DSD require a USB connection to stream to a dac?
I was told that the reason Sony stopped producing SACDs was because some astute artist who recorded on the label attempted to obtain three lots of royalties (one for each of the layers on a multi-channel SACD) for every recording that had sold and I think the artist won the court case that resulted, so Sony decided enough was enough.
Yep
Sony never stopped producing SACDs.
Hey Paul, have you heard DSD256? I’ve used Merging Technology’s Pyramix system to record at DSD256 and it’s absolutely incredible! I’m a huge fan of DSD but it’s hard to do record productions with DSD without using an analog mixing desk which is another ball of wax (one that I love but is often hard to justify given current recording budgets). I know you guys have Sonoma which to my knowledge is limited to DSD64, so I’m curious to know if you have had any experience with DSD256.
Gus Skinnas upgraded the Sonoma system to 128 but he doesn't like Pyramix!
@@angelwars3176 any particular reason? thank you!
@@meanpeoplerule Ask Gus! :)
I love me some SACD, and they are still available. Sadly both the high end Pioneer and Panasonic Bluray players do not play the format, and audiophile SACD players are expensive to the extreme.
Billy Grinstead the pioneer lx BDP 800/500 play SACD.
Sony UHD players play SACD
Sony X800 - UHD - 2D/3D - SACD - Wi-Fi - Dual HDMI - 2K/4K - Region Free Blu Ray Disc DVD Player - PAL/NTSC - USB - 100-240V 50/60Hz for World-Wide Use & 6 Feet Multi System 4K HDMI Cable www.amazon.com/dp/B075VDQD4Q/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_GxPBEbQWPJEMW
Bestbuy has a Sony Blu-Ray DVD player (BDP-S6700) with SACD playback for under $80. The player and remote are bare minimum, but it plays SACD beautifully via digital coaxial cable. It has become my dedicated SACD player. I have others DVD and Bluray players for just movies.
So to play DSD I need a DSD transport and a DAC, or can I play DSD through a SACD player? I'm still confused.
An sacd is a disc that has dsd music files on it.
Thanks Paul
Thank you
Unfortunately, the SACD players back in the day weren't very good. I auditioned the Sony XA777ES twice with Wilson Sophia speakers. In an all Mark Levinson system, the 777 had a saccharine like quality compared to the ML player (long forgot the model). Compared to an Arcam FMJ-33 player thru an Ayre integrated amp, the Sony was a slight improvement on SACD's compared to the 16 bit layer on the Arcam. But it totally wimped out on orchestral music, and was not as good on 16 bit discs. I eventually purchased a Phillips SACD1000 when the price was knocked down to a grand, but it was nothing special.
yes I cant tell much difference a true all DSD recording and playback system should sound better
I have a Sony xa9000es which is the later model of xa777es and it plays SACD layer as good as some players a few times more expensive but it doesn't play CD as good. I think it uses 6 dacs in parallel for each channel to reduce noises. I also has a XA5400ES which is better both in SACD and CD playback although it is not built as solid as the XA9000ES. SONY is the developer of SACD and thus should have built decent equipments to demonstrate it. I think they have a SACD player sold in Japan for over US 10K.
SACD is overkill for stereo. The only good use of SACD is for multi-channel.
The CD is an exact copy of the master that was used to create it up to 22.05 KHZ.
If you don't believe me, look up the Nyquist theorem.
So there is no need for stereo SACDs. Unless the mastering is better of course.
I have a couple of Monty Alexander CDs that were said to be derived from original DSD recordings and that they still benefit from some of the enhancements of DSD despite the conversion to CD. What's the story to this? Also, where does DVD-Audio fit in? Is DSD also superior to this?
dsd is better than dvd audio.
Dvd audio is pcm. Blu-ray audio is pcm. Audio CD is pcm. SACD audio is DSD which is pdm, which is superior.
