DSD is better than PCM!

[Galliardist]

What you're saying isn't what they're claiming or I'm wondering about.

The way I understand what they say they're doing is simple editing in PDM, they aren't cutting sections , converting, manipulating, reconverting then patching back. Everything happens in PDM according to them. I assume they're doing it with software. It seems to me what everyone here is saying is that can't be done.

I don't really care about the claims of how it sounds. I only stream whatever Quboz offers, mostly redbook CD or sometimes 24/96 or 24/192 or my ripped files. I don't mess with upsampling it's a waste on me.

If somebody has worked out how to do more with a DSD file that’s fine by me. It still won’t equate to magical superiority for the format which is what matters to us when we play the file later.

Some clarity would be nice of course.

If they can show that DSD is actually superior, then I’ll take notice. Until then I’m not going to worry about it either.

 

[Tks]

If somebody has worked out how to do more with a DSD file that’s fine by me. It still won’t equate to magical superiority for the format which is what matters to us when we play the file later.

Some clarity would be nice of course.

If they can show that DSD is actually superior, then I’ll take notice. Until then I’m not going to worry about it either.

If clarity was offered, there wouldn't need to be the never ending gestural dance trying to give you some other reason you why you should worry about it. Proponents of it are aware they don't have the evidence to convince you otherwise. It's why they'll try moving a mountain rather than provide what is asked of them which would settle things properly.

It's why they'll do things with a format (like in this instance) bend the space time laws (by trying to rewrite basic principals and call long settled knowledge into question), etc.. But all that, just to avoid having to come to grips to not provide the sort of evidence you ask for.

 

[voodooless]

They are only mixing and running one overal modification of frequencies. Tbese operations have been available in DSD 64 for a long time and this “revolutionary process” is simply doing these operations at a higher multiple.

How the F can you gain and mix multiple channels of DSD down to a stereo track without conversion in the digital domain? Got any references for this?

 

[Galliardist]

How the F can you gain and mix multiple channels of DSD down to a stereo track without conversion in the digital domain? Got any references for this?

It's in the Positive Feedback article quoted above:

Well, the original Sony Sonoma workstation did allow people to mix tracking channels in DSD64, but not at a higher modulation. So, as DSD modulation moved to DSD256, to release an album in DSD meant either mixing in analog before the Analog-to-Digital converter, or by using Merging Technologies' Pyramix Digital Audio Workstation to mix in DXD and then output those DXD post-processed files to DSD using Pyramix's album publishing function.

Of course the Sonoma could have just been converting internally...

 

[voodooless]

It's in the Positive Feedback article quoted above:

No it’s not. According to that it’s either analog or high rate PCM

Edit, ah the first part mentions the Sony thing. I’ll check what it does

 

[Galliardist]

I'll cut it down for you, shall i?

Well, the original Sony Sonoma workstation did allow people to mix tracking channels in DSD64

 

[Galliardist]

...and they claim they can now do it at higher bitrates, which I think is what is in question here.

 

[voodooless]

Edit, ah the first part mentions the Sony thing. I’ll check what it does

Indeed more lies:

The Sonoma recorder/editor keeps the audio at the DSD sample rate of 2.8 million samples per second at all times. When edits are made, the audio is crossfaded in real time using special signal processing at the same DSD sample rate. Real time level manipulation and audio layering inside the Sonoma work the same way. The Sonoma never down-samples to a lower sample rate for signal processing, so the time domain integrity is maintained.

They only mention sample rate, not bit depth. I wonder why that is…

 

[Galliardist]

Indeed more lies:


They only mention sample rate, not bit depth. I wonder why that is…

But still, it's your turn now. Can you find any evidence that the Sonoma definitely uses PCM? It is n't in the manual or any articles available online from the time of development or since. If it doesn't, I'm as wrong as you are.

 

[voodooless]

But still, it's your turn now. Can you find any evidence that the Sonoma definitely uses PCM?

Show me any known math that can do it… the fact that they are not fully transparent about this says all I need to know about it. If it would remain 1 bit all the way, why not mention that? Instead, they have carefully constructed language to avoid the topic.

It is n't in the manual or any articles available online from the time of development or since. If it doesn't, I'm as wrong as you are.

Of course not, it would upset the DSD worshippers.

 

[Music1969]

Of course not, it would upset the DSD worshippers.

Hey man, DSD has been part of my life since I started digital music listening

(1-bit DAC)

 

[voodooless]

Hey man, DSD has been part of my life since I started digital music listening

Yeah, but the listening/payback part is not at issue here, it's the processing. That MEGA BASS thing was probably not done in the 1-bit domain, was it?

 

[Music1969]

Yeah, but the listening/payback part is not at issue here, it's the processing. That MEGA BASS thing was probably not done in the 1-bit domain, was it?

Correct

Could be done before modulator as PCM or maybe after (analogue filter for bass boost?)

 

[Sokel]

Sometimes it's not about the signal itself but in how devices handle it.
Here's a comparison of how a random dac (Khadas Tone) does with two perfect signals,PCM vs DSD:

PCM 96Khz

DSD256


More here:

PCM vs DSD

Did a little comparison and I was wondering if any friend with better gear here has tested this. Results you're about to see is probably narrowed to the specific DAC but it's interesting to see how it handles things differently. I will not try to decipher the results other that DSD seems much...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Galliardist]

Show me any known math that can do it… the fact that they are not fully transparent about this says all I need to know about it. If it would remain 1 bit all the way, why not mention that? Instead, they have carefully constructed language to avoid the topic.

Of course not, it would upset the DSD worshippers.

They wouldn't have cared particularly back then, it's before DSD became magic, or hated, respectively.

 

[voodooless]

They wouldn't have cared particularly back then, it's before DSD became magic, or hated, respectively.

It was always the plan to market DSD as magic

 

[Galliardist]

It was always the plan to market DSD as magic

It was originally the plan to market SACD as multichannel. Magic really came into it when they realised the market was going to mostly stay stereo and they really needed to plead better.

Higher bitrate DSD? Looks like you're right there.

But where does that leave DXD? Was anything higher than 24/192 (as a recording/editing format) ever necessary?

 

[JustJones]

With playback 16/44 is good enough for me. I wasn't really interested in the sonic claims just the claim they were doing editing in PDM and wondering about the mechanics of it. I can't find any straight out answer it stays as a PDM 1 bit throughout the process which is probably an answer in itself.

 

[MusicIsLife77]

I can clearly hear that DSD is better and AB with CD quality a lot and it goes from a 7 to a 10 no hiss and just so clear sounding and everything just sounds better. So i firmly believe it is the better format.

 

[ahofer]

I can clearly hear that DSD is better and AB with CD quality a lot and it goes from a 7 to a 10 no hiss and just so clear sounding and everything just sounds better. So i firmly believe it is the better format.

You are experiencing hiss with PCM?

I’m skeptical

Is high-resolution audio (like SACD) audibly better than than CD? | Tim Anderson's IT Writing