It's really nice to see behind the scenes, the passion and detail involved, in making such great recordings come to life! It's too bad that other record labels' engineers don't see or hear the benefits of what your process results in. Thank you for taking the time and caring so much about this "audiophile" community!
So, the control console provides the instructions for converting the DSD files stored on the hard drive to the analog signal sent to the FR20s. Since the one-bit DSD256 files do not support direct volume adjustment, equalization or combining of tracks, are the original DSD files converted to PCM or some other editable format to make these adjustments before the signal goes to the speakers or are the voltages created directly from the DSD tracks simply summed, after adjustment in the console, to create the analog signal sent to the speakers? Are the control panel settings used real-time only (live) to monitor what's happening in the Tracking Room or are the settings recorded in synchrony with the DSD tracts to create a recipe for the "rough mix" to serve as a starting point for the actual mixing? Thanks for clarifying.
Thank Paul (btw my name is "Paul" , too) -> btw Love the nice figured at the start of the video - Any Infos about this and where you get this. PS: Pyramix DAW is nice^:)
most excellent episode! good question, great response! Its interesting to see you have separate rooms for the recording system and the mixing setup. I might have to adopt this concept somehow . thankyou..!
Thanks Paul very informative indeed. I do wonder if our best well known artists are actually aware of what their recordings are lacking sound wise compared to this system can produce. Maybe a free offer of a day in the by PS studio to an artist such as Diana Krall to get their opinion.
Pyramix will KILL your creativity, will make you feel SICK and CRRRZZZY!! Worst user interface ever!!! Terrible workflow. With all the respect... Future developing for pyramix is going nowhere.
Perhaps the system or encoding standards have changed, but my understanding of DSD from several years ago is that in order to mix or edit, DSD had to be converted to PCM within the DAW --- typically 384K if memory serves -- then converted back to DSD at the output. Have I missed something? Any updated enlightenment is appreciated. :)
I'm wondering if the Wilson, the person that asked the question, was commenting on when you're not in the new studio but in the old with the Studer mixing console.
I think what someone meant when they said that the studio looks thrown together is the following. Ideally, the mixer should be in the middle of the room and speakers on both sides and equally far away from the wall on both sides. Not in a corner like ps audio has placed it with one speaker hidden behind the mixer in a corner. You are also sitting too close to the speakers. There's a reason studios have speakers above the mixer. Doesn't look like ps audio has put that much effort into fitting this into the room or to get it optimal.
Hi Paul , I listen to octave radio a lot with great audio with mo3 at 192k/bps, very interesting and very informative your with your great system . Regards mark
I just wonder how being pressed up to the wall on the right and the racks right up near the desk is affecting the sound and balance. Otherwise, that's all pretty sweet.
I See Niper The Dog and The Victrola HMV or His Masters Voice In Jolly O’England HMV Stands for His Majesty’s Voice Gramophone Records Over There and Over Here Was RCA Records
I totally agree with the use of DSD. I have been using the Korg MR1000 portable recorder since 2008 to record live performances at the venue where I've done sound since 1971. It produces incredible recordings of mostly acoustic music.
Perhaps you do not know what all acoustic treatment looks like. The walls are nearly 100% covered with quadratic diffusers, which are... acoustic devices/treatment.
In The 1960’s There Where Two Places We Went Too The Carnival Rides at Lake Side in Inglewood and The Royal Fork Buffet All You Can Eat on Fridays Am Sure Paul Remembers That Plus The Dog Races and on Alameda and Federal In The 1960’s Was a Big Empty Dirt Lot That Was Where The Denver Broncos Played Later in 1970 on Federal and Alameda A Der Wienerschnitzel Hot Dogs Was There Yes Denver Has Changed and Don’t Forget John Elway Porsche Minor league Baseball ⚾️ Was Big Which Became The Colorado Rockys
If you know the likes of radio stations then and now you get it. They used to occupy the whole floor of a fair sized building for one station. Now you can almost do a world class sounding broadcast in a bedroom. Also imagine, when I got my first internet (dialup) account I had recently watched War Games. I was under the impression that the thing I was dialing into was this big behemoth whopper like machine. When I finally did get to see the actual thing I was dialing into (it was at a university) I was absolutely stunned to see this little box built from a hodge podge of old computer parts from years before my own little PC was made, just hooked up to a piece of coax cable. I am certain Octave makes extraordinarily good use of the space they have to work with.