SACD is twenty year old technology created by Sony/Phillips as a replacement for their CD 'cash cow' based on encoding onto disc Sony's DSD transfer programme, itself created to preserve its deteriorating analogue tape library in a simple Hi Definition format that could be converted as necessary. It offered a 'higher resolution' and also multichannel playback system. Most discs are hybrids, having an SACD layer only readable by certain players and a separate CD layer readable by any CD player. Many discs are multichannel (5.1) with an additional track encoded with this on the SACD layer, though only playable on multi channel systems of course. Many DVD/Blu-Ray players will 'play' SACD's but in most cases the DSD is converted to PCM.
SACD specification works at DSD64 and offers no benefit over an equivalent DSD64 download and as DSD is commonly now recorded at DSD256 bit rate it's plain out of date as it cannot work at this bit rate. We don't need plastic optical discs, just more darn plastic, packaging and transport impact totally pointless and injurious to our planet.
DSD (specifically 1 bit Pulse Density Modulation) is actually an ANALOGUE capture system it is NOT DIGITAL as the incoming audio signal is captured in a varying density of 1's and 0's bits analogous to the incoming signal. It does not capture the signal as definite value DIGITAL words. For this reason it offers the best in terms of both detail capture and robustness (it doesn't deteriorate like tape) for audio signals at present, with the added advantage of being storable, downloadable and streamable through a 'digital' network - what's not to like?
My only DSD SACD played in an ordinary CD player has superior sound quality to the same standard CD.
On direct stream audio only a few audio CDs were made, one from Elvis Presley's only one was made, From Memphis Tennessee, I have the original CD and I bought the new one five years later direct stream digital, more analog close to the original LP you can live with it
3:20 Probably hiding on his back, that's when a 180° no scope comes handy.
i do hope dsd becomes a standard like flac is now. i agree that dsd is the best digital format right now.
FLAC is just a file format not a recording format. PCM and PDM (DSD) are recording formats and they work in different ways. DSD I would strongly argue is not digital :)
Angelwars if thats the case then i like dsd even more.
Can someone help me find an AV receiver that allows dsd input via hdmi? It’s very hard to find and often I find manuals unclear (or maybe I don’t know what to look for)
Also do all AV receivers receive PCM via HDMI (if not dsd) and so some do both?
Yamaha also 😊😍😍😍
what about 5 channels?
You know what, I’m starting to get what you’re talking about 😅
"Much more analog like", said Paul. That means , analog format is the way to go. DSD, on paper kills vinyl. In terms of sound, at least for me, acoustic instruments sound much more realistic with analog. Playing my piano and listening to a good solo piano album on vinyl, is the closest to the real thing.
wonder what the motor/lens mechanism looks like in that drive, yo
Hey yo..grow up....yo
@@joebloggs8636 1x12v linear psu + 5v Linear psu - Plextor cd drive - through custom, or fancy usb cables on black bottomed or mam-a disc running from a laptop on battery, burnt at 7am. If I cannot get an idea of one of Paul's favourite music CD so that I can rip a version, burn it and send to him via post from UK (not before light treatment, of course), ill be left with no alternative than to make a copy of Platinum All-Time Favorites from Sesame Street. I think it's1995 - still music.
Learnt some things!
Interesting that you guys are so invested in DSD since most of today’s music consumption is via a streaming service. DSD isn’t a viable format for streaming because of the amount of data it requires. Enter MQA but that’s another kettle of fish. Love the vids, Paul!
DSD is streamed in Japan - matter of time :)
Angelwars We don’t have the bandwidth here. Yet. Population centers, maybe. Everyone else, doubtful.
I use discs, streaming, vinyl, downloaded DSD- you name it, I play it. The only format that is sitting in a drawer, unused, is cassette tape. Why be limited by formats?
MQA is horrible and a rip off. A sucker is born every second.
nice Rigol scope, I got the same one.
Also, anyone making a multichannel DSD DAC for surround DSD? I haven’t found anything really.
BIS, Chandos, Pentatone, Channel Classics etc
Yeah Exasound and Merging technologies but very expensive kit. The exasound will handle DSD256 in 5.1, not sure about the Merging...
