I've been in Recording and Pro Audio for about 25 years and have listened to a lot of DSD. It's great. So is PCM. I have never once listened to something and said "Ohhh, I wish this was in DSD!!!" Never. Not once. I never even think about DSD unless someone tells me "it is DSD". It simply does not make an impactful difference to enjoying music. You are likely to hear a bigger difference if you have extra pillows on one side of your couch that the other, or a rug vs. carpet. or even a cold dry day vs. a hot humid day.
In fact it doesn't make any sense. In terms or recording, playback environment is important but a separate problem, you must simply do the best you can with the best equipment. Analog tape is by far the most engaging but native DSD has its emotion. Let's just leave aside conversions and enjoy the original recording format. Can't go wrong!
These analog/turntables aficionados like those Apollo 13 astronauts "Houston we have a problem" have a problem!!!!!! Thanks MoFi for exposing the grift.
You Missy be deaf because dsd clearly sound different to me. Just like vinyl sounds different. Your comment is like one from people who actually never heard it. Same people that say cds sound better than vinyl. You know they actually don’t have a high quality vinyl player with high quality speakers.
@@vitorfernandes651Whatever makes you happy man. Its a minute "improvement". Try a Nul Test sometime with DSD Vs. even a 48K 24bit PCM source, much less higher resolutions. Not much to see there. But if it make you feel like you can hear music better than other people can, salut.
@@anadialogyou don't know what you're talking about, you're just making shit up. Maybe with vinyls being warm, but dsd does not "sound different" to pcm. Like, go study audio engineering. You will see.
DSD got a wide introduction 5 years ago. First, I was really skeptical, especially knowing it came from Sony. But then, I started working on DSD decoding and listen to a lot DSD samples. And then I realized how good it is sounding. Now I collect almost only DSD.
But, what about the Evel Sony being involved? I'd actually like to know, as most of my stuff is Sony. I've usually been fairly happy with the quality of their products, although, it does seem that they have been playing to the low end, even though they have always had a range of products from cheap to crazy expensive. at least they have some low end stuff for those of us who are poor.
Thank you for this really excellent video and for sharing the files. This is the first time I've heard DSD on my DAC (Chord Hugo2). The track selection is also excellent. The higher resolution WAV files are definitely at a higher volume than the DSD which initially makes them sound more impressive. Normalising the volume, the higher rate DSD are very natural with each instrument clearly defined.
Thank you to share my work at 2xHD with the Bill Evans that use Analog master tape to DSD ! We also do pure all analog copy from the master tapes on 1/4 inch 15 ips CCIR tapes. But analog master transfer to DSD and sometime to 352.8KHz/24 Bit give great digital. One other thing that change the result is the specific A/D converter used to do the transfer. You can try 2xHD Audiophile Analog Collection Vol.2 that use a new custom A/D in 352.8 24 bit that is pretty special. Rene Laflamme, 2xHD
Mr Laflamme thank you for your comment and for your work. Your analog transfers are amazing! 2xHD is among the best out there in doing this IMHO. Yes, I know of your tapes. Hope to get one soon!
One year after you presented this video it seems that DSD is making a resurgence. There are more than several recording companies that are going for DSD and to my ear they sound outstanding. Mark Levinson was one of the first to be a huge promoter of the SACD and if anyone is lucky enough to find his Red Rose sampler CD I think you will be in for a big surprise. Mark was actually able to get some of the best jazz musicians in New York City to record at least half of the music on this sampler and it’s almost impossible find now. The sound is nothing short of spectacular. I was lucky enough to purchase one from Mark when he opened a very small Red Rose audio salon on the east side of Manhattan. Among the new start ups is Octave Recordings which was started by Paul McGowan of PS Audio. He’s totally bought in to this DSP technology. I have listened to a few of his releases and they are incredible.
@@anadialog I started looking around on the web a few days ago to see if I could find another copy with no luck. I guess Mark did not make the t many copies. He was selling them out of his store. Red Rose equipment was pretty cool though. I’m not sure who the designer of his electronics was under the Red Rose brand and the speakers as well. The CD player was a Sony SACD obviously. We spent about 20 minutes until he had another listening appointment.
PS AUDIO DSD recordings, unfortunately has lots of sampleing rate noise distortions in the signal, so much for the non distortion dsd signal. Makes me laugh, the supposed higher quality of PS AUDIO recordings is inferior to standard red book cd quality.
@@ianjohnhorwood2605 oops, that’s an interesting tidbit. I listen to Paul McGowan answer letters when I see the subject is DSD. I had no clue that the quality is not as good as PCM. That sounds like a disaster for his Dad business.
One issue for many audiophiles with playing DSD material, whether through dowloaded files or SACD discs, from the source to a DSD capable DAC, is that you can't do any manipulation whatsoever to the DSD signal without first converting it to PCM, which pretty much throws out the window the claimed SQ advantages of DSD under those circumstances. If for instance you want to use any form of DSP like bass management, digital room correction (e.g. Dirac, ARC, Audiolense, Audyssey, etc) or even plain parametric EQ to reduce bloated bass caused by room induced standing waves, you have to convert the DSD signal to PCM as any of those forms of processing can't be done under DSD. It's the same problem sound engineers are faced with in the recording studio. If they're going to do any mixing or signal processing as simple as a gain change, they have to convert a portion of the DSD signal to the DXD format (PCM), perform the desired processing in PCM and convert it back to DSD. Alternatively they could perform that processing on analog tape and convert it back to DSD. There exist no algorithms or math to perform an operation only on a one bit sample. That's why there are so few pure DSD recordings as indicated by the passionate host of this channel. I have a descent collection of SACD recordings whether in classical music, jazz or rock and I personally find a greater benefit of using bass management to properly integrate my subwoofer and adding digital room correction than listening to that same recording in pure DSD mode directly decoded by the DAC. I believe that what has the greatest impact on SQ is the care taken by the experienced recording and sound engineers when producing the DSD recordings or any other format for that matter.
@@limp6986 I don't believe in idealistic and absolutist statements like the one you've made. Reality is more relative as Einstein would argue. I used to be more of a purist in my younger audiophile days. However with time and experience I've leaned to become more pragmatic and base my decisions on a more scientific and evidence based approach. I'll start by addressing your second statement, i.e. your recommendation regarding room treatments. While I agree with you that proper room treatments should always be the first step, it's not always practical or even possible in every situation. Not everyone has the luxury of having a dedicated audio listening room large enough to accommodate room treatments. Think of a lot of places in Europe or Asia where appartments can be fairly small and even in North America in certain urban centers. I'll take as an example my own appartment. The only even remotely adequate room at my disposal is the living room; it's small at 13 x13 x 8 feet (4 x 4 x 2,4 meters). The right side is mostly flanked by two windows and a door leading to the balcony leaving no room for any treatment except for corner bass traps. The left wall is occupied by a couple of bookcases that contain my CD and Blu-ray collections while the front corner harbors my audio gear rack and the back corner is the entrance to the room making even the placement of corner bass traps allong that wall impossible. The only walls left for possible treatments are the front and back walls plus the ceiling. And I know of many people in similar situations. Furthermore, good luck with your second half letting you turn her living room into a recording studio. On top of that, add my 65-inch TV with a basic 5.1 multi-channel speaker setup, no way to even accommodate a 7.1 setup although I'd like to add a second subwoofer in the future. I hope you get the picture by now. So yes, as you stated, I know that proper room treatment is the ideal first step but as I hope you may have come to realize, it's not always practical or possible in every situation. Now I'll address your first statement that room correction DSP doesn't fix the sound of one's room. There are many acousticians with PhDs that develop digital room correction (DRC) technologies, e.g. Acourate, Audiolense, Audyssey, Anthem ARC, Dirac Research, DEQX and Trinnov to name a few, that would strongly disagree with your opinion and that have performed many studies published in audio journals such as the AES. Many professional acousticians also use parametric EQ on top of room treatments to help reduce room standing waves even further. Realistically, no technology whether room treatments, DRC or DSP EQ can completely fix the sound of a room but from experience, I know that even DRC on its own can make a dramatic improvement in reducing standing waves and opening up the sound for the better.
Nice to see you again. No questions - DSD is better sounding - I have tested them myself. My problem with DSD is that most audiophile preamps/integrateds do not offer HDMI inputs. Therefore, most SACD players have to convert the signals into PMC - negating the benefits of DSD signals encoded onto the SACDs. Also, OPTICAL and COAXIAL cables cannot carry DSD signals (what you get is 44.1K/16bit). BUT, there is a better sounding format (even beating the DSD) ------> R2R tapes!
I ditched all my R2R tapes. They were a huge pain in the arse. The audio was an issue at times when the tape would stick passing through the heads. It was an inconvenient and overrated format. So glad I free of it. I love all the Digital formats and Vinyl.
I have both the BluRay and SACD [MoFi] versions of Breakfast in America and SACD version is so much better. I totally agree except for the liner notes.
Thanks for this great review.I am using the T+A Dac 8 DSD witch can handle dsd without convert it to PCM.Most Dacs are doing this cause there are no more native DSD D/A Converters produced.T+A writes: For the purpose of handling DSD data which can be supplied via the PC-USB input we have developed a unique, dedicated converter: the T+A True One Bit DSD Converter. This is of fully analogue construction and constitutes a genuine one-bit converter, since - unlike other manufacturers - we did not want to use the DSD mode of a PCM converter. This development ensures that DSD data are processed in a genuine one-bit stream process, uncoloured and without detrimental additional conversion.
Your T+A DAC is a excellent DAC. However, don't take the hook, line and sinker from T+A. Just about any good DAC chips produced in the last 15 years or so by companies like AKM, Analog Devices, Cirrus, TI Burr Brown and ESS Technology can decode DSD data streams natively inside the DAC chip despite the marketing claims made by T+A Elektroakustik.
Thank you very much for the post, very informative and contents make all sense. To me, DSD has more clarity and presence, totaling different sound. I often venture Native DSD and Chennel Musics, hoping their business run well. I also am enjoyed Qobuz by huge amount of hi-def music everyday (unfortunately only PCM)!
Ok, One More Time without Notes! (Kidding!😉) Wow that was Awesome and A Lot! Not sure I’ll do the test but will definitely check out the study/abstract!! Thanks!
I like dsd and to my ear it delivers a deeper sound than PCM (especially 16/44.1Khz). Better dynamics (high are higher and bass is deeper). Especially at higher volume. My system (Denon rcd N10) is able to reproduce native dsd although being entry level.
Dynamic range is not about the hights of high tones and low of low sounds, its difference between the quietest and the loudest in the track and its measured in db
This is your best video , as informative as it is entertaining. 5.1 SACD is my favorite means to multichannel audio via an OPPO-205 . Other means to this recorded music in DSD or FLAC by downloading takes to many click and scroll actions to enjoy in the moment of interest. At any rate, SACD so far seems most ideal for recorded music listening pleasure.