@6:12 "...take it, run it through a power amplifier, directly, just the digital code, coming out into a power amplifier, and music will come gloriously out of these speakers. Because it's almost analog." Almost counts only in horseshoes and grenades. What our host left out is how his Pyramix boxes feed his amps. It is using a cable that supports voltage (balanced interconnects), and it is that voltage that is being amplified by his amps. Amplifiers are amplifiers. They are not DACs. At some point, the digital code from the Pyramix system is turned into an analog signal via a digital-to-analog converter (DAC). Amplifiers are not DACs. Our host has said in past videos that pulse code modulation is akin to analog. It is not. It is 100% not. The songs that our host has stored in DSD, created by his Pyramix system, are stored on hard drives or solid state drives (even floppy drives), because it is all zeros and ones, just like any other computer file. I suspect that someone on our host's staff has shown our host a graph or some visual representation of the stored data, and it looks the same as an analog graph. And since our host knows little when it comes to computers (compared to his knowledge in audio engineering), and since he implicitly trusts his staff's assertions as the gospel, our host is convinced that digital data is miraculously sending voltage to his amps. A deep dive is necessary for us to drill down and see exactly where the digital data is made into a voltage. That would require our host to show the signal path, from Pyramix's hard drive (or SSD) to his amps -- every step of the way -- because somewhere in there is a DAC, and balanced interconnects that are going from that DAC within the Pyramix system to the amps. I suspect that his Pyramix hardware sends out voltage, mirroring the pulse code modulated values stored on the hard drive (or SSD), which is what the amps use to amplify the voltage to what is sent to the speakers and what he hears. That is a type of DAC, because the Pyramix hardware is taking computer values and outputting it as voltage to the amps. That voltage is created from scratch, just as a DAC creates voltage from scratch. But our host said "just digital code, coming out to a power amplifier", and that is wrong. Perhaps if an engineer from Pyramix sees this, he or she will state what is happening, and put this to rest. Without actually using a Pyramix system, I cannot know exactly what it is doing. But I suspect that I am correct or close to correct. I am positive that there is nothing digital that is directly feeding our host's amps. Our host designs amps. He should know this.
Well, thanks for this long comment but you're unfortunately off base. DSD, stored on a hard drive, can be pulled from the hard drive and sent directly to a power or preamplifier without any D to A converter and you will get music. Yes, just 1s and 0s, but the nature of a 1 bit data system (which is called PDM or Pulse Density Modulation) happens to be the case where it does not require a D/A converter. In fact, it needs only a low pass filter which can be a simple capacitor to ground (and even that is not necessary. PCM Pulse Code Modulation absolutely needs a DAC to hear it and if I ever said differently I was incorrect.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio I respectfully am not accepting your explanation. I will be following up on this with Jim White and Richard Vandersteen, the next time I see one of them (it might be a while).
@@NoEgg4u You don't have to take my word for it, do a little research. Try this: www.ap.com/news/more-about-pdm#:~:text=An%20analog%20signal%20can%20be,through%20a%20low%2Dpass%20filter. That's the site of Audio Precision that makes all the test gear. Go down a few paragraphs and learn a little about PDM. You can also go here to Wikipedia and learn a bit. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-density_modulation#:~:text=the%20quantization%20error.-,Digital%2Dto%2Danalog%20conversion,essentially%20to%20average%20the%20signal. Just have a look. You'll see the PDM (which is DSD and made of only 1s and 0s) can be converted to analog with nothing more than a low pass filter (a capacitor).