@@albiepalbie5040 Think they mean DAC's not MC DSD recordings - plenty of those around.
Angelwars Sorry/ Missread
Is DSD also multi-channel like we have with SACD?
i understand it as yes, if a SACD is multichannel it would have been formatted in DSD. normal DSF SACDs can only be Stereo.
Yes it is. When you rip an SACD with a 5 channel layer it rips to a 5ch dsd file. How to play that file back is pretty difficult as you would need a surround sound dsd capable dac.
Yes, SACD works at DSD64 you can download DSD 5.1 at DSD256!
Fantastic
I feel like this was a wasted question that could’ve been easily answered with a google search.
Nice PS2 Paul 😁
My dvd player plays sacd but never played or owned sacd but its a very good player
0:15 vinyls as music is analogue, not digital.
Some find solace in tiny grooves crudely impressed onto fine grained plastic, which the poor tip covered in dust and surrounded by motor and sound pressure related vibration is supposed to follow precisely down to the nanometer, suspended above the wobbly surface at a varying angle, filing the surface a little each time it does so, before it's output is amplified and equalized to match approximated RIAA curve, before finally reaching the amplifier. It's actually amazing ... it works at all.
why not use the dxd format, its the format its all are edited in??
dxd is pcm,
@@junkang7872 a lot of my files is DXD, and sounding better than Dsd. Read this..blog.nativedsd.com/sell-albums-multiple-dsd-bit-rates-dxd/
Most but not all DSD recordings are mixed in DXD. Even if they have been it makes more sense to convert back and PLAY the finished recording in DSD.
@@planet9379 DXD cannot sound better than DSD, and vice-versa. :)
Thanks. I today tried listening to a sacd file downloaded as .iso from web using foobar 2000 through topping E30. Sounds great. And then converted to dsf file with SONORE just to rip dsd files to connect to the same dac through VOLUMIO and PI4 since they can cope with dsd files but not sacd. You know? I sensed a SLIGHT difference. Better the SACD. Was it the type of conversion (free and fast instead) or was something of a placebo effect? AND another question...Many people say several SACDs with dsd files actually are "PCM-disguised" or something like that because there are internal conversions to pcm within the process of playing them
Sony spend lots of money developing proprietary formats…for everything. They (sometimes) license those formats to other manufacturers and collect royalties from any sale of gear. Want proof? Remember how it was often said that Sony lost the home video wars? No. They simply worked out ways of encoding information on that tape to record higher quality images. Then they worked out how to record it digitally. When Betamax sold for home it was between $600 and $1000. When the format became Pro, those decks were $20-$50 thousand dollars and they revolutionised TV Video production. Even better, they did it for $20 years. Sony is great at playing the long game and it so often wins.
Simply put, SACD is the media, DSD is the data format for the information that is contained on an SACD. But to what Paul is saying, I honestly do not hear a significant difference between DSD and 24 bit 192 kHz PCM. To edit/master DSD, you need to convert it to PCM then reconvert back to DSD, so you are getting PCM's greasy fingers in your DSD anyway.
You can edit it without conversion and you can mix and master it in analogue then recapture back to DSD.
Converting to analog requires Analog (source) -> DSD (recording)-> Analog (mixing) -> DSD (distributed format)... The double conversion compromises the sound with high frequency noise as the source signal is hit with a second analogue delta-sigma modulator. PCM mixing is by far the most common route, but then it sounds like PCM.
Love it! :)
So next is what equipment to play dsd. 😁
If you want to stay under $1k US then a Sony Blu Ray player sending via HDMI to a receiver capable (licensed) for SACD decoding (mine is Yamaha) delivers a fine sound at mid-fi prices. But the sound quality depends more on the sound engineering teams than on the SACD format. It’s hard to A-B compare CD to SACD on a hybrid disc but as best I can tell using a Schiit Asgard class A headphone amp and Oppo PM3 headphones, the SACD gives a better sense of space (treble and soundstage) and maybe better bass articulation. The differences are NOT as dramatic as typical MP3 streaming quality to CD quality. However Sony tended to put their best-sounding recordings on SACD so buying one has never disappointed me.