I have been listening to SACDS for over 10 years first on a philips system where the speakers are made of glass and had ribon tweeters on alll 5 speakers the advantage of SACD was mainly multich hi-res audio, now i have a yamaha system, SACD and DSD adds what i describe atmosphere and or emotion to the music it is very hard to describe but this is only heard on speakers capable of higher frequencies. Listening to them on HI-Res speakers really makes a differnce. All my speakers in the house are now Hi-Res speakers from Edifier, and then in my cinema room yamaha which has a crazy frequency range up to 60,000hz not like you will hear it but produces such a natural and clear sound, and so much emotion.. I would like to add a lot of SACDS are remastered from masters either Tape or Record. I can defently hear differences in SACDS some dont sound any better than CD while others sound incredible. I have a few PCM tracks but always go back to SACD/DSD
Found this vid from one of your others. I only recently discovered DSD( through SACD) I ended up buying a Denon SACD Player (Denon DCD 1600NE) and am really impressed with the Music( from the pure direct mode particularly).
By recording in DSD even if you transfer to PCM and back to DSD, the mastering on SACD's will always be better because it avoids the loudness wars. Clipping in DSD shows up as direct distortion unlike PCM. SACD's will be distortion free and must be, and this is similar to how vinyl works as well. It's not that PCM can't sound good, but DSD has to sound good. That's the guarantee you are getting when you buy an SACD. Different mastering.
Hi, ive been comparing dsd and pcm of the same album. I dunno but the highs are just better in every way vs the pcm/flac. Its maybe because of the dac or something but dsd just sounds natural. Anyway, nice video.
Excellent video. Thumbs up. Looked at the Mussorgsky files on MusicScope. DSD frequency spectrum looks very clean, but the PCM has two noise spikes one at 76.9kHz and the other at 95kHz. They vary slightly in amplitude during the track, but are mostly fixed. Fixed pitch ultrasonic tones can cause audible problems (broad spectrum ultrasonic noise in DSD doesn't). Nelson Pass tells a story of Telarc producers having a problem with the sound of a recording. Using frequency spectrum analysis, Pass discovered a 35kHz tone in the recording, which was the cause of the problem. As far as PCM, no delta sigma DACs over here. NOS ladder DACs fix most of the problems with PCM playback for me.
I think it pertains to your excellent "Sound beyond 20 kHz" video. The ultrasonic tone may create a "dysharmonic" effect that is very unpleasant to the listener. The anecdote may be in this YT video th-cam.com/video/7u9OKPL1ezA/w-d-xo.html starting at the second harmonic distortion generator discussion. Also, interesting topic. In phase 2nd harmonic creates detail and presence. Out of phase 2nd harmonic creates an illusion of spaciousness and increased soundstage.
I never heard digital audio sound so good than with DSD files thru my external DAC player. It just sound fuller and more appealing to my ears. I'm in the process up upsampling my Flac files to DSD256 and loving the results.
Great Topic. Being a fan of DSD ( old analog stuff that's put on DSD) I hoping I'm able to keep an objective open mind when comparing your music files :-)
I have played your tracks in foobar with the SACD addon (I know it's not really DSD going to my amp), and used the spectrogram visualization, not only I can hear the difference on my speakers, but I can see a HUGE difference on the spectrogram. The DSD sounds much more real than PCM.
Excellent Post/Files ! It is necessary to use same Player/DAC to compare. DSD is superior, more granularity. PCM seems heavy, velveted, politically correct. DSD is really Fantastic !
Also it’s important to note that most high end DACs that use FPGA employ Sigma/Delta DSD schemes which means they upsample and decode everything as DSD. DACs like the Mola Mola Tambaqui, dCS Bartok, and Chord Dave do this as an example.
@@crapmalls Essentially yes. All FPGA DACs like the Chord dave employ the Sigma Delta format which is the basis for how DSD works. You can google it for more info.
It's pretty hard to get good dsd files, real native dsd. A lot of it online as well, is ripped from vinyl with the same dynamic range of vinyl and tons of noise. A good dsd 256 is just better then anything else. It's fluid as liquid, pours out like water. SACD is dsd 64. Sounds real good as well with modern dacs. Most of my dsd is 128, but as I said it's real hard to get, unless you are wealthy and can buy it online for big bucks. I don't like PCM. Upsampling is bunk. I don't use computers to play music files. I use a DAP with hardware DAC, not a chip. I also have a small unit with two ESS Sabres, big difference but the small one can go in my pocket. I really like your explanations. I have tried to tell people that the air up above 22khz affects the audible noise, no one believes me.
If you ever played back a 24bit recording & cut everything off from 44.1 & lower on a master quality album you can hear what your missing sometimes its nothing sometimes its amazing
I listened to the PCM vs. DSD selections repetitively and there is one problem with this comparison that my ears picked up. The volume of the PCM tracks is louder than the DSD tracks. And typically something that plays louder usually sounds better, at least initially. Anyone doing a listening test to compare the PCM vs. the DSD should pay attention to ensuring the playback volume is equal. It would also be nice to know the provenance of each track, as this can make a difference in the sound quality. I.E. how was each track originally recorded, mixed and mastered, are any of the tracks up-sampled, how were they up-sampled, etc.? This gets to the point made in the video about "certification" of the derivation of the music we are listening to. Regardless, to my ears, the PCM 192 and 352.8KHz did sound really good, but once volume was equilibrated, my ears preferred the better resolution and less glare of the DSD 128 and 256 tracks of the "Saxaphone". On "Pictures", my ears told me the DSD was far superior to the PCM 192, even regardless of the volume difference.
Indeed. DSD been created to make artifical linearity of analog sound wave. With that in mind that insane sample rates / second at least trying to create that. That is why superior to PCM, at least in my opinion. Anadialog is very right when his pointing that out making a record in native DSD, then convert it to pcm is a non-sense step. Logically obvious. You record something in pcm, then convert to mp3, then back to pcm? :) Funny movement even from studios and I think that is just a stupid and lazy explanation instead of using pure DSD all over the recording line. Better to record everything in full analog, master and mix in analog, and then, only after that you can record it purely to a user ready DSD. Sounds simple, but for cost cut, etc. they just cheat, most of the time. Every kind of conversion leads to degradation in sonic quality, upsampling is also part of stupidity in audio. You CAN NOT get any better from your source doesn't matter where and how you convert it. Still can't believe how over their 20's (think so) people can even think about it. One more word for Anadialog. I am 100% with you with the certification theme, how can we trust or believe what we paying for? Mostly no explanation how did they sourced their files, which is IMO really frustrating and dishonest with all the consumers.
The DSD has got a fine DB rate and is not compressed as the Flac (not the codec) probably using 16 bit for 44kHz can be. If you turned down the level of the DSD you cannot hear anything but i have to get the cue sheet for instance made out of Foobar to see the comparaison between the level of compression so that the dynamic is evacuated out of the range of that possibility. But then the phenomenon is rather normal due to the DB and i wondered how did you miss that point.
I Edit: this the same record then, a compression was applied on both maybe 10 if there is a large portion of music that differs, normally if that portion of dynamic is low, you can be sure to find a louder DSD too but on a different level due to the excellence of the DB, you should feel a form of noisy background. Is the flac and the DSD compressed equally ? DR please.
Interesting video, same way of thinking about DSD as PS audio CEO thinks about it, and i love this. I use a DAC, a stereo amplifier connected with RCA cinch of high quality, a computer totally tweaked using free Hi-Res player (Music Bee and Wtfplay (linux distribution burned onto USB stick) and my god all the CD versus DSD sounds...like horrible noise excepting impressive Jazz or Classical ( Pointing out here the excellence of any ECM records).
Just discovered this channel, very interesting, I just downloaded the files and certainly will provide my feedback, while it seems based on the comments DSD is preferred just let's take into consideration the actual test is being performed with a Sigma Delta based ADC (Analog to Digital Converter), each method of conversion ADC and DAC has its pros and cons and SDM based ADC's / DAC's tend to provide better conversion encoding and reproducing DSD content. There is also an endless amount of noise shapers, modulators and filtering techniques which most of you knowing what HQPlayer is probably will know. Also when listening to the results the DAC side will use either SDM chips, FPGA's, PCM based R2R ladder type conversion which will (poison is the wrong word) but will taint and steer the results towards the method of reproduction. To the channel owner thank you for the content you provide, I hope you don't take my comments the wrong way, I'm just saying the testing method encoding and deconding (playing back) the music "could favor" DSD over others
I just took the survey. It needed some instructions or I missed them. We had 9 track and scale 1-10. Where we to rate them 1-9; I didn’t. I rated them each on scale of what would be perfection - no 10s given. I also want to say that the DSD files played at the same volume level as the PCM were not as loud and seamed less detailed. but, when I increased the volume to match that of the PCM they had, to me, a touch more resonances and a bit more detail. The Bass notes were a bit more defined. Both systems got better with higher sampling rates. BUT I’m still learning how to “listen” and describe what I hear and my system is not fully tweaked - if it ever will. I enjoyed the test and look forward to the results and possibly more like this! :)
For what i,ve gathered from wiki is that a signal from pcm (let’s say 16bit or 24bit) First has to be downsampled to 1bit by quantizing the signal in order to save tons of memory space.dithering is used to remain most of the original signal. To cancle out noise, (I would’t by surprised if a declipping argorithm is used as well to remove clipping caused by quantization) high 1bit to 24bit upsampling as well as analizing noise and adding an inverted noise of that extracted noice signal to it sothat the unwanted noise will cancle out each other. Upsampling to 380khz along with interpolation is used to push the remaining unwanted noice signal to insudible frequencies as well as smoothing up the signal while a lowpass filter is used to futher reduce noise. This way they could not only approximate the original signal from the source material, but even improve on it at average.
Sir, very good your video. Congratulations!! I had a little idea about the subject and with your video I was able to increase my knowledge. As soon as possible (in Brazil the prices of good equipment are very high), I'll buy a DAC that can read DSD512 and then test your files. Thank you so much for the great work!!
Listened to Pictures at an Exhibition - as pointed out the PCM file is louder than the DSD. Comparing them at the same volume the DSD sounds dry and clinical whereas the PCM conveys the recording venue reverb better.
The "kiss" back album catalog reissues was cut with double DSD! And most of them sound like they were cut from tape! I definitely recommend cutting vinyl masters using tape foremost , but if not the Double DSD is a very close alternative!