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio Your link highlighted the following text on that site: "An analog signal can be directly sampled at a high sampling rate (several megahertz or more) and converted to a PDM stream. The PDM signal can be converted back to analog audio by passing it through a low-pass filter." Although a true statement... left out of that statement is a detailed "how" that PDM signal is converted back to analog audio. It states "by passing it through a low-pass filter". That is after zeros and ones were converted to an analog signal. It left out that step. That step is likely making electrical pulses (hence the "P" in "PDM") to create the voltage (to create the analog version) that passes through a low-pass filter. Nothing digital is passing through the low-pass filter. Electrical voltages (pulses / analog signal) is passing through the low-pass filter. Ergo, the digital content, from the hard drive, is being converted to electrical pulses (a DAC by any other name), where those electrical pulses are an analog signal. The same is true for the wiki link that you provided, that reads: "The process of decoding a PDM signal into an analog one is simple: one only has to pass the PDM signal through a low-pass filter." What is that "PDM signal"? Answer: It is voltage. It is electrical pulses. It is no longer digital. So at that point, it is voltage pulses being passed through the low-pass filter. Ergo, something produced the voltage. Something was a DAC of sorts. DACs make voltage that get sent to the pre-amp (or directly to the amps, if so desired). Pulses are being created. An analog signal, constructed of pulses, is being created. If the signal is not generating voltage pulses, and is remaining 100% digital (as you assert), then you should be able to feed that supposed still 100% digital signal into some other computer's digital input port. But you can't, because it is no longer digital. The PDM hardware made it analog, consisting of pulses. I am not a PDM expert, and I am not an amplifier expert. But I do not have to be, to know that amplifiers do not increase a non-existent voltage, which would be the case, if it were being fed digital zeros and ones.
@@NoEgg4u Thanks for reading the article. I am impressed. Here's all you have to get to now for your understanding. Those words, "The PDM signal can be converted back to analog audio by passing it through a low-pass filter." are entirely accurate and without change. There is no conversion needed to make that happen. The actual pulses are all there is. In fact, you really don't even need to low pass filter them as they are running at 2..8mHz something that most amps would ignore. Anyway, we don't have to get in the weeds. Trust me on this. So are you familiar with how a Class D amplifier works? It uses a digital output based on what's known as PWM Pulse Width Modulation. While not the same, it's kind of similar. In any case, imagine in our PDM world, a digital train of pulses, a 1 or a 0 appearing precisely every 2.8 million times per second. If every one of those were a digital 1, your speaker would slam outward and hold there (frying the woofer). Now imagine a train of these digital pulses grouped together as more 1s as the music gets louder, more 0s as it gets softer. The DENSITY of 1s or 0s increases or decreases following the signal. In that Wikipedia article I sent you, note the graphic.
As part of their marketing they should add a few hi-res tracks or samples to the www so we can hear the differences. Hopefully someone from PSA is reading…!
@@RoderikvanReekum The world and life are not perfect. You will learn that in time. They can still be fun and exciting though, as I'm sure their recordings are.
Now Taylor Swift is traveling around the world with a concert tour grossing more than a billion USD (highest ever for any female singer) with a sound quality worse than my first mono cassette deck from the 1970s that I got at age 6; and people still pay an average 800 USD for a concert ticket. Is she a great singer? YES. Is her music high quality? YES. Alright, so at least I can play her music on my system, but then, is the audio fidelity of her studio recordings on audiophile level reflecting the plenty of money to get best audio? NO. Why is the world like this? Why do I end up listening to mediocre musicians when I want highest audio quality?
