Sell DACs.Care to let us know what DSD does better than PCM?
Sell DACs.Care to let us know what DSD does better than PCM?
So converting from PCM to DSD (or DSD to PCM) in software introduce noise..... ic, but audiophiles do claim that they hear a better quality sound though....
None of these have had any significant impact on music recordings. Almost all multichannel music recordings released on disc are SACD. Multichannel PCM (not Dolby/dts) has recently become a factor in file downloads.SACD is MultiChannel and for those who care, this is great. still MCH is easily accomplished with PCM, e.g. the various Dolby and DTS surround formats
Unfortunate but true. So?.... meanwhile DVD-A is DEAD.
Sure. Mebbe it will happen, mebbe not. Has nothing to do with DSD.If there were enough demand you could see streaming MCH music. I recently clocked 125 Mb/s on my North Miami Internet connection ... Enough to pump out any sane number of (PCM ) channels/ MCH with 4 K video on top of it ...
I have no idea? Is there a measurable difference?
Care to let us know what DSD does better than PCM?
There is nothing wrong in this post, but DSD can't produce same quality as PCM does in REAL world because of ultranoise. Actually, even PCM is not converted on its own bit and sampling rate. In modern delta-sigma DAC chips, PCM files are converted to about 5bit, oversampled sample rate file which is 5bit version of dsd. The reason that chip manufacturers use 5bit architecture is to reduce the amount of ultrasonic noise. It means simpler filter stage on amplifier and better performance.DSD is not a wonderful format that most on the other forums think. It's a capable format that can work just as well as PCM, and can reproduce at least the same signal, with the same accuracy, as PCM, maybe at the cost of significant file size increase. It's not limited by the same Nyquist frequency as PCM, but that's of little value when comparing it to say 24/96KHz. I don't need all those extra frequencies, as I can't hear ultrasound and they are ultimately filtered out anyway before output.
The quantization noise generated by DSD is normally dealt with in a proper implementation. It's shifted out of audio band, and then filtered out.
What DSD does allow is a simpler hardware relative to a PCM. You don't even need a proper DAC to convert DSD to analog, an output filter will work if fed the DSD 1bit stream. Maybe in some DAC instances DSD can result in a higher fidelity playback. Then it might make sense to convert. Maybe, but not IME.
So when are you getting to the advantages of DSD. #2 isn't an advantage. #3 is rarely going to be the situation for commercial recordings. Rarely as in not even 1/10th of 1% of the time. Plus I see no problem making PCM into another format. Easy to do and is done all the time. Which also means #1 isn't really a particular advantage of DSD.I am not an expert in recording technologies but a consumer of music as many of us in here ... And I happily consume it in both DSD * and PCM formats, hoping they can both live in parallel as complementary recording methodologies for many years to come ...
* for that reason, I purposely bought a dedicated DSD DAC, the DS-DAC 100 from Korg
Reading here and there, experts in recording say for example :
#1 - "DSD is the best way to archive analog recordings if one needs maximum flexibility to release in different digital formats. DSD can be converted easily, without decimation errors into any PCM sample and bit rate. PCM is not so flexible."
#2 - "If a project requires multi-tracking, dubbing, and EQ corrections, PCM is a far better recording choice than DSD. Many bands use PCM, click-tracks, and multi-tracking because, frankly, they're not good enough to do an entire song in one take perfectly. Other reasons for using PCM include recording situations where instruments can't be recorded all in one take such as when a drum track is needed behind an acoustic guitar. Drums are so much louder that they bleed into the guitar's microphones, which requires either isolating the drums (sometimes in another room in the studio) or forcing the drummer to play at unnaturally low levels."
#3 - "DSD is best for live recordings of acoustic concerts. If one only needs two tracks, plan to mix down (if needed) real-time and don't need to use any overdubs or additional tracks, DSD is the way to go. With DSD, the recording engineer can easily generate a 44.1/16 version as well as 96/24 and 192/24 files. With even the simple the editing program AudioGate from Korg one can do edits, fade-ins and fade-outs, and all his PCM conversions, if needed."
In no relevant way for audio applicationscryogenically treated cables does actually change the material property of wires.
In the imaging world, the equivalent of DSD would be halftone printing.It is like shooting JPEG in-camera vs converting JPEG from a RAW.
8-bit vs 12/14-bit > 8-bit, everybody can tell the difference.
One of the technical merits of DSD, is its high sampling rate/bandwidth allows it to better track the transient in the content. It can do what PCM ADC cannot do. It will still be better even after converting to PCM cause the transients / dynamics were there.
It is like shooting JPEG in-camera vs converting JPEG from a RAW.
8-bit vs 12/14-bit > 8-bit, everybody can tell the difference.
or
a film shoot at low fps and low shutter speed vs high shutter speed, high fps down-convert to lower fps
natively 30fps@1/60s vs 120fps@1/240s > 30fps (reminds me of "Billy Lynn's")
I'd be curious to see any evidence of 'better transients / dynamics' in DSD compared to PCM.
In the imaging world, the equivalent of DSD would be halftone printing.
All I have is this transient with a rise time of a few nanoseconds captured by a Tascam UH-7000 ADC:I'd be curious to see any evidence of 'better transients / dynamics' in DSD compared to PCM.
I mean, what's wrong with the scenario in where both exist as complementary methodologies ?
... That's is pure capitalism, nothing less nothing more than that. ...
All I have is this transient with a rise time of a few nanoseconds captured by a Tascam UH-7000 ADC:
View attachment 18962