The early SACD releases mastered from analogue tape via analogue mastering chain an final step is a A/D Converter so the whole process voa analogue. That’s why the early SACD are diamonds
At the end of the day, it comes down to the tangible 'deliverable'. Most competent studios are employing Merging Technologies 'Horus' and 'Hapi' converters as well as 'Pyramix' and 'Masscore' systems, and I'll bet you a dime to a doughnut that all modern-day music is being archived at DSD256. Regarding the final conclusion of the AES Convention Paper-9019, Why can't modern music genres be delivered in SACD-form at DSD128? StereoSound's Wagner Ring-Cycle SACD's were the perfect approach; 12-inch artwork and booklet with the optical format inside instead of vinyl. I still can't fathom the allure of vinyl; it is dust-prone, fragile, warping, and cumbersome...Deep down, I think I know what the objective problem is. Thanks
Good video - I agree with your ideas for DSD certifications right now we just don't know how the files have been treated. It's a bit like the state of food 30 years ago before organic certifications made things clearer.
Do an A/B comparison with the HDCD from WEA/Rhino & SACD from MoFi of Workingman’s Dead. The HDCD is beautiful! The SACD is truly a notch above, actually a big & beautifully resonant notch!
DSD1024 is for audio, what 8k is for video quality, Ultra Ultra high quality. I wonder if I will one day see an 8k BluRay movie with a DSD1024 audio track one day. But remember the DSD that you talk about is only stereo (2channels), I can't imagine the size of a 22.2 surround sound audio file for a 2hour long movie in DSD1024... what a time to be alive
You literally can't hear the difference. DSD is a gimmick. It's not like having an 8k tv. It's like having a tv that emits X-ray light. You literally can't tell the difference.
DSD is totally useless and all that you need is object based surround sound with wave field synthesis on calibrated speakers. DSD would not make this any better. It's just useless bs for idiots.
Thank you for an excellent video. Just a couple of comments. I think you mentioned early on that Sony is no longer supporting SACD and that's true. I was told by a friend that the reason for that decision is that an opportunist pop artist, who records for Sony, thought it might be possible to extract three lots of royalties (CD layer, SACD layer and multichannel SACD layer) for every copy of the artist's many SACD albums that had sold and when Sony refused to oblige, that artist took Sony to court to contest it and won. Sony decided that would set a precedent and immediately decide to stop producing SACDs. A recent TH-cam video I watched involving PS Audio's CEO Paul McGowan, who is convinced that DSD is the most analogue-sounding digital format currently available and superior sounding to even high resolution PCM formats, mentioned a filter called a Zephyr filter that I believe PS Audio is developing for its Octave Records productions and my understanding is that he thinks it could provide the ideal answer for editing DSD files. I have no idea how far advanced that development is, and I guess only time will tell if it will work as anticipated. I love DSD myself and have bought a number of albums from Native DSD Music and I also have a large collection of SACDs.
I just purchased a PS Audio Transport plus PS Audio Direct Stream HR DAC with I2S makes all my CD/SACD's sound great as the DAC upsamples PCM and DSD to 20xDSD rate. Synergy within the brand probably makes a big difference rather than mixing brands. I think DSD makes digital recordings sound the best provided the mastering or lack of mastering is done properly. I don't stream as I believe SACD/CD's sound better with DSD.
Hi William I felt compelled to comment on your purchase of the PS Audio Transport and DirectStream DAC, as I've just done the same thing. Well, I actually placed the order here in New Zealand back in mid October then paid for them at the end of the month (they're the most expensive items of Hi-Fi equipment I've ever bought, surpassing what I paid for my Acoustat SPECTRA 6600 electrostatics last century) and then the company has had to manufacture them (made to order) and I was told they were shipped last Thursday (9 Dec). I hope I'll receive them by Christmas but I think it will be tight. Glad to read that you're enjoying yours so much. I'm certainly looking forward to hooking mine up (like you I'm going to use the I²S HDMI cable 5o connect the two units). John Marchington
Interesting video! My only device which fully supports DSD playback is my Sony Walkman NW-A45 (I'm very happy with it btw). However, using a pair of Senheiser HD650 headphones I have to be honest and say that I could barely tell any differences between the DCD and the hires PCM files, they all sounded great to me. I may have said otherwise if I had access to a proper DSD playback device in my stereo system.
I love your videos and can’t help to agree with virtually everything. As I may have mentioned, at my studio, we do 16 track analog and digital (PCM and Merging DSD) recording. One thing, you do NOT have to convert to PCM (or DXD) to run EQ, mixing or Effects with DSD. Instead, you do it all in the analog domain on the input side. Then you are simply left with straight cuts done in DSD with no conversion. Obviously, non of this is trivial. Also, just like all analog gear is not the same, DSD gear is not at all created equal. When I first went from other very good and expensive digital gear over to Merging (a Swiss company now owned by Neumann), i realized I could never go back to what is otherwise great pro digital gear. However, you also need high rail to rail voltage analog gear (at least 100 Volts) and good, clean power to take full advantage of what high end DSD can deliver compared to all but the very, very highest pure analog, which no other studio I have been to actually has or uses due to cost of acquisition, operation and maintenance. Short of that, DSD is not a limiting factor in your recording or playback chain, while much of the popular “high quality” analog and digital gear is.
I have now a really good dac (Denafrips Ares 2) that convert good in DSD. My choice is made: go for the best... DSD. And if you can find native DSD, go for it, you will be on heaven!
How are you getting your DSD signal through your Aries ll. There's no instruction as to which buttons I should engage........like the instruction for high pass filtering etc.....
Thank you for saving me the expense of wasting my money on a new DSD capable DAC to replace my good working recently overhauled vintage and not really obsolete MSB Platinum DAC. I have a few 5 channel SACDs which can only be played on an OPPO player which may not last forever. I put all my 175 of my CDs on a USB flash drive and stick in into a server which I connect to my MSB Platinum DAC with a buffer to get rid of jitter. I no longer buy CDs, I download PCM. Otherwise I use some vinyl.
"We say, we think that, more or less..." I think we found the audio equivalent of Sir Humphrey - At the appropriate juncture... In the fullness of time... 🤣🤣🤣
So, I downloaded the samples from NativeDSD and Blue Coast Records, and while nice, I found your own DSD dubs MUCH more impressive. I guess that says more about the reel-to-reel format (and your DAC) than anything else. Oh, and I liked the great sound quality of Saxophone Colossus enough that I hope to track down an SACD copy, and I'm not even really a jazz guy...
Still scouring the World for Mo-Fi Original Master Recording and Japanese SHM SACDs simply because they sound so damn good on my system and to my ears in comparison to vinyl or CD.
I think the best way to understand the difference between PCM vs DSD is to look up the difference between Pulse Code Modulation and Pulse Density Modulation. It tells you everything you need to know. Don't get too hung up on signal to noise ratio and frequency response. It's all about bit depth, aka the number of times a digital converter takes a picture of the analog waveform. If you use the photograph analogy, think of it as how many times a second does digital take a picture of the analog waveform. More pictures in a given period of time means better resolution.
I hear a big difference between PCM and DSD in these recordings. Compare the first 19 seconds on the Sonny Rollins. Then hone down on the main instrument from 10-19 secs. DSD sounds more real...the slap of his hands on the drum has more realistic timbre than any version of PCM from 88-352kHz. Across the whole clip DSD has a bigger soundstage and more distinct imaging. The instruments just sound more real and crucially I can hear the room better. For me, all of these elements combined better recreate the experience of being there.
@@edfort5704 no direct dsd cards? my motorola droid 4 plays dsd128 but if i cat /proc/asound/card0/hw_params it shows pcm 16bit 44.1kHz So I therefore ask what sense does it make to play dsd if it gets converted to pcm? Is it worth the file size? I can hear more dynamic range
@@Suppboio I don't know for sure how the PC software works, but dsd stuff sounds amazing compared to anything else I've ever heard from an audio recording/storage/playback medium. Try it...and don't stop at the first file you hear if you're not impressed at first hear. But I think you will be....I definitely was.
Thanks for another interesting video. I seem to have quite a few Cd's with DSD mentioned, and some of my Linn SACD' s also mention this. Keep up the good work and stay safe.
DSD is the way to go. I invited people to try it on my very inexpensive gear, SMSL M7 with Archel 2.5 Pro and T50RP Mk3(I am just starting, don't kill me) and had them come back to me about their TV doesn't sound good anymore. Yes I am building my collection from Native DSD, but nobody does it right. We have 2 ears, 2 channels, true balanced equipment (I will get there), put 2 god damn microphones in the room and record that performance in DSD. Unfortunately nobody does that.
Mobile Fidelity (and I'm sure most of your viewers know exactly who that is) remasters vintage albums and offers them on audiophile quality vinyl and SACD, so they are actively supporting the format. Additionally, more of the major labels are remastering their classic titles from the original analog master tapes to DSD, to archive for themselves and to resell to the consumer on vinyl, PCM digital files, DSD files, SACD, etc. So, the format is fairly active and will hopefully continue to grow and be improved.
Yes, that is a true problem. I keep my files in the cloud...but then you have to download them to listen to them...not practical! I wish they made SACD with DSD256 resolution.
What cloud service do you use and how much storage space do you have on your plan? It must be pretty expensive to maintain a decent sized library of DSD files in the cloud.
@@steviemusic1 I’m using M2 Thunderbolt 3 drives which are not cheap. An 8GB drive costs $1400. And one song in DSD256 is around one gigabyte in file size which is insanely big even if you had a very large platter based drive array. One FLAC 24bit 96khertz song at 10 minutes is around 32MB while the same song in DSD 256 is around 900MB.
Hi just tested the 128DSD against PCM 192 on both files on my system as well as headphones listening and I have come to the conclusion their is no discernible difference I can hear, I believe a lot of this is placebo effects, you make yourself want hear differences, these analogue captures will have a lot of coloration due to the tapes playback and will have a lot of noise in the high band plus a 30khz bias trap frequency will also be present, I did a test with a Hi Res digital file using three variations 320k Lossy 16/44.1 PCM and 24/96 PCM, the tracks were edited and mixed back together thus splicing the three separate file into one an saving to 24/96, when played back no one noticed over the duration of the track when lossy or lossless was being heard. I still believe the quality of playback is more down to the recording mixing and mastering
Obviously recording, mixing and mastering are more important. Its not an opinion, its a fact. We are focusing on what WE can do to make that work better sounding. For the test I am waiting till the end of the survey.
Why, standard redbook 16bit/44.1khz is more than enough for human hearing. DSD and high sample rate audio usually just sounds better because the original recording or remaster was done with high fidelity in mind. DSD almost always starts out as PCM for mastering and then converted to DSD. SACD was a BS move by Sony for better copyright protection and to resell their audio catalog all over again and double dip you wallet.
Quick, quick, super quick question... I am looking for an easy way to convert an analog signal into a digital signal, and then encode that digital information directly onto an analog medium (such as an extremely low speed VHS tape) while still having it work on old analog equipment. For example, look at a Time Lapse VCR; they can get an insane amount of crystal clear footage off of a single tape and even get frame perfect pausing. But because the tape is moving in discrete steps, audio cannot be recorded this way. If one were to try recording the audio in steps, well... You can only do that digitally as far as I'm aware. Try to record the tape at a continuous speed, then you can do audio, but at those extremely low speeds the video quality suffers, making it basically useless for CCTV security setups. So how would I produce a digital signal that can be played on analog equipment without a dedicated decoder?