@@pdcragin33 thanks😉
Tim Brickham Happy Thanksgiving!
So - blue ray audio ? standard DVD sound ( is there such ?).... better than CD, meaning separate CD player ...
at 70 I doubt I could hear any difference.... 9.000 hz is tops.
I doubt anyone can hear over 20kHz, at least adults, so what's the point?
. @@westelaudio943 I've read a bit of info, just casual google so maybe not correct - is high resol. audio standard on 'BluRay ' players ? , seems so. actually seems like some / many standard DVD's can play high Resol. audio as well. thus with a modern 'bluRay there is no 'need' for a separate costly DAC - If someone wants a separate high end stereo system or some such that is a different subject. ?
the digital format is not just frequency : ' it stops at 20,000 hz. > more important I gather is the ' frequency steps' in digital systems - higher resol. audio has much smaller steps and thus closer to natural sound > is this somewhat correct ?
SUPER AUDIO COMPACT DISK ---=SACD
DSD is not the same as SACD. DSD is a low-bit recording system, SACD is a consumer-release format.
DSD does not use a standard recording method -it can be 4 bits, 8 bits or even 16. And because it decimates and oversamples, DSD is PCM with a higher sampling rate. But even here, mikes, for reasons of self-noise, don't capture much above 25kHz.
Chat rooms & forums have shown that most people prefer (high-bit recorded) CD to SACD. .
I'll have to step in and correct what you said. DSD is not PCM with a higher sample rate. Sorry. DSD is PDM (Pulse Density Modulation) which is fundamentally different than PCM (Pulse Code Modulation). DSD is a 1-bit system of greater or lesser density. One of the distinguishing factors of DSD is the ability to convert it directly to analog with a converter. The PDM stream needs only a low pass filter to create analog, where PCM requires a decoder.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio Is it true that DVD-Audio is uncompressed PCM through a decoder and my understanding is the big advantage to SACD is the ease of conversion?
@@thekittencult DVD Audio isn't really a standard (like CDs are). DVD Audio is typically of a higher sample and bit rate than CD, and thus better sounding, but it's not required by the format. So this means it CAN be better, and probably IS better, but that's not a guarantee. SACD is easier to decode and much closer to analog.
And people wonder why vinyl is surging back to the top of the format most sold. Just buy a decent turntable and enjoy. 😎
Technically, plain old CDs still outsell vinyl more than 2 to 1. The thing is that each individual vinyl record averages about twice the price of a CD, that's the reason their gross sales are similar in dollars, but not nearly in units sold.
There's a lot of music out there that will never be available on vinyl, so I wouldn't throw away the CD player.
@British Naturalist yes CD can contain and hold a wider dynamic range. But that don't matter if AND when the songs and material have lower dynamic range than a LP can contain. I have Lady gaga the album joanne that is also recorded digitally that has LESS dynamic range on CD and digital download than on the LP version of the same album. So if a format has one trillion dB in dynamic range and you put a song on that format that has 50dB in dynamic rang do not mean that it will have more than 50 dB just because it CAN contain a trillion dB.. That is something we need to understand!
Nobody will take a LP and convert it back to digital and think that they got back the quality of the vinyl master. Because vinyl is LOSSY format and with that said the record label knows that it is a kind of copy protection. It is one reason that some record labels release LPs with higher dynamic range. Another is that it is easier to add loudness (that contains also compressions) on a digital format like the CD and digital download (good to consume in noisier envirioment). And it is those that will be played in in competition with other record labels (on radio stations/streamed). But that is certainly a exception.
(It is like that most of the cars that is produced today can go in 220 km/h but the majority of those cars will never utilize that capability in their whole life span, and are they so much better than the cars that only can only do 200 km/h.)
@@brianmoore581 Good point Brian, I hadn't considered it that way previously. Likely because the RIAA, talks in dollar terms & claims that at the midway point of this year vinyl equalled or bettered the sales of cd's.