@@amazoidal That's utterly wrong. For example, check the TH-cam video "taylor swift without autotune" where it's live in a small room. But you also shouldn't be against autotune. Almost no music sounds better when standing in front of the musicians than it does after a good mastering process involving careful choice of tools from simple L/R panning to more modern DSP algorithms. I don't think use of audiotune enhancing vocals to subjectively sound better is any worse than using L/R panning to put a particular sound in a particular place of a soundstage completely made-up to give you the illusion you are sitting in front of an actual band. BTW, this video also compares it well: "Taylor Swift: Real voice VS Autotune (Reputation: before & after)". As an audiophile, I prefer Taylor Swift with audiotune, thank you. Not many singers would allow raw tracks to be in public btw. Also check "taylor swift - the 1 (folklore: the long pond studio sessions)".
@@amazoidal Well, most of my audiophile life has existed pre 2020 and before DAWs and using audiotune or other plugins. I've been to live concerts decades ago with Pink Floyd, Dire Straits, Eagles, Elton John and others and my point is somewhat in your direction of thinking I believe. I would like to see more audiophile attention from the most money making music. Less compression, more use of lower frequency sub bass (without adding harmonics to make sounds appear on small Bluetooth speakers), more care for a meaningful soundstage etc. are things I find lacking in much of modern music. The problem with much of the most popular music is that it is trying to address the large audience having cheap speakers or earbuds yielding compromises that we with a much better system will notice.
Why no Eq? Manley makes the Massive Passive. I don't understand the Anti-eq stance. As an audio engineer, it makes no logical sense. You can improve the sound of a signal. Why not use it?
Those speakers are blowing against the back of the mixing console. This is why studios use specific smaller speakers on top of the mixing console. Genelec or Neumann.
Are the majority of products offering PCM and not PDM? I believe is extremely hard to convert from PCM to PDM, if even possible, so how can you get PDM?
Thank you Paul, that was great. Looking forward to part 2.
The best part of this video is here we clearly have a man living his dream. Congrats, well earned.
Great video ... I listen to Octave radio as I can and yesterday Paul was the on-air host !!! That was most enjoyable !!
Dear God Paul
When you played that track even over TH-cam the charity can be heard
Fantastic audio
Take a tour with Paul, thats awesome.
Thank You Paul Sir.
It's really nice to see behind the scenes, the passion and detail involved, in making such great recordings come to life! It's too bad that other record labels' engineers don't see or hear the benefits of what your process results in. Thank you for taking the time and caring so much about this "audiophile" community!
Recordings with alot of timbre like an acoustic guitar must sound so beautiful in DSD.
Thanks for the tour, Paul
❤🧡💛💚💙💜
❤🧡💛💚💙💜
Thank you Paul for this great video.
Hey Paul! We appreciate your support of Manley Labs with your 5x Manley FORCE and Manley Variable Mu Limiter Compressor on proud display! 🥰
Heck yeah! Only Manley's in Octave recordings!
Now this is actually really cool. Controlling the sound quality from creations right to drivers vibrating the air. Paul's closed the loop!
I love Octave records, fantastic recordings, I think I have most of them. Especially loved the most recent Woodwinds recording
So, the control console provides the instructions for converting the DSD files stored on the hard drive to the analog signal sent to the FR20s. Since the one-bit DSD256 files do not support direct volume adjustment, equalization or combining of tracks, are the original DSD files converted to PCM or some other editable format to make these adjustments before the signal goes to the speakers or are the voltages created directly from the DSD tracks simply summed, after adjustment in the console, to create the analog signal sent to the speakers? Are the control panel settings used real-time only (live) to monitor what's happening in the Tracking Room or are the settings recorded in synchrony with the DSD tracts to create a recipe for the "rough mix" to serve as a starting point for the actual mixing? Thanks for clarifying.
Super video looking forward to part 2&3. Also totally get your explanation of the basics of how system is setup. Thanks 👍
Neat. Lovely set-up for a small label.
Now I'm convinced that all that ganja was worth for such an audiophilia of yours....! 😁
Thanks Paul that was so cool 😎
Thank Paul (btw my name is "Paul" , too) -> btw Love the nice figured at the start of the video - Any Infos about this and where you get this.