Well the dedicated invention for that is DAT! Digital Audio Tape. If you get a DAT recorder you just need to feed it an analog signal. Otherwise you can get a analog to digital interface for conversion, like those famous focusright interfaces, and then record that on any kind of tape, clearly when recording traditionallyike cassettes or VHS the signal will be converted back to analog. If your goal is to record digital DATA then you will need a DAT recorder as explained above or a computer for other types of tape. There are tutorials online to do so. DAT and VHS are the best solution IMO.
@@anadialog Analog (or analog-like) sound is actually the end goal, I’m mostly just trying to find a work around for not being able to record the audio while the tape is moving in discrete steps. Sorry for the confusion, I didn’t know how to explain it correctly yesterday, and I probably still don’t. See the video on Time Lapse VCRs by Technology Connections to see what I mean by discrete steps. In the intended application, runtime is more important than audio fidelity, but even poor quality audio would be better than no audio :v
ha i wasnt expecting enough of a difference with the files for me to tell, but to me the dsd sounded quite a bit better, even though i really couldn't tell the difference between 64/128 etc. interesting
Some notes for those who might have downloaded the files for the test. Even though my preamp/processor decodes DSD and has an active USB port for input, it did not even recognize the DSD files and thought those folders were empty. (I think this might be because some hardware will not decode DSD over a USB port.) So, I plugged the USB into my Oppo, which also supports DSD. Even though the player recognized and listed all the DSD files, it would only play the DSD64 file. I'm not sure if it was the Oppo and/or my pre-pro that could not play 128 and 256 files. As for the test, my expectation going in was that I would hear no difference. To my surprise, my ears heard a fairly large difference between PCM and DSD. I found the DSD to have much more depth and "3D" type of sound, more detail and texture, and more "air" between the instruments vs. the PCM. I was impressed. I should probably note that I listened with HifiMAN Sundara planar headphones. Thanks for providing these files so we can all listen for ourselves.
The future ? The industry abandoned alternative 'hi-res' formats years ago - they simply didnt sell. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Definition_Compatible_Digital en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Resolution_Compact_Disc Given that few consumers even buy CDs any more, its all a bit moot but if you are serious about DSD you need to be investing in Roon and the PC or Mac capable of upsampling PCM to DSD on the fly.
@@arthurwatts1680 Anyway, the future always leads to the best triumph, right? Or come close ... I believe in a larger sampling which respects more the natural curve of the sounds. The DSD has proven that it does it better than anything. The market, even if streaming gets the ball rolling, will come. There is no reason now with the extensive storage as it is now that we should not come to it. Your links are explanations of the formats, not a vision, a projection of what will come. I listen to Diana Krall in DSD (Turn up the quiet) and I have no doubt that anyone who listens to it in DSD will be convinced that this is the format of the future.
for recording orchestra maybe, but in practical, most studio are maxed out at 192khz pcm and even at that it's rare to see one. even my own music production I only max at 96khz because of how hard our current CPU processors just cant handle these high sampling rate. not to mention when you turn on the supersample it's gonna be a hell of buffer to push with DACs...
Hi! A few corrections 😉 Even though SACD was introduced in 1999 with the Sony series-1 products, the DSD technology actually dates back all the way to seventies. As a matter of fact, DSD was briefly considered for the CD standard but it was quickly decided against it. The reasons were valid though: unpreparedness of the semiconductor industry (ICs) to produce hardware that would be powerful enough, the inability to edit DSD in digital domain (which is still a problem even today) and Sony’s inability to create an optical disc that would carry 60 minutes of music in DSD on a disc that is significantly smaller than vinyl. Even though DSD was mathematically promising, it was decided that PCM, a technology that’s been present since the sixties (thanks largely to companies like Nippon Columbia aka Denon), would be the format selected for the CD. DSD remained an idea until mid-nineties when Sony (not Philips though!) tried to improve upon CD and replace it with SACD. This isn’t a technology forum so I won’t get deep into it but what is typically overlooked with DSD is the fact that the D/A convertor is essentially a low-pass filter (meaning it passes only the frequencies below a certain point and filters all the frequencies above that point) and I want to stress just how important this component is. It is impossible to make this component cheaply as it has a dramatic influence on the final outcome. Even if you did everything right before this final stage of low-passing a signal (power supplies, separation of analogue and digital circuits etc.), it would all be nullified if the low-pass filter was overlooked. Sadly, this is where manufacturers cut costs because it is one of the more expensive parts of a typical D/A convertor and as a result, a convertor will have greater distortion when decoding DSD as opposed to PCM. In an ideal world, a DSD-capable D/A convertor would have completely separate circuits for DSD and PCM. It would be so expensive that no one could afford to manufacture it. IMHO, PCM sounds just as good as DSD. In my experience, with the music that I have, the best of DSD can be had with SACD being played in an SACD player. Trying to play DSD files on your computer and have it decoded by an external D/A convertor can be problematic and it seems to me that the more “exotic” (for a lack of a better word) the equipment gets, the more problematic it becomes. The problems only multiply with higher speed DSD. Cheers!
There you are. Well, I don't feel I made a mistake. I am talking about DSD they way we know it an d presented to the public by Philips and Sony. For the rest, nothing on contrast with my video. Thanks for the extra info. In my opinion we are facing something similar to a compander than a filter, since noise shaping is the key element in this format.
@@anadialog “In my opinion we are facing something similar to a compander than a filter” No, not at all. Companding deals with dynamics. The proper term is filtering. Also, it is not a matter of an opinion as the principles of the technology are rather well known. You may have an opinion on the usefulness of the technology or how it serves the music instead. 😉
I remember that Whitne Houston's voice in the movie bodyguard on hi-fi VHS sounded much better than the CD her voice sounded much more natural. You may remember when she was at the guard's parents' house we that little wooden bridge and sang. maybe it's just the record label that ruined her voice with the equalizer
I'm sure that's one reason, vinyl is so popular, even if the original source was digital and/or flat & loud! It's simple and what ever was first used, the analoge warms, has more info and the rising of the low frequency, gives it a soulful feeling. I'm sticking with my CDs, HDCD or not. cause I can program and make custom CDs. Prefer original source analog. Must use headphones to listen too and most orig. digital sounds so, so.
i think we agree re converting and resampling, etc. i recently had someone tell me that they were converting all their flac to dsd. my internal monologue was “whats the point!?” to me at best it will sound like the 16 bit 44100 information it was built on. you cant add new information by reformatting your music.
I could only compare the DSD64 and 24bit/96K and 24bit/192K and 24bit 88.2K. Using the Sonny tracks and after allot of switching between the tracks I prefer (I think) the DSD64. The first few seconds of the SAX told me that the PCM tracks had a more pronounced presence (not really more treble or treble sheen but a bit more forward). This improved with the higher sample rates but the difference were very small. I could happily live with all of them. Shame I couldn't try DSD128 as my DAC/Streamer CA 851N can do that. I have to confess I didn't do any blind testing. I will repeat this when I have others here to do more listening. I will do it as a single blind test on them.
When comparing formats, it's important to level match (DSD usually has lower volume), use speakers that reproduce frequencies above 20-22khz as DSD provides information beyond these (it's said that these high frequencies help pinpoint spacial cues about elements of the recording) and beware about the quality of the mastering. You can have a pcm recording from a source beautifully mastered and a DSD derived from a mastering process that doesn't leverages the formats strengths. Another aspect of note is using adequate software and DACs.
![ANA[DIA]LOG](http://yt3.ggpht.com/50CpmGNilS8aoMlarZVhI_GxRDoZdbj4ZgwCMZXg-Rq2PrEvCytlE6RVyLUrNY-rwE_sAlZ1Zw=s48-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj)
I've been in Recording and Pro Audio for about 25 years and have listened to a lot of DSD. It's great. So is PCM. I have never once listened to something and said "Ohhh, I wish this was in DSD!!!" Never. Not once. I never even think about DSD unless someone tells me "it is DSD". It simply does not make an impactful difference to enjoying music. You are likely to hear a bigger difference if you have extra pillows on one side of your couch that the other, or a rug vs. carpet. or even a cold dry day vs. a hot humid day.
In fact it doesn't make any sense. In terms or recording, playback environment is important but a separate problem, you must simply do the best you can with the best equipment. Analog tape is by far the most engaging but native DSD has its emotion. Let's just leave aside conversions and enjoy the original recording format. Can't go wrong!
These analog/turntables aficionados like those Apollo 13 astronauts "Houston we have a problem" have a problem!!!!!! Thanks MoFi for exposing the grift.
You Missy be deaf because dsd clearly sound different to me. Just like vinyl sounds different.
Your comment is like one from people who actually never heard it. Same people that say cds sound better than vinyl. You know they actually don’t have a high quality vinyl player with high quality speakers.
@@vitorfernandes651Whatever makes you happy man. Its a minute "improvement". Try a Nul Test sometime with DSD Vs. even a 48K 24bit PCM source, much less higher resolutions. Not much to see there. But if it make you feel like you can hear music better than other people can, salut.
@@anadialogyou don't know what you're talking about, you're just making shit up. Maybe with vinyls being warm, but dsd does not "sound different" to pcm. Like, go study audio engineering. You will see.
DSD got a wide introduction 5 years ago. First, I was really skeptical, especially knowing it came from Sony. But then, I started working on DSD decoding and listen to a lot DSD samples. And then I realized how good it is sounding. Now I collect almost only DSD.
But, what about the Evel Sony being involved? I'd actually like to know, as most of my stuff is Sony. I've usually been fairly happy with the quality of their products, although, it does seem that they have been playing to the low end, even though they have always had a range of products from cheap to crazy expensive. at least they have some low end stuff for those of us who are poor.
Sorry, what's wrong with the guys who gave us the CD and Blu-ray?
@@andesneko nothing.
DSD was pioneered by Philips and Sony with the introduction of SACD, which uses single rate DSD
@@sammcrae8892 DSD that is not SACD does not require Sony equipment or chip to be played.
Thank you for this really excellent video and for sharing the files. This is the first time I've heard DSD on my DAC (Chord Hugo2). The track selection is also excellent. The higher resolution WAV files are definitely at a higher volume than the DSD which initially makes them sound more impressive. Normalising the volume, the higher rate DSD are very natural with each instrument clearly defined.
Thank YOU Neil!