Whilst the US is the biggest individual market, that doesn't give a worldwide picture. Classic rock albums apparently are the biggest sellers on vinyl, which tends to indicate it's the older generation getting back into vinyl the most. Although, reports make mention that if the younger generation buys physical media it is almost always vinyl.
Therefore, that tells me, that it is those who collected cd's in the past continue to do so today at ever dwindling rates. Otherwise, consumers nowadays are not getting into cd's.
Of course all of this pales into insignificance, considering that digital takes up the bulk of sales by a long margin, mostly in the form of streaming and not downloads.
Young people today barely download, they just stream. If they bother to have physical music, including downloads for the sake of discussion here, it's mainly vinyl.
All food for thought....
Cheers!
@@nostro1001 yeah music as something to be purchased is dying. Today with a little software you can download any music video you can find on TH-cam, extract the audio, and have your music absolutely free. You don't have to pay for downloads. That's where we're at now. The only reason to purchase music -- aside from your own sense of honor -- is if you are getting something better than what you can get for free. That means vinyl or SACD or higher resolution downloads. CD isn't perceived as necessarily better than what is easily available absolutely free. That's why sales are dropping (in my opinion). Also, the music market is much more fragmented than it was in the past. There are many good artists who remain pretty obscure because they aren't mainstream. It seems that there are a few genres that get most of the attention but rarely produce anything of merit. But there is an abundance of really good music still being made today, it's just getting harder to find it, and the people who make that music aren't rewarded for their work like they were in the past. Or maybe I'm just getting old.
@@brianmoore581 Interesting discussion Brian & interesting take!
Just to touch on your final thoughts regarding artists, obscurity & the mainstream. I view that almost as a polar opposite. There's always been great music by obscure artists. Mainstream typically requires solid backing from large commercial companies and of course genre of music in line with whatever is popular at a given time. It's far a few between when artists outside of this 'formula' gain really big commercial acceptance. Without thinking too hard, I guess a band like Nirvana broke that mould in the early 90's (spawned the grunge scene etc). Prior, some of the punk bands in the UK hit the charts and broke the commercial 'formula' of their time. I'm sure there are plenty more examples those were just quickly off the top of my head.
Notwithstanding commercial success, I believe that non-commercial music is readily accessible like never before. I have said this for many years now. As a huge collector of music, the Internet has given 'easier' access, whereas days gone by it was really hard to find out about different types of music. And I don't mean genre specific like jazz, blues or classical, even though they aren't they don't comprise huge slice of the commercial market. People into 'long-standing' genres of music have always known where to find out about the latest releases, up and coming artists, new classical recording and so on.
It's the genuinely non-commerical music that is so much easier to seek out. Anybody can now go to specific sites and listen, buy and download music. Of course as there's TH-cam, which enables anybody to stumble on non commercial music. A few simple searches and anybody can find music they are interested in. Then there's a multitude of free music mags for those that like reading. In days gone by you'd have to buy a magazine. Even the well known mags are free to view online. And let's not forget social media (which I don't use), but think about how fast information flows with it.
What is perhaps harder is that there is so much more music available at our fingertips (literally). So, wading through so much of what you don't like to find a few gems is rather awkward. I've got an extremely broad, likely eclectic taste in music & wading through music is a pleasure for me, rather than a chore for others. I think we are in crazy good times with the selection of non-commercial music we can all hear with ease.
Cheers!
sony launched SACD as a 2-channel stereo format. - all the lay, expensive sacd players were 2-channel, sony then panicked, when DVD-Audio launched offering multi-channel, changed horses, SACD 'came' multi-channel. confused consumers, failure in marketplace - we lost viable, superb stereo format, which potentially could have become the new standard for hifi use, pleasing to analog LP hardcore enthusiasts. of course, as usual. convenience overtook sound-quality considerations, we got strongly marketed streamed MP3.
its unforgivable, as most in the audio community, for example Bob Fine at Mercury, who told his wife, CD sampling rate is too low, knew that the CD was inadequate, for universal adoption.