PS: Pyramix DAW is nice^:)
most excellent episode! good question, great response! Its interesting to see you have separate rooms for the recording system and the mixing setup. I might have to adopt this concept somehow . thankyou..!
Thanks Paul very informative indeed. I do wonder if our best well known artists are actually aware of what their recordings are lacking sound wise compared to this system can produce. Maybe a free offer of a day in the by PS studio to an artist such as Diana Krall to get their opinion.
He already published such an offer.
Why not invite Trevor Horn & Paul McCartney for an on site visit?
Pyramix will KILL your creativity, will make you feel SICK and CRRRZZZY!!
Worst user interface ever!!! Terrible workflow.
With all the respect...
Future developing for pyramix is going nowhere.
Love to take this tour in person!
Perhaps the system or encoding standards have changed, but my understanding of DSD from several years ago is that in order to mix or edit, DSD had to be converted to PCM within the DAW --- typically 384K if memory serves -- then converted back to DSD at the output. Have I missed something? Any updated enlightenment is appreciated. :)
I have the same question. As I understand things straight DSD files cannot be editing. Maybe Paul can address this question.
The questions are great obviously but I sure hope this is the beginning of all sorts of different types of uploads…. 👍👍
Interesting Paul , the studio looks cool ..❤❤❤
Thank you for sharing.
5:48, you'd have to quantify that somehow.
Woo woo descriptions.
I'm wondering if the Wilson, the person that asked the question, was commenting on when you're not in the new studio but in the old with the Studer mixing console.
I think what someone meant when they said that the studio looks thrown together is the following.
Ideally, the mixer should be in the middle of the room and speakers on both sides and equally far away from the wall on both sides.
Not in a corner like ps audio has placed it with one speaker hidden behind the mixer in a corner.
You are also sitting too close to the speakers.
There's a reason studios have speakers above the mixer.
Doesn't look like ps audio has put that much effort into fitting this into the room or to get it optimal.
Hope you land some well known performers
DSD vs pcm…first time I have been given a clear understanding of why it is what it is. Thx!
Paul, your studio is badass man!!
Hi Paul , I listen to octave radio a lot with great audio with mo3 at 192k/bps, very interesting and very informative your with your great system . Regards mark
Hello Mark, can you please explain what mo3 is?
@@mikeeygauthier2959 mp3
Very bad idea having an HMV style logo for your independent studio, they will sue you and rob you blind.
Thank you sir for the blah,blah &
, woof, woof explanation 😊
You should make a 360 degree video tour.
I just wonder how being pressed up to the wall on the right and the racks right up near the desk is affecting the sound and balance. Otherwise, that's all pretty sweet.
Congratulations, it is a terrific record studio.
Most Excellent...!!! Looking forward to Part 2 & Part 3...!!! Good Stuff...!!!
DSD256 recording, la créme de la créme.
I don't think the mixing console has Audioquest wiring.
I See Niper The Dog and The Victrola
HMV or His Masters Voice
In Jolly O’England
HMV Stands for
His Majesty’s Voice
Gramophone Records
Over There and Over Here
Was RCA Records
I totally agree with the use of DSD. I have been using the Korg MR1000 portable recorder since 2008 to record live performances at the venue where I've done sound since 1971. It produces incredible recordings of mostly acoustic music.
Just a super presentation!
I loved that video!
Thanks Paul! Was wondering if you used Manley tube gear.
Right as I was asking you answered that with glowing endorsement.
awesome stuff
Great video
fantastic!
Outstanding, thank you for sharing this world of yours. Keep up the great work!
It's a work room for cry'in out loud. It looks just fine to me..👍 I love that rug, kinda reminds me of the rug used in the Shining movie 😊
I expect he was talking about Gus Skinas's room with the Sony speakers.
You didn't address the glaring lack of acoustic treatment on the walls.