Thank you to share my work at 2xHD with the Bill Evans that use Analog master tape to DSD ! We also do pure all analog copy from the master tapes on 1/4 inch 15 ips CCIR tapes. But analog master transfer to DSD and sometime to 352.8KHz/24 Bit give great digital. One other thing that change the result is the specific A/D converter used to do the transfer. You can try 2xHD Audiophile Analog Collection Vol.2 that use a new custom A/D in 352.8 24 bit that is pretty special. Rene Laflamme, 2xHD
Mr Laflamme thank you for your comment and for your work. Your analog transfers are amazing! 2xHD is among the best out there in doing this IMHO. Yes, I know of your tapes. Hope to get one soon!
Bought couple from 2xhd great work
@@scoobyrex247 Thank you so much ! René
One year after you presented this video it seems that DSD is making a resurgence. There are more than several recording companies that are going for DSD and to my ear they sound outstanding. Mark Levinson was one of the first to be a huge promoter of the SACD and if anyone is lucky enough to find his Red Rose sampler CD I think you will be in for a big surprise. Mark was actually able to get some of the best jazz musicians in New York City to record at least half of the music on this sampler and it’s almost impossible find now. The sound is nothing short of spectacular. I was lucky enough to purchase one from Mark when he opened a very small Red Rose audio salon on the east side of Manhattan. Among the new start ups is Octave Recordings which was started by Paul McGowan of PS Audio. He’s totally bought in to this DSP technology. I have listened to a few of his releases and they are incredible.
I agree, high quality DSD recordings are amazing. Thanks for sharing the Red Rose Samples info!
@@anadialog I started looking around on the web a few days ago to see if I could find another copy with no luck. I guess Mark did not make the
t many copies. He was selling them out of his store. Red Rose equipment was pretty cool though. I’m not sure who the designer of his electronics was under the Red Rose brand and the speakers as well. The CD player was a Sony SACD obviously. We spent about 20 minutes until he had another listening appointment.
PS AUDIO DSD recordings, unfortunately has lots of sampleing rate noise distortions in the signal, so much for the non distortion dsd signal. Makes me laugh, the supposed higher quality of PS AUDIO recordings is inferior to standard red book cd quality.
@@ianjohnhorwood2605 oops, that’s an interesting tidbit. I listen to Paul McGowan answer letters when I see the subject is DSD. I had no clue that the quality is not as good as PCM. That sounds like a disaster for his Dad business.
Super esaustivo, finalmente un po' di chiarezza! Grazie!
One issue for many audiophiles with playing DSD material, whether through dowloaded files or SACD discs, from the source to a DSD capable DAC, is that you can't do any manipulation whatsoever to the DSD signal without first converting it to PCM, which pretty much throws out the window the claimed SQ advantages of DSD under those circumstances.
If for instance you want to use any form of DSP like bass management, digital room correction (e.g. Dirac, ARC, Audiolense, Audyssey, etc) or even plain parametric EQ to reduce bloated bass caused by room induced standing waves, you have to convert the DSD signal to PCM as any of those forms of processing can't be done under DSD.
It's the same problem sound engineers are faced with in the recording studio. If they're going to do any mixing or signal processing as simple as a gain change, they have to convert a portion of the DSD signal to the DXD format (PCM), perform the desired processing in PCM and convert it back to DSD. Alternatively they could perform that processing on analog tape and convert it back to DSD. There exist no algorithms or math to perform an operation only on a one bit sample. That's why there are so few pure DSD recordings as indicated by the passionate host of this channel.
I have a descent collection of SACD recordings whether in classical music, jazz or rock and I personally find a greater benefit of using bass management to properly integrate my subwoofer and adding digital room correction than listening to that same recording in pure DSD mode directly decoded by the DAC. I believe that what has the greatest impact on SQ is the care taken by the experienced recording and sound engineers when producing the DSD recordings or any other format for that matter.
True, and there is literally no advantage to DSD. Just let it die.
Room correction dsp doesn't fix the sound of your room. Get proper room treatment instead. But you already know that...
@@ABC-rh7zc Let's kill PCM instead please. There's literally no advantage to PCM
@@limp6986 Um... DSP crossovers, digital mixing, digital EQ, etc. Did you even watch the video?
@@limp6986 I don't believe in idealistic and absolutist statements like the one you've made. Reality is more relative as Einstein would argue. I used to be more of a purist in my younger audiophile days. However with time and experience I've leaned to become more pragmatic and base my decisions on a more scientific and evidence based approach.
I'll start by addressing your second statement, i.e. your recommendation regarding room treatments. While I agree with you that proper room treatments should always be the first step, it's not always practical or even possible in every situation. Not everyone has the luxury of having a dedicated audio listening room large enough to accommodate room treatments. Think of a lot of places in Europe or Asia where appartments can be fairly small and even in North America in certain urban centers. I'll take as an example my own appartment. The only even remotely adequate room at my disposal is the living room; it's small at 13 x13 x 8 feet (4 x 4 x 2,4 meters). The right side is mostly flanked by two windows and a door leading to the balcony leaving no room for any treatment except for corner bass traps. The left wall is occupied by a couple of bookcases that contain my CD and Blu-ray collections while the front corner harbors my audio gear rack and the back corner is the entrance to the room making even the placement of corner bass traps allong that wall impossible. The only walls left for possible treatments are the front and back walls plus the ceiling. And I know of many people in similar situations. Furthermore, good luck with your second half letting you turn her living room into a recording studio. On top of that, add my 65-inch TV with a basic 5.1 multi-channel speaker setup, no way to even accommodate a 7.1 setup although I'd like to add a second subwoofer in the future. I hope you get the picture by now. So yes, as you stated, I know that proper room treatment is the ideal first step but as I hope you may have come to realize, it's not always practical or possible in every situation.
Now I'll address your first statement that room correction DSP doesn't fix the sound of one's room. There are many acousticians with PhDs that develop digital room correction (DRC) technologies, e.g. Acourate, Audiolense, Audyssey, Anthem ARC, Dirac Research, DEQX and Trinnov to name a few, that would strongly disagree with your opinion and that have performed many studies published in audio journals such as the AES. Many professional acousticians also use parametric EQ on top of room treatments to help reduce room standing waves even further. Realistically, no technology whether room treatments, DRC or DSP EQ can completely fix the sound of a room but from experience, I know that even DRC on its own can make a dramatic improvement in reducing standing waves and opening up the sound for the better.
Great, thank you for simply unpacking the differences from PCM and DSD.
the best video on dsd! especially the 'bad' section. bravo
Thanks!
Nice to see you again. No questions - DSD is better sounding - I have tested them myself. My problem with DSD is that most audiophile preamps/integrateds do not offer HDMI inputs. Therefore, most SACD players have to convert the signals into PMC - negating the benefits of DSD signals encoded onto the SACDs. Also, OPTICAL and COAXIAL cables cannot carry DSD signals (what you get is 44.1K/16bit). BUT, there is a better sounding format (even beating the DSD) ------> R2R tapes!
R2R quad tapes from 1970s on SACD (Pentatone) sound wonderful. My favourite is Mozart horn concertos (Alan Civil ASMF Marriner)
I ditched all my R2R tapes.
They were a huge pain in the arse.
The audio was an issue at times when the tape would stick passing through the heads. It was an inconvenient and overrated format. So glad I free of it. I love all the Digital formats and Vinyl.
I love your channel. My Breakfast in America SACD leaves any vinyl version of this album in the dust.
I have both the BluRay and SACD [MoFi] versions of Breakfast in America and SACD version is so much better. I totally agree except for the liner notes.
Thank you! DSD must be like mp3 in the future, the world must accept this change :D
😂
It'll happen soon enough.
Sadly it comes to MQA streaming compression...
Thanks for this great review.I am using the T+A Dac 8 DSD witch can handle
dsd without convert it to PCM.Most Dacs are doing this cause there are no more native DSD
D/A Converters produced.T+A writes: For the purpose of handling DSD data which can be supplied via the PC-USB input we have developed a unique, dedicated converter: the T+A True One Bit DSD Converter. This is of fully analogue construction and constitutes a genuine one-bit converter, since - unlike other manufacturers - we did not want to use the DSD mode of a PCM converter. This development ensures that DSD data are processed in a genuine one-bit stream process, uncoloured and without detrimental additional conversion.
Great machine, congrats!
Your T+A DAC is a excellent DAC. However, don't take the hook, line and sinker from T+A. Just about any good DAC chips produced in the last 15 years or so by companies like AKM, Analog Devices, Cirrus, TI Burr Brown and ESS Technology can decode DSD data streams natively inside the DAC chip despite the marketing claims made by T+A Elektroakustik.
Thank you very much for the post, very informative and contents make all sense. To me, DSD has more clarity and presence, totaling different sound. I often venture Native DSD and Chennel Musics, hoping their business run well. I also am enjoyed Qobuz by huge amount of hi-def music everyday (unfortunately only PCM)!
Same here!
Thanks for the tests and the paper. Very very interesting 🙂
Ok, One More Time without Notes!
(Kidding!😉)
Wow that was Awesome and A Lot!
Not sure I’ll do the test but will definitely check out the study/abstract!! Thanks!
Thank you Sam!
I like dsd and to my ear it delivers a deeper sound than PCM (especially 16/44.1Khz). Better dynamics (high are higher and bass is deeper). Especially at higher volume. My system (Denon rcd N10) is able to reproduce native dsd although being entry level.
Dynamic range is not about the hights of high tones and low of low sounds, its difference between the quietest and the loudest in the track and its measured in db
This is your best video , as informative as it is entertaining. 5.1 SACD is my favorite means to multichannel audio via an OPPO-205 . Other means to this recorded music in DSD or FLAC by downloading takes to many click and scroll actions to enjoy in the moment of interest. At any rate, SACD so far seems most ideal for recorded music listening pleasure.
Thanks Charles!
I have been listening to SACDS for over 10 years first on a philips system where the speakers are made of glass and had ribon tweeters on alll 5 speakers the advantage of SACD was mainly multich hi-res audio, now i have a yamaha system, SACD and DSD adds what i describe atmosphere and or emotion to the music it is very hard to describe but this is only heard on speakers capable of higher frequencies. Listening to them on HI-Res speakers really makes a differnce. All my speakers in the house are now Hi-Res speakers from Edifier, and then in my cinema room yamaha which has a crazy frequency range up to 60,000hz not like you will hear it but produces such a natural and clear sound, and so much emotion.. I would like to add a lot of SACDS are remastered from masters either Tape or Record. I can defently hear differences in SACDS some dont sound any better than CD while others sound incredible. I have a few PCM tracks but always go back to SACD/DSD
DSD files definitely have a special sound to them. Wish there was more content in that format. I always look for my albums in DSD first.
I like DXD better
@@mckidar DXD is just PCM.
same here
DSD 1024/128BIT
@@pracheerdeka6737 Cursed comment
This is such a better explanation than Paul gave. Thanks, man.
Found this vid from one of your others. I only recently discovered DSD( through SACD) I ended up buying a Denon SACD Player (Denon DCD 1600NE) and am really impressed with the Music( from the pure direct mode particularly).