just use FLAC and don't bother with all that crap after all if you don't enjoy the music you won't like it more in other format btw the difference with these formats is just companies trying to get Bigger piece of the pie FLAC is open source and Lossless so what more do you want
Super Audio CD is actually DVD with DSD 64 recordings on it. Most of the music whose never recorded (dugital) in DSD format but eventually just converted to it from PCM. The DSD 64 roughly equals to 96 KHz 20 bit 120 dB (which is consider also as our hearing capacity regarding dB range). Today their is no need for perusing for DSD recordings (nor it as native format) the 24 bit 96 KHz Flac will just do fine when you convert it near real-time into DSD (DoP) the delta - sigma modulation will do it's thing & it will sound more natural because of it while all data needed whose there (in flac) to begin with.
I know how they are the same: they are both pointless and unnecessary.
You should have read Sabine's question in a barely understandable Indian accent.
Although SACD/DSD has more bandwidth and resolution than CD red book, it suffers from a lack of dynamic reproduction. SACD is superior in hifi terms but lacks musicality in comparison to CD because of it.
I prefer that the actual master data stream hits my DAC in a bit perfect way without any resolution compression, file size compression or sample rate conversion. That's the absolutely ideal scenario. DSD in itself does not add anything.
DSD doesn't add anything - it's a different recording format to PCM!
Angelwars Not really. Which music digital master do you think was in fact genuinely mastered in DSD in the studio? Rather, in the digital studio gear PCM rules and your digital bit perfect FLAC file is identical with no loss. Thus I prefer FLAC. Studio gear that claim DSD compatibility actually transcode the DSD audio to high‑resolution PCM (24/96 or 24/192, for example), do all the signal processing at that resolution, and then transcode the result back to DSD. Thus, what’s the point? Your DAC might internally run the conversion to analog audio as delta-sigma modulated stream and that’s where people get confused, as DAC companies heavily advertise this approach as more precise in recreating the analog signal.
@@ThinkingBetter I agree very little music is recorded in DSD and most of that is mixed in DXD - however it makes sense to convert back to DSD for playback (speak to the audio engineers). Also it 's interesting the number of people converting PCM to DSD 'on the fly' before it hits their DAC's. The advantage seems to be that most DAC's output stage is Sigma Delta based and so feeding it DSD is more compatible for it. My view is DSD is NOT digital as I've mentioned elsewhere - it captures the signal in a very different way to PCM digital.
Angelwars I’m leading audio engineering and generally in any audio architecture you aim at minimizing or avoiding any lossy transcoding when the goal is best audio fidelity. When all digital recordings are based on PCM as master format or at least used PCM internally in the equipment, DSD becomes a format introducing loss to the signal relative to a bit perfect master file. Thus if you let your DAC take the bit perfect PCM master file data and your DAC uses a bit stream sigma delta approach internally, you have the best compromise. Do you have even one song that was mastered in DSD without actually using PCM for any signal mixing, EQ, effect or other DSP processing in the studio? I don’t think such music exist...thus DSD is always a transcoded format. But, for a given restricted bandwidth (or file size) of data, DSD can do better than PCM in audio fidelity.
@@ThinkingBetter yes i have many albums recorded in DSD and mixed in analogue back to DSD - no PCM conversions (look at nativedsd.com or blue coast records). I take your points but my main viewpoint having spoken to many experienced sound engineers is that DSD is basically a superior way of capturing audio compared to PCM at present.
1)
@6:50 "DSD -- That's the best sounding digital form of audio. Period. End oh story."
Paul, on what basis have you concluded that DSD sounds better than PCM?
Have you used a quality transport, such as the Innuos Statement, to feed a bit-perfect, (virtually) noise-free and jitter-free PCM datastream to a high-end DAC, such as the Aesthetix Romulus Eclipse?
I want to take you at your word. But without you specifying the equipment that you used, to draw your conclusion, I cannot confirm that you drew the correct conclusion. I need positive confirmation, via knowing the equipment used in your PCM listening test, and also the equipment used in your DSD listening test.