Perhaps you do not know what all acoustic treatment looks like. The walls are nearly 100% covered with quadratic diffusers, which are... acoustic devices/treatment.
@bayard1332 The room being almost entirely covered in acoustic treatment is why I wrote what I did.
Great video, thanks for the insight into the recording process, I look forward to more videos like this one.
Just need a world class recording engineer to help master the recordings.😊
Nicerizer summing mixer and Manley vari mu used for ??
The right speaker is next to a wall, the left not. How about that?
This was so f’n COOL!! 🍻
Sweat set up, yes the Manley gear is great.
In The 1960’s
There Where Two Places We Went Too
The Carnival Rides at
Lake Side in
Inglewood and
The Royal Fork Buffet
All You Can Eat on Fridays
Am Sure Paul Remembers
That Plus The Dog
Races and on Alameda and Federal In The 1960’s
Was a Big Empty Dirt Lot
That Was Where The Denver Broncos Played
Later in 1970 on
Federal and Alameda A
Der Wienerschnitzel Hot Dogs Was There
Yes Denver Has Changed
and Don’t Forget
John Elway Porsche
Minor league Baseball ⚾️ Was Big Which Became
The Colorado Rockys
Watched at 2.0x scale.
8:55 Do you agree with him (video 2x speed)
Video scale, not speed.
@@dilshodtojiddinzoda why
Well done...thanks!!!!
People expect more, but they need to remember this is a small recording studio.
If you know the likes of radio stations then and now you get it. They used to occupy the whole floor of a fair sized building for one station. Now you can almost do a world class sounding broadcast in a bedroom.
Also imagine, when I got my first internet (dialup) account I had recently watched War Games. I was under the impression that the thing I was dialing into was this big behemoth whopper like machine. When I finally did get to see the actual thing I was dialing into (it was at a university) I was absolutely stunned to see this little box built from a hodge podge of old computer parts from years before my own little PC was made, just hooked up to a piece of coax cable.
I am certain Octave makes extraordinarily good use of the space they have to work with.
0:12 The dog is wondering ??
Cool
@6:12 "...take it, run it through a power amplifier, directly, just the digital code, coming out into a power amplifier, and music will come gloriously out of these speakers. Because it's almost analog."
Almost counts only in horseshoes and grenades.
What our host left out is how his Pyramix boxes feed his amps.
It is using a cable that supports voltage (balanced interconnects), and it is that voltage that is being amplified by his amps.
Amplifiers are amplifiers. They are not DACs. At some point, the digital code from the Pyramix system is turned into an analog signal via a digital-to-analog converter (DAC).
Amplifiers are not DACs.
Our host has said in past videos that pulse code modulation is akin to analog. It is not. It is 100% not.
The songs that our host has stored in DSD, created by his Pyramix system, are stored on hard drives or solid state drives (even floppy drives), because it is all zeros and ones, just like any other computer file.
I suspect that someone on our host's staff has shown our host a graph or some visual representation of the stored data, and it looks the same as an analog graph. And since our host knows little when it comes to computers (compared to his knowledge in audio engineering), and since he implicitly trusts his staff's assertions as the gospel, our host is convinced that digital data is miraculously sending voltage to his amps.
A deep dive is necessary for us to drill down and see exactly where the digital data is made into a voltage. That would require our host to show the signal path, from Pyramix's hard drive (or SSD) to his amps -- every step of the way -- because somewhere in there is a DAC, and balanced interconnects that are going from that DAC within the Pyramix system to the amps.
I suspect that his Pyramix hardware sends out voltage, mirroring the pulse code modulated values stored on the hard drive (or SSD), which is what the amps use to amplify the voltage to what is sent to the speakers and what he hears. That is a type of DAC, because the Pyramix hardware is taking computer values and outputting it as voltage to the amps. That voltage is created from scratch, just as a DAC creates voltage from scratch.
But our host said "just digital code, coming out to a power amplifier", and that is wrong.