Nice exposition that does not glorify DSD. Nor does it trash PCM ! Good job ! Well done !
Thanks for this. I reasonable attempt at explaining a VERY complicated field...
By recording in DSD even if you transfer to PCM and back to DSD, the mastering on SACD's will always be better because it avoids the loudness wars. Clipping in DSD shows up as direct distortion unlike PCM. SACD's will be distortion free and must be, and this is similar to how vinyl works as well. It's not that PCM can't sound good, but DSD has to sound good. That's the guarantee you are getting when you buy an SACD. Different mastering.
PDM and PCM are entirely equivalent; SACDs contain recordings that could be put on ordinary CDs and sound exactly the same.
Hi, ive been comparing dsd and pcm of the same album. I dunno but the highs are just better in every way vs the pcm/flac. Its maybe because of the dac or something but dsd just sounds natural. Anyway, nice video.
Excellent video. Thumbs up. Looked at the Mussorgsky files on MusicScope. DSD frequency spectrum looks very clean, but the PCM has two noise spikes one at 76.9kHz and the other at 95kHz. They vary slightly in amplitude during the track, but are mostly fixed. Fixed pitch ultrasonic tones can cause audible problems (broad spectrum ultrasonic noise in DSD doesn't). Nelson Pass tells a story of Telarc producers having a problem with the sound of a recording. Using frequency spectrum analysis, Pass discovered a 35kHz tone in the recording, which was the cause of the problem. As far as PCM, no delta sigma DACs over here. NOS ladder DACs fix most of the problems with PCM playback for me.
Interesting!
I think it pertains to your excellent "Sound beyond 20 kHz" video. The ultrasonic tone may create a "dysharmonic" effect that is very unpleasant to the listener. The anecdote may be in this YT video th-cam.com/video/7u9OKPL1ezA/w-d-xo.html starting at the second harmonic distortion generator discussion. Also, interesting topic. In phase 2nd harmonic creates detail and presence. Out of phase 2nd harmonic creates an illusion of spaciousness and increased soundstage.
I never heard digital audio sound so good than with DSD files thru my external DAC player. It just sound fuller and more appealing to my ears. I'm in the process up upsampling my Flac files to DSD256 and loving the results.
Great Topic. Being a fan of DSD ( old analog stuff that's put on DSD) I hoping I'm able to keep an objective open mind when comparing your music files :-)
That "old analog stuff" is gold, and sounds outstanding and natural!
I have played your tracks in foobar with the SACD addon (I know it's not really DSD going to my amp), and used the spectrogram visualization, not only I can hear the difference on my speakers, but I can see a HUGE difference on the spectrogram. The DSD sounds much more real than PCM.
Cool! Thanks for sharing that!
Foobar doesn’t do spectrogram in DSD mode, it’s not capable of that.
Excellent Post/Files ! It is necessary to use same Player/DAC to compare. DSD is superior, more granularity. PCM seems heavy, velveted, politically correct. DSD is really Fantastic !
Also it’s important to note that most high end DACs that use FPGA employ Sigma/Delta DSD schemes which means they upsample and decode everything as DSD. DACs like the Mola Mola Tambaqui, dCS Bartok, and Chord Dave do this as an example.
@@crapmalls Essentially yes. All FPGA DACs like the Chord dave employ the Sigma Delta format which is the basis for how DSD works. You can google it for more info.
It's pretty hard to get good dsd files, real native dsd. A lot of it online as well, is ripped from vinyl with the same dynamic range of vinyl and tons of noise. A good dsd 256 is just better then anything else. It's fluid as liquid, pours out like water. SACD is dsd 64. Sounds real good as well with modern dacs. Most of my dsd is 128, but as I said it's real hard to get, unless you are wealthy and can buy it online for big bucks. I don't like PCM. Upsampling is bunk. I don't use computers to play music files. I use a DAP with hardware DAC, not a chip. I also have a small unit with two ESS Sabres, big difference but the small one can go in my pocket. I really like your explanations. I have tried to tell people that the air up above 22khz affects the audible noise, no one believes me.
If you ever played back a 24bit recording & cut everything off from 44.1 & lower on a master quality album you can hear what your missing sometimes its nothing sometimes its amazing
I listened to the PCM vs. DSD selections repetitively and there is one problem with this comparison that my ears picked up. The volume of the PCM tracks is louder than the DSD tracks. And typically something that plays louder usually sounds better, at least initially. Anyone doing a listening test to compare the PCM vs. the DSD should pay attention to ensuring the playback volume is equal. It would also be nice to know the provenance of each track, as this can make a difference in the sound quality. I.E. how was each track originally recorded, mixed and mastered, are any of the tracks up-sampled, how were they up-sampled, etc.? This gets to the point made in the video about "certification" of the derivation of the music we are listening to. Regardless, to my ears, the PCM 192 and 352.8KHz did sound really good, but once volume was equilibrated, my ears preferred the better resolution and less glare of the DSD 128 and 256 tracks of the "Saxaphone". On "Pictures", my ears told me the DSD was far superior to the PCM 192, even regardless of the volume difference.
Indeed. DSD been created to make artifical linearity of analog sound wave. With that in mind that insane sample rates / second at least trying to create that. That is why superior to PCM, at least in my opinion. Anadialog is very right when his pointing that out making a record in native DSD, then convert it to pcm is a non-sense step. Logically obvious. You record something in pcm, then convert to mp3, then back to pcm? :) Funny movement even from studios and I think that is just a stupid and lazy explanation instead of using pure DSD all over the recording line. Better to record everything in full analog, master and mix in analog, and then, only after that you can record it purely to a user ready DSD. Sounds simple, but for cost cut, etc. they just cheat, most of the time. Every kind of conversion leads to degradation in sonic quality, upsampling is also part of stupidity in audio. You CAN NOT get any better from your source doesn't matter where and how you convert it. Still can't believe how over their 20's (think so) people can even think about it.
One more word for Anadialog. I am 100% with you with the certification theme, how can we trust or believe what we paying for? Mostly no explanation how did they sourced their files, which is IMO really frustrating and dishonest with all the consumers.
The DSD has got a fine DB rate and is not compressed as the Flac (not the codec) probably using 16 bit for 44kHz can be. If you turned down the level of the DSD you cannot hear anything but i have to get the cue sheet for instance made out of Foobar to see the comparaison between the level of compression so that the dynamic is evacuated out of the range of that possibility. But then the phenomenon is rather normal due to the DB and i wondered how did you miss that point.
I Edit: this the same record then, a compression was applied on both maybe 10 if there is a large portion of music that differs, normally if that portion of dynamic is low, you can be sure to find a louder DSD too but on a different level due to the excellence of the DB, you should feel a form of noisy background. Is the flac and the DSD compressed equally ? DR please.
Interesting video, same way of thinking about DSD as PS audio CEO thinks about it, and i love this. I use a DAC, a stereo amplifier connected with RCA cinch of high quality, a computer totally tweaked using free Hi-Res player (Music Bee and Wtfplay (linux distribution burned onto USB stick) and my god all the CD versus DSD sounds...like horrible noise excepting impressive Jazz or Classical ( Pointing out here the excellence of any ECM records).
Just discovered this channel, very interesting, I just downloaded the files and certainly will provide my feedback, while it seems based on the comments DSD is preferred just let's take into consideration the actual test is being performed with a Sigma Delta based ADC (Analog to Digital Converter), each method of conversion ADC and DAC has its pros and cons and SDM based ADC's / DAC's tend to provide better conversion encoding and reproducing DSD content. There is also an endless amount of noise shapers, modulators and filtering techniques which most of you knowing what HQPlayer is probably will know. Also when listening to the results the DAC side will use either SDM chips, FPGA's, PCM based R2R ladder type conversion which will (poison is the wrong word) but will taint and steer the results towards the method of reproduction.
To the channel owner thank you for the content you provide, I hope you don't take my comments the wrong way, I'm just saying the testing method encoding and deconding (playing back) the music "could favor" DSD over others
I am just glad to see you are okay. Thanks for your efforts
Thank you Socrates, stay safe too!
I just took the survey. It needed some instructions or I missed them. We had 9 track and scale 1-10. Where we to rate them 1-9; I didn’t. I rated them each on scale of what would be perfection - no 10s given. I also want to say that the DSD files played at the same volume level as the PCM were not as loud and seamed less detailed. but, when I increased the volume to match that of the PCM they had, to me, a touch more resonances and a bit more detail. The Bass notes were a bit more defined. Both systems got better with higher sampling rates. BUT I’m still learning how to “listen” and describe what I hear and my system is not fully tweaked - if it ever will. I enjoyed the test and look forward to the results and possibly more like this! :)
Great, thanks!
For what i,ve gathered from wiki is that a signal from pcm (let’s say 16bit or 24bit)
First has to be downsampled to 1bit by quantizing the signal in order to save tons of memory space.dithering is used to remain most of the original signal.
To cancle out noise,
(I would’t by surprised if a declipping argorithm is used as well to remove clipping caused by quantization) high 1bit to 24bit upsampling as well as analizing noise and adding an inverted noise of that extracted noice signal to it sothat the unwanted noise will cancle out each other.
Upsampling to 380khz along with interpolation is used to push the remaining unwanted noice signal to insudible frequencies as well as smoothing up the signal while a lowpass filter is used to futher reduce noise.
This way they could not only approximate the original signal from the source material, but even improve on it at average.
Sir, very good your video. Congratulations!!
I had a little idea about the subject and with your video I was able to increase my knowledge. As soon as possible (in Brazil the prices of good equipment are very high), I'll buy a DAC that can read DSD512 and then test your files.
Thank you so much for the great work!!
You are a Master! Music on Analog forever! Thank you!!
Thank YOU!
Listened to Pictures at an Exhibition - as pointed out the PCM file is louder than the DSD. Comparing them at the same volume the DSD sounds dry and clinical whereas the PCM conveys the recording venue reverb better.
I love the way you have an analogue record deck sitting next to you!
The "kiss" back album catalog reissues was cut with double DSD! And most of them sound like they were cut from tape! I definitely recommend cutting vinyl masters using tape foremost , but if not the Double DSD is a very close alternative!
The early
SACD releases mastered from analogue tape via analogue mastering chain an final step is a A/D Converter so the whole process voa analogue. That’s why the early SACD are diamonds
At the end of the day, it comes down to the tangible 'deliverable'. Most competent studios are employing Merging Technologies 'Horus' and 'Hapi' converters as well as 'Pyramix' and 'Masscore' systems, and I'll bet you a dime to a doughnut that all modern-day music is being archived at DSD256. Regarding the final conclusion of the AES Convention Paper-9019, Why can't modern music genres be delivered in SACD-form at DSD128? StereoSound's Wagner Ring-Cycle SACD's were the perfect approach; 12-inch artwork and booklet with the optical format inside instead of vinyl. I still can't fathom the allure of vinyl; it is dust-prone, fragile, warping, and cumbersome...Deep down, I think I know what the objective problem is. Thanks
Good video - I agree with your ideas for DSD certifications right now we just don't know how the files have been treated. It's a bit like the state of food 30 years ago before organic certifications made things clearer.