I know that you have recorded both DSD and PCM, at the same time, in your Octave Records studio, and that the DSD recording won. But I do not know why DSD won, because I do not know what equipment you used for each recording format.
2)
I thought that SACD was 2x Redbook?
Its not quite - DSD is simpler and somewhat more sophisticated in that the top end frequency doesn't just stop at 44.1 k or 2x red book at 88.2k - DSD is not defined by this and so if we use DSD 2.8 mhz the frequency response goes beyond 44.05 kHz barrier of PCM - and extends on to about 60 kHz before it fizzles out. So the roll off is very gentle compared to a sudden brick wall halt. Of course when PCM gets crazy high like 192kHz or 384 kHz these issues are irrelevant.
CD is just fine, no need for so called hires, as CD already covers what you can hear.😀
I only listen to stereo myself, never got into multi channel.
CD is just fine for utility listening, but CD was intended to cover the hearing resolution that 98% of the population possess with a commercially viable solution. Once you've been in front of a system with copious amounts of resolution, the difference becomes clear. It's rather like the difference between the taste of a $20 bottle of wine and a $200 bottle. Some months ago I was fortunate enough to listen to a piece directly on the Sonoma Mastering System at Octave Studios and never before have I heard such richness. Some systems sound good, and some sound so good they put an indelible smile on your face. Just thinking of that audio still makes me smile today.
@@FooBar89 Perhaps this is true for the population who spent time operating artillery or on the flight deck of a carrier....
@@FooBar89 I understand that your assertion is not correct and appears to be based on myth, and that's not based on opinion. I've been designing 24+ bit DSP gear and writing DSP code for audio since 1988 so I have an informed opinion when it comes to digital audio. I've read both the Red Book and the Yellow Book as well as countless technical articles in engineering trade publications and I know a fair deal about the underlying effort to create CD-DA. For DSP hacking, back in 1990 I added my own digital audio interface to a Sony CDP-101 (the 1st commercially available CD player), wrote a pitch shifter on a Motorola DSP56001, and discovered that Alvin the Chipmunk is just Dave Seville's voice shifted up an octave. According to Kees Schouhamer Immink who came up with the encoding used in CD-DA, _"Modern digital audio equipment accepts many different sampling rates, but the CDtask force opted for only one frequency, namely 44.1 kHz. This sampling frequency was chosen mainly for logistics reasons"_ . The 44.1KHz frequency is an artifact of stripping out the audio portion of the Philips video laserdisc technology and it's linked to NTSC video. They also considered using 44.075 KHz which was derived from PAL video laserdiscs, but 44.1 was easier to remember. The size of the disc comes from the wife of Sony's vice-president deciding that she wanted Beethoven's Ninth Symphony to fit on a CD and the slowest rendition they had in the catalog was a 74:33 long performance from 1951 conducted by Wilhelm Furtwängler. What an amazing surname. So you see, it's all rather arbitrary. The sample rate is based on NTSC video and not being the end all of audio reproduction. I'm sure you believe NTSC covers over 100% of the needs for 100% of the population also, no? It was never intended to be perfect, it was intended to sell something that was good enough and recycled out of Philip's commercially failed laserdisc technology that had already been the subject of considerable R&D investment and progress. LPs can have far higher bandwidth although their signal to noise ratio is lower. CD resolution is also frequency dependant; a 440Hz sine wave will be represented by just over 100 samples and it will be recreated beautifully, but an 8K component of a cymbal hit will only be captured by 5.5 samples, leading to generation of a considerable quantity of artifacts, or spectral smearing and noise if you prefer. Some people just dismiss those artifacts and claim they're either out of band or below the noise floor but others like myself will cry foul to that claim. All the gear I've designed (outside of inexpensive DSP effects units for guitar) for the last few years has been 192KHz, 24 bit. I feel 192/24 is the minimum level of digital for PCM audio that comes closest to covering 100% of the needs for 100% of the population.
@@FooBar89 Did you read my previous response from 10 minutes ago???? LOL! Apparently not.