Perhaps if an engineer from Pyramix sees this, he or she will state what is happening, and put this to rest.
Without actually using a Pyramix system, I cannot know exactly what it is doing. But I suspect that I am correct or close to correct. I am positive that there is nothing digital that is directly feeding our host's amps. Our host designs amps. He should know this.
Well, thanks for this long comment but you're unfortunately off base. DSD, stored on a hard drive, can be pulled from the hard drive and sent directly to a power or preamplifier without any D to A converter and you will get music. Yes, just 1s and 0s, but the nature of a 1 bit data system (which is called PDM or Pulse Density Modulation) happens to be the case where it does not require a D/A converter. In fact, it needs only a low pass filter which can be a simple capacitor to ground (and even that is not necessary. PCM Pulse Code Modulation absolutely needs a DAC to hear it and if I ever said differently I was incorrect.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio I respectfully am not accepting your explanation.
I will be following up on this with Jim White and Richard Vandersteen, the next time I see one of them (it might be a while).
@@NoEgg4u You don't have to take my word for it, do a little research. Try this: www.ap.com/news/more-about-pdm#:~:text=An%20analog%20signal%20can%20be,through%20a%20low%2Dpass%20filter. That's the site of Audio Precision that makes all the test gear. Go down a few paragraphs and learn a little about PDM. You can also go here to Wikipedia and learn a bit. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-density_modulation#:~:text=the%20quantization%20error.-,Digital%2Dto%2Danalog%20conversion,essentially%20to%20average%20the%20signal. Just have a look. You'll see the PDM (which is DSD and made of only 1s and 0s) can be converted to analog with nothing more than a low pass filter (a capacitor).
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio Your link highlighted the following text on that site:
"An analog signal can be directly sampled at a high sampling rate (several megahertz or more) and converted to a PDM stream. The PDM signal can be converted back to analog audio by passing it through a low-pass filter."
Although a true statement... left out of that statement is a detailed "how" that PDM signal is converted back to analog audio.
It states "by passing it through a low-pass filter". That is after zeros and ones were converted to an analog signal. It left out that step.
That step is likely making electrical pulses (hence the "P" in "PDM") to create the voltage (to create the analog version) that passes through a low-pass filter.
Nothing digital is passing through the low-pass filter. Electrical voltages (pulses / analog signal) is passing through the low-pass filter. Ergo, the digital content, from the hard drive, is being converted to electrical pulses (a DAC by any other name), where those electrical pulses are an analog signal.
The same is true for the wiki link that you provided, that reads:
"The process of decoding a PDM signal into an analog one is simple: one only has to pass the PDM signal through a low-pass filter."
What is that "PDM signal"?
Answer: It is voltage. It is electrical pulses. It is no longer digital.
So at that point, it is voltage pulses being passed through the low-pass filter. Ergo, something produced the voltage. Something was a DAC of sorts. DACs make voltage that get sent to the pre-amp (or directly to the amps, if so desired).
Pulses are being created. An analog signal, constructed of pulses, is being created.
If the signal is not generating voltage pulses, and is remaining 100% digital (as you assert), then you should be able to feed that supposed still 100% digital signal into some other computer's digital input port. But you can't, because it is no longer digital. The PDM hardware made it analog, consisting of pulses.
I am not a PDM expert, and I am not an amplifier expert. But I do not have to be, to know that amplifiers do not increase a non-existent voltage, which would be the case, if it were being fed digital zeros and ones.