Do an A/B comparison with the HDCD from WEA/Rhino & SACD from MoFi of Workingman’s Dead. The HDCD is beautiful! The SACD is truly a notch above, actually a big & beautifully resonant notch!
I confirmed to be PCM believer after testing your files and from my own files.
DSD1024 is for audio, what 8k is for video quality, Ultra Ultra high quality.
I wonder if I will one day see an 8k BluRay movie with a DSD1024 audio track one day.
But remember the DSD that you talk about is only stereo (2channels), I can't imagine the size of a 22.2 surround sound audio file for a 2hour long movie in DSD1024...
what a time to be alive
only on live concert videos
You literally can't hear the difference. DSD is a gimmick. It's not like having an 8k tv. It's like having a tv that emits X-ray light. You literally can't tell the difference.
DSD is totally useless and all that you need is object based surround sound with wave field synthesis on calibrated speakers. DSD would not make this any better. It's just useless bs for idiots.
Thank you for an excellent video. Just a couple of comments. I think you mentioned early on that Sony is no longer supporting SACD and that's true. I was told by a friend that the reason for that decision is that an opportunist pop artist, who records for Sony, thought it might be possible to extract three lots of royalties (CD layer, SACD layer and multichannel SACD layer) for every copy of the artist's many SACD albums that had sold and when Sony refused to oblige, that artist took Sony to court to contest it and won. Sony decided that would set a precedent and immediately decide to stop producing SACDs. A recent TH-cam video I watched involving PS Audio's CEO Paul McGowan, who is convinced that DSD is the most analogue-sounding digital format currently available and superior sounding to even high resolution PCM formats, mentioned a filter called a Zephyr filter that I believe PS Audio is developing for its Octave Records productions and my understanding is that he thinks it could provide the ideal answer for editing DSD files. I have no idea how far advanced that development is, and I guess only time will tell if it will work as anticipated. I love DSD myself and have bought a number of albums from Native DSD Music and I also have a large collection of SACDs.
Interesting, I didn't know that! I have some DSD recordings from Octave records...I must admit that I wasn't impressed by them...
I just purchased a PS Audio Transport plus PS Audio Direct Stream HR DAC with I2S makes all my CD/SACD's sound great as the DAC upsamples PCM and DSD to 20xDSD rate. Synergy within the brand probably makes a big difference rather than mixing brands. I think DSD makes digital recordings sound the best provided the mastering or lack of mastering is done properly. I don't stream as I believe SACD/CD's sound better with DSD.
Hi William I felt compelled to comment on your purchase of the PS Audio Transport and DirectStream DAC, as I've just done the same thing. Well, I actually placed the order here in New Zealand back in mid October then paid for them at the end of the month (they're the most expensive items of Hi-Fi equipment I've ever bought, surpassing what I paid for my Acoustat SPECTRA 6600 electrostatics last century) and then the company has had to manufacture them (made to order) and I was told they were shipped last Thursday (9 Dec). I hope I'll receive them by Christmas but I think it will be tight. Glad to read that you're enjoying yours so much. I'm certainly looking forward to hooking mine up (like you I'm going to use the I²S HDMI cable 5o connect the two units). John Marchington
@@johnmarchington3146so how does it sound?
Interesting video! My only device which fully supports DSD playback is my Sony Walkman NW-A45 (I'm very happy with it btw). However, using a pair of Senheiser HD650 headphones I have to be honest and say that I could barely tell any differences between the DCD and the hires PCM files, they all sounded great to me. I may have said otherwise if I had access to a proper DSD playback device in my stereo system.
When native, IMO it is more evident and in most cases superior to high-res PCM...but not always...
@@anadialog I still have to give it a proper listen with a DSD compatible device in my stereo system! I may change my mind!
I love your videos and can’t help to agree with virtually everything. As I may have mentioned, at my studio, we do 16 track analog and digital (PCM and Merging DSD) recording. One thing, you do NOT have to convert to PCM (or DXD) to run EQ, mixing or Effects with DSD. Instead, you do it all in the analog domain on the input side. Then you are simply left with straight cuts done in DSD with no conversion. Obviously, non of this is trivial.
Also, just like all analog gear is not the same, DSD gear is not at all created equal. When I first went from other very good and expensive digital gear over to Merging (a Swiss company now owned by Neumann), i realized I could never go back to what is otherwise great pro digital gear. However, you also need high rail to rail voltage analog gear (at least 100 Volts) and good, clean power to take full advantage of what high end DSD can deliver compared to all but the very, very highest pure analog, which no other studio I have been to actually has or uses due to cost of acquisition, operation and maintenance. Short of that, DSD is not a limiting factor in your recording or playback chain, while much of the popular “high quality” analog and digital gear is.
Thx!!
I have now a really good dac (Denafrips Ares 2) that convert good in DSD. My choice is made: go for the best... DSD. And if you can find native DSD, go for it, you will be on heaven!
How are you getting your DSD signal through your Aries ll. There's no instruction as to which buttons I should engage........like the instruction for high pass filtering etc.....
Thank you for saving me the expense of wasting my money on a new DSD capable DAC to replace my good working recently overhauled vintage and not really obsolete MSB Platinum DAC. I have a few 5 channel SACDs which can only be played on an OPPO player which may not last forever. I put all my 175 of my CDs on a USB flash drive and stick in into a server which I connect to my MSB Platinum DAC with a buffer to get rid of jitter. I no longer buy CDs, I download PCM. Otherwise I use some vinyl.
Very informative and pleasing to watch. Thank you
Very helpful. Answered many of my questions.
"We say, we think that, more or less..."
I think we found the audio equivalent of Sir Humphrey - At the appropriate juncture... In the fullness of time... 🤣🤣🤣
Thank you very very much really. I didn't know that there was a PCM converting process.
So, I downloaded the samples from NativeDSD and Blue Coast Records, and while nice, I found your own DSD dubs MUCH more impressive. I guess that says more about the reel-to-reel format (and your DAC) than anything else. Oh, and I liked the great sound quality of Saxophone Colossus enough that I hope to track down an SACD copy, and I'm not even really a jazz guy...
How cool!!!!! You really got a wide picture now. I wasn't expecting that. Very interesting!
You are a great teacher! Thanks for the lesson.
Still scouring the World for Mo-Fi Original Master Recording and Japanese SHM SACDs simply because they sound so damn good on my system and to my ears in comparison to vinyl or CD.
I think the best way to understand the difference between PCM vs DSD is to look up the difference between Pulse Code Modulation and Pulse Density Modulation. It tells you everything you need to know. Don't get too hung up on signal to noise ratio and frequency response. It's all about bit depth, aka the number of times a digital converter takes a picture of the analog waveform. If you use the photograph analogy, think of it as how many times a second does digital take a picture of the analog waveform. More pictures in a given period of time means better resolution.
I hear a big difference between PCM and DSD in these recordings. Compare the first 19 seconds on the Sonny Rollins. Then hone down on the main instrument from 10-19 secs. DSD sounds more real...the slap of his hands on the drum has more realistic timbre than any version of PCM from 88-352kHz.
Across the whole clip DSD has a bigger soundstage and more distinct imaging. The instruments just sound more real and crucially I can hear the room better.
For me, all of these elements combined better recreate the experience of being there.
Anthony Mak what do I need for my pc to play DSD?
@@namichidigitalaudio Foobar2000 with SACD plugin or AIMP player.
@@edfort5704 no direct dsd cards? my motorola droid 4 plays dsd128 but if i cat /proc/asound/card0/hw_params it shows pcm 16bit 44.1kHz So I therefore ask what sense does it make to play dsd if it gets converted to pcm? Is it worth the file size? I can hear more dynamic range
@@Suppboio I don't know for sure how the PC software works, but dsd stuff sounds amazing compared to anything else I've ever heard from an audio recording/storage/playback medium. Try it...and don't stop at the first file you hear if you're not impressed at first hear. But I think you will be....I definitely was.
@@edfort5704 i tried dsd128 on my pc on windows. Most is dsd64. It sounds good.
Thanks for another interesting video. I seem to have quite a few Cd's with DSD mentioned, and some of my Linn SACD' s also mention this. Keep up the good work and stay safe.
Thanks Nick! You too!
Linn SACD's are superb! (though recorded in PCM)
It's fun, noise shaping is a consequence of 1 bit VS PCM where you have to add and shape
What is also fun is that adc and dac are delta sigma 1,3... Bits oversample
DSD is the way to go. I invited people to try it on my very inexpensive gear, SMSL M7 with Archel 2.5 Pro and T50RP Mk3(I am just starting, don't kill me) and had them come back to me about their TV doesn't sound good anymore. Yes I am building my collection from Native DSD, but nobody does it right. We have 2 ears, 2 channels, true balanced equipment (I will get there), put 2 god damn microphones in the room and record that performance in DSD. Unfortunately nobody does that.
You can also skip recording to analog tape by recording to DSD, mixing and mastering using analog outboard gear, and capturing the mix/master in DSD.
Great information. Thank you!
Mobile Fidelity (and I'm sure most of your viewers know exactly who that is) remasters vintage albums and offers them on audiophile quality vinyl and SACD, so they are actively supporting the format. Additionally, more of the major labels are remastering their classic titles from the original analog master tapes to DSD, to archive for themselves and to resell to the consumer on vinyl, PCM digital files, DSD files, SACD, etc. So, the format is fairly active and will hopefully continue to grow and be improved.
You may be interested in this comparison I made: th-cam.com/video/xtIdGDk4g0M/w-d-xo.html
I’m breaking in my new Holo May DAC and I listened to my first DSD track today. Wow! Sounds amazing but OMG the file sizes are crazy huge.
Yes, that is a true problem. I keep my files in the cloud...but then you have to download them to listen to them...not practical! I wish they made SACD with DSD256 resolution.
What cloud service do you use and how much storage space do you have on your plan? It must be pretty expensive to maintain a decent sized library of DSD files in the cloud.
Dropbox but I have only a few tracks...I'm an analog and tactile guy, remember? ;-)
With the ever-falling cost, and ever increasing storage, of hard drives nowadays, file sizes shouldn’t be an issue
@@steviemusic1 I’m using M2 Thunderbolt 3 drives which are not cheap. An 8GB drive costs $1400. And one song in DSD256 is around one gigabyte in file size which is insanely big even if you had a very large platter based drive array. One FLAC 24bit 96khertz song at 10 minutes is around 32MB while the same song in DSD 256 is around 900MB.
Amazing info. Thank you so much for the explanation.
Thank you for explaining a very complicated set of subjects
Thank YOU!
Hi,Great infos,many thanks.Have downloaded a Vivaldi record from HDtracks
in DSD 512 with 37 Gigayte,means you have much space on your harddisk.
That is why I record my DSD and other high-res albums on top notch quality cassettes!
great explanation ,thanks 😊
Hi just tested the 128DSD against PCM 192 on both files on my system as well as headphones listening and I have come to the conclusion their is no discernible difference I can hear, I believe a lot of this is placebo effects, you make yourself want hear differences, these analogue captures will have a lot of coloration due to the tapes playback and will have a lot of noise in the high band plus a 30khz bias trap frequency will also be present, I did a test with a Hi Res digital file using three variations 320k Lossy 16/44.1 PCM and 24/96 PCM, the tracks were edited and mixed back together thus splicing the three separate file into one an saving to 24/96, when played back no one noticed over the duration of the track when lossy or lossless was being heard. I still believe the quality of playback is more down to the recording mixing and mastering
Obviously recording, mixing and mastering are more important. Its not an opinion, its a fact. We are focusing on what WE can do to make that work better sounding. For the test I am waiting till the end of the survey.
The CD should have been SACD from the start in 1982!
We didn't have cost efficient processing chips capable of operation in megahertz frequencies back then.
Why, standard redbook 16bit/44.1khz is more than enough for human hearing. DSD and high sample rate audio usually just sounds better because the original recording or remaster was done with high fidelity in mind. DSD almost always starts out as PCM for mastering and then converted to DSD. SACD was a BS move by Sony for better copyright protection and to resell their audio catalog all over again and double dip you wallet.
@@iowaudioreviews 5.1 channel playback is pretty fun though
cd often sounds better
Well you explained (quite well) why I can't hear ANY difference between the CD and the DSD layer on my (small) collection of Hybrid SACD re-issues.
And the Bell Tolls for Thee...
Quick, quick, super quick question...
I am looking for an easy way to convert an analog signal into a digital signal, and then encode that digital information directly onto an analog medium (such as an extremely low speed VHS tape) while still having it work on old analog equipment.
For example, look at a Time Lapse VCR; they can get an insane amount of crystal clear footage off of a single tape and even get frame perfect pausing. But because the tape is moving in discrete steps, audio cannot be recorded this way. If one were to try recording the audio in steps, well... You can only do that digitally as far as I'm aware.
Try to record the tape at a continuous speed, then you can do audio, but at those extremely low speeds the video quality suffers, making it basically useless for CCTV security setups.
So how would I produce a digital signal that can be played on analog equipment without a dedicated decoder?
Well the dedicated invention for that is DAT! Digital Audio Tape. If you get a DAT recorder you just need to feed it an analog signal. Otherwise you can get a analog to digital interface for conversion, like those famous focusright interfaces, and then record that on any kind of tape, clearly when recording traditionallyike cassettes or VHS the signal will be converted back to analog. If your goal is to record digital DATA then you will need a DAT recorder as explained above or a computer for other types of tape. There are tutorials online to do so. DAT and VHS are the best solution IMO.
@@anadialog Analog (or analog-like) sound is actually the end goal, I’m mostly just trying to find a work around for not being able to record the audio while the tape is moving in discrete steps. Sorry for the confusion, I didn’t know how to explain it correctly yesterday, and I probably still don’t.
See the video on Time Lapse VCRs by Technology Connections to see what I mean by discrete steps. In the intended application, runtime is more important than audio fidelity, but even poor quality audio would be better than no audio :v
I now know better. Thank you for this great info.
Thanks you for interesting topic.
ha i wasnt expecting enough of a difference with the files for me to tell, but to me the dsd sounded quite a bit better, even though i really couldn't tell the difference between 64/128 etc. interesting
Informative. Thanks.
Some notes for those who might have downloaded the files for the test. Even though my preamp/processor decodes DSD and has an active USB port for input, it did not even recognize the DSD files and thought those folders were empty. (I think this might be because some hardware will not decode DSD over a USB port.) So, I plugged the USB into my Oppo, which also supports DSD. Even though the player recognized and listed all the DSD files, it would only play the DSD64 file. I'm not sure if it was the Oppo and/or my pre-pro that could not play 128 and 256 files.
As for the test, my expectation going in was that I would hear no difference. To my surprise, my ears heard a fairly large difference between PCM and DSD. I found the DSD to have much more depth and "3D" type of sound, more detail and texture, and more "air" between the instruments vs. the PCM. I was impressed. I should probably note that I listened with HifiMAN Sundara planar headphones. Thanks for providing these files so we can all listen for ourselves.
Thanks for your feedback, very few did that! For me it's important to read your impressions!
DSD is the future way! Hope the music industry will follow!
The future ? The industry abandoned alternative 'hi-res' formats years ago - they simply didnt sell.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Definition_Compatible_Digital
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Resolution_Compact_Disc
Given that few consumers even buy CDs any more, its all a bit moot but if you are serious about DSD you need to be investing in Roon and the PC or Mac capable of upsampling PCM to DSD on the fly.
@@arthurwatts1680 Anyway, the future always leads to the best triumph, right? Or come close ...
I believe in a larger sampling which respects more the natural curve of the sounds. The DSD has proven that it does it better than anything.
The market, even if streaming gets the ball rolling, will come. There is no reason now with the extensive storage as it is now that we should not come to it.
Your links are explanations of the formats, not a vision, a projection of what will come.
I listen to Diana Krall in DSD (Turn up the quiet) and I have no doubt that anyone who listens to it in DSD will be convinced that this is the format of the future.
for recording orchestra maybe, but in practical, most studio are maxed out at 192khz pcm and even at that it's rare to see one. even my own music production I only max at 96khz because of how hard our current CPU processors just cant handle these high sampling rate. not to mention when you turn on the supersample it's gonna be a hell of buffer to push with DACs...
Can highly recommend. High Definition Tape Transfer. from Canada 😅
Not a big fan also because sometimes the tracks come from 4track tapes and not the original masters
My acronym collection just got What The Fucked
14:40 Just call it "filtering" because it is called "filtering". A simple concept 😅
Thanks for the video.
Hi!
A few corrections 😉
Even though SACD was introduced in 1999 with the Sony series-1 products, the DSD technology actually dates back all the way to seventies. As a matter of fact, DSD was briefly considered for the CD standard but it was quickly decided against it. The reasons were valid though: unpreparedness of the semiconductor industry (ICs) to produce hardware that would be powerful enough, the inability to edit DSD in digital domain (which is still a problem even today) and Sony’s inability to create an optical disc that would carry 60 minutes of music in DSD on a disc that is significantly smaller than vinyl. Even though DSD was mathematically promising, it was decided that PCM, a technology that’s been present since the sixties (thanks largely to companies like Nippon Columbia aka Denon), would be the format selected for the CD. DSD remained an idea until mid-nineties when Sony (not Philips though!) tried to improve upon CD and replace it with SACD.
This isn’t a technology forum so I won’t get deep into it but what is typically overlooked with DSD is the fact that the D/A convertor is essentially a low-pass filter (meaning it passes only the frequencies below a certain point and filters all the frequencies above that point) and I want to stress just how important this component is. It is impossible to make this component cheaply as it has a dramatic influence on the final outcome. Even if you did everything right before this final stage of low-passing a signal (power supplies, separation of analogue and digital circuits etc.), it would all be nullified if the low-pass filter was overlooked. Sadly, this is where manufacturers cut costs because it is one of the more expensive parts of a typical D/A convertor and as a result, a convertor will have greater distortion when decoding DSD as opposed to PCM. In an ideal world, a DSD-capable D/A convertor would have completely separate circuits for DSD and PCM. It would be so expensive that no one could afford to manufacture it.
IMHO, PCM sounds just as good as DSD. In my experience, with the music that I have, the best of DSD can be had with SACD being played in an SACD player. Trying to play DSD files on your computer and have it decoded by an external D/A convertor can be problematic and it seems to me that the more “exotic” (for a lack of a better word) the equipment gets, the more problematic it becomes. The problems only multiply with higher speed DSD.
Cheers!
There you are. Well, I don't feel I made a mistake. I am talking about DSD they way we know it an d presented to the public by Philips and Sony. For the rest, nothing on contrast with my video. Thanks for the extra info. In my opinion we are facing something similar to a compander than a filter, since noise shaping is the key element in this format.
@@anadialog “In my opinion we are facing something similar to a compander than a filter”
No, not at all. Companding deals with dynamics. The proper term is filtering. Also, it is not a matter of an opinion as the principles of the technology are rather well known. You may have an opinion on the usefulness of the technology or how it serves the music instead. 😉
I remember that Whitne Houston's voice in the movie bodyguard on hi-fi VHS sounded much better than the CD her voice sounded much more natural. You may remember when she was at the guard's parents' house we that little wooden bridge and sang. maybe it's just the record label that ruined her voice with the equalizer
I'm sure that's one reason, vinyl is so popular, even if the original source was digital and/or flat & loud! It's simple and what ever was first used, the analoge warms, has more info and the rising of the low frequency, gives it a soulful feeling. I'm sticking with my CDs, HDCD or not. cause I can program and make custom CDs. Prefer original source analog. Must use headphones to listen too and most orig. digital sounds so, so.
Absolutely great video explaining lots and lots. Only, it is not great talking about "noise shaping" without explaining it.
i think we agree re converting and resampling, etc. i recently had someone tell me that they were converting all their flac to dsd. my internal monologue was “whats the point!?” to me at best it will sound like the 16 bit 44100 information it was built on. you cant add new information by reformatting your music.
I could only compare the DSD64 and 24bit/96K and 24bit/192K and 24bit 88.2K. Using the Sonny tracks and after allot of switching between the tracks I prefer (I think) the DSD64. The first few seconds of the SAX told me that the PCM tracks had a more pronounced presence (not really more treble or treble sheen but a bit more forward). This improved with the higher sample rates but the difference were very small. I could happily live with all of them. Shame I couldn't try DSD128 as my DAC/Streamer CA 851N can do that. I have to confess I didn't do any blind testing. I will repeat this when I have others here to do more listening. I will do it as a single blind test on them.
Hai detto cose molto interessante. Fino a che hai detto che sei italiano ho potuto sentire la tua pronuncia con l'influenza dall'inglese.
When comparing formats, it's important to level match (DSD usually has lower volume), use speakers that reproduce frequencies above 20-22khz as DSD provides information beyond these (it's said that these high frequencies help pinpoint spacial cues about elements of the recording) and beware about the quality of the mastering. You can have a pcm recording from a source beautifully mastered and a DSD derived from a mastering process that doesn't leverages the formats strengths. Another aspect of note is using adequate software and DACs.
You can't hear past 20k, you are literally clueless. Go learn about nyquist theorem.
Holy shit, you're funny. Yeah keep believing facts actually make a difference to sound. It doesn't.
Hard drive company's will be on board!