@@NoEgg4u Thanks for reading the article. I am impressed. Here's all you have to get to now for your understanding. Those words, "The PDM signal can be converted back to analog audio by passing it through a low-pass filter." are entirely accurate and without change. There is no conversion needed to make that happen. The actual pulses are all there is. In fact, you really don't even need to low pass filter them as they are running at 2..8mHz something that most amps would ignore. Anyway, we don't have to get in the weeds. Trust me on this. So are you familiar with how a Class D amplifier works? It uses a digital output based on what's known as PWM Pulse Width Modulation. While not the same, it's kind of similar. In any case, imagine in our PDM world, a digital train of pulses, a 1 or a 0 appearing precisely every 2.8 million times per second. If every one of those were a digital 1, your speaker would slam outward and hold there (frying the woofer). Now imagine a train of these digital pulses grouped together as more 1s as the music gets louder, more 0s as it gets softer. The DENSITY of 1s or 0s increases or decreases following the signal. In that Wikipedia article I sent you, note the graphic.
Can you create an Octave records hi res streaming?
As part of their marketing they should add a few hi-res tracks or samples to the www so we can hear the differences.
Hopefully someone from PSA is reading…!
Agree. Interested to see if this DSD is really superior.
They are on Qubuz under ps audio favorites list
Do the speakers sound ok so close to the wall, especially the one in the corner?
Lol it's not symetrical as well. It's probably good enough but they could have done better for an audiophile company
@@Ilove1073sIt's trash.
@@RoderikvanReekum The world and life are not perfect. You will learn that in time. They can still be fun and exciting though, as I'm sure their recordings are.
They are !@@edfort5704
Now Taylor Swift is traveling around the world with a concert tour grossing more than a billion USD (highest ever for any female singer) with a sound quality worse than my first mono cassette deck from the 1970s that I got at age 6; and people still pay an average 800 USD for a concert ticket. Is she a great singer? YES. Is her music high quality? YES. Alright, so at least I can play her music on my system, but then, is the audio fidelity of her studio recordings on audiophile level reflecting the plenty of money to get best audio? NO. Why is the world like this? Why do I end up listening to mediocre musicians when I want highest audio quality?
She is nothing without AutoTune.
@@amazoidal That's utterly wrong. For example, check the TH-cam video "taylor swift without autotune" where it's live in a small room. But you also shouldn't be against autotune. Almost no music sounds better when standing in front of the musicians than it does after a good mastering process involving careful choice of tools from simple L/R panning to more modern DSP algorithms. I don't think use of audiotune enhancing vocals to subjectively sound better is any worse than using L/R panning to put a particular sound in a particular place of a soundstage completely made-up to give you the illusion you are sitting in front of an actual band. BTW, this video also compares it well: "Taylor Swift: Real voice VS Autotune (Reputation: before & after)". As an audiophile, I prefer Taylor Swift with audiotune, thank you. Not many singers would allow raw tracks to be in public btw. Also check "taylor swift - the 1 (folklore: the long pond studio sessions)".
Listen to some of the great voices Pre-AutoTune. Judy Collins, Joni Mitchell, Chrissie Hynde, and more.
@@amazoidal Well, most of my audiophile life has existed pre 2020 and before DAWs and using audiotune or other plugins. I've been to live concerts decades ago with Pink Floyd, Dire Straits, Eagles, Elton John and others and my point is somewhat in your direction of thinking I believe. I would like to see more audiophile attention from the most money making music. Less compression, more use of lower frequency sub bass (without adding harmonics to make sounds appear on small Bluetooth speakers), more care for a meaningful soundstage etc. are things I find lacking in much of modern music. The problem with much of the most popular music is that it is trying to address the large audience having cheap speakers or earbuds yielding compromises that we with a much better system will notice.
@@amazoidal A good video on this topic is "The Real Reason Why Music Is Getting Worse".
Why no Eq? Manley makes the Massive Passive. I don't understand the Anti-eq stance. As an audio engineer, it makes no logical sense. You can improve the sound of a signal. Why not use it?
Those speakers are blowing against the back of the mixing console. This is why studios use specific smaller speakers on top of the mixing console. Genelec or Neumann.
It's rubbish indeed, using HiFi speakers as studio monitors, you can not do that.
Are the majority of products offering PCM and not PDM? I believe is extremely hard to convert from PCM to PDM, if even possible, so how can you get PDM?