• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

AES Paper Digest: Subjective Evaluation of High Resolution Recordings in PCM and DSD

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
22,763
Likes
35,866
Location
Seattle Area
#1
A much more recent paper/study on differences between PCM at 24/192 versus DSD at 2.8 and 5.6 Mhz (single and double speed DSD respectively). http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17166&rndx=224452

Subjective Evaluation of High Resolution Recordings in PCM and DSD Audio Formats

Atsushi MARUI1 , Toru KAMEKAWA1 , Kazuhiko ENDO2 , and Erisa SATO Faculty of Music, Tokyo University of the Arts, 1-25-1 Senju, Adachi, Tokyo, 120-0034, Japan TEAC Corporation, 1-47 Ochiai, Tama, Tokyo, 206-8530, Japan Correspondence should be addressed to Atsushi MARUI ([email protected])

Presented at the 136th Convention 2014 April 26–29 Berlin, Germany

The study is a paired AB comparison. It puts PCM 192 against DSD 1X and 2X and DSD 1X against 2X. What makes it odd is that the raw results are not given, only the "p" factor or probability of chance. The test is one of preference, not whether the listeners could tell them apart to start.

The testing used speakers and two clock synced TASCAM players:

"Two TASCAM DA-3000 (from the same production lot with the same firmware version installed) were used for playback of all the stimuli. They were set to master- and slave-mode for playback synchronization. Hence, the same digital-to-analog converter was used for all stimuli played back. Outputs from DA-3000 were sent to a remote controllable monitor switcher (operates in analog domain) which enabled a listener to switch between one of the two playback sources.

Two loudspeakers were positioned in the standard stereo playback according to ITU-R BS.775 [6], with 2.70 m (≈ 8.86 feet) from the listening position (Figure 2). Two Genelec 1032A were used at Site A and Genelec 8050A were used at Site B. A stereo volume controller was installed as a precaution for loud noise exposure to human subjects. Because no loud noise was emitted by accident, the level was kept at constant level throughout the experiment. Esoteric C-02 preamplifier was used at Site A and Tomoca TCC-100ST was used at Site B for the volume controller."


ITU rooms are supposed to represent the typical living room we have. In reality it doesn't do that but is a standard configuration making it easier to compare one study to another performed in a similar room.

Here are the test results:

upload_2016-3-16_18-20-21.png


Can't understand this? It is OK. I don't think most people can :). Essentially it says the smaller the value the more the listeners prefered the format on the left to the one on the right in that category of effect. First time I see such a comparison table so not sure how valid it is.

Here is their conclusion:

"The three formats were compared by 46 participants on six sound programs and eight attributes. From the result of binomial test applied on the data from pairwise comparison experiment, statistically significant differences between PCM and DSD but not between the two sampling frequencies (2.8 MHz and 5.6 MHz) of DSD.

[...] formats, stimuli having broad spectra and clear temporal transients (such as Vocal, Jazz Trio, and Piano) and attributes such as spatial width, spatial depth, timbral richness were able to be used to discriminate between DSD and PCM. Overall quality and preference showed similar tendency of in favor of DSD (5.6 MHz) over PCM (192 kHz/24 bit)."
 
Last edited:

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
58
Location
West Kelowna
#3

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
58
Location
West Kelowna
#5
Don't say I have never done anything for you Mike. :D
Ha ha, and that's just double DSD with a mediocre ADC. Imagine quad with a ADC based on dual AKM 5578's in dual mono mode with Sonny's Jfet folded cascade discrete gain stage input buffer! Man I need to talk to Sonny! :)
 

dallasjustice

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
1,270
Likes
760
Location
Dallas, Texas
#6
The Tascam DA-3000 will always sound better with DSD. I'd bet PCM192 converted to DSD128 would sound equivalent to the native DSD128.

Of course TEAC sponsored the study and their ADCs and DACs are all SDM designs. So it's unlikely they would want to do as I suggested.
 

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
58
Location
West Kelowna
#7
The Tascam DA-3000 will always sound better with DSD. I'd bet PCM192 converted to DSD128 would sound equivalent to the native DSD128.

Of course TEAC sponsored the study and their ADCs and DACs are all SDM designs. So it's unlikely they would want to do as I suggested.
Your Mola Mola handles both PCM and DSD the best way anyways by upsampling it all to 1 bit. So you get the best of both formats either way.
 

dallasjustice

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
1,270
Likes
760
Location
Dallas, Texas
#8
Your Mola Mola handles both PCM and DSD the best way anyways by upsampling it all to 1 bit. So you get the best of both formats either way.
I agree that DACs should be format agnostic.

The only thing which could be concluded from this TEAC study is that the DA-3000 sounds better with DSD sources; nothing else.

It would be more interesting to compare different DACs with various formats.

For me 1 bit DSD has always been a dead letter due to its incompatibility with DSP.
 

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
58
Location
West Kelowna
#9
I agree that DACs should be format agnostic.

The only thing which could be concluded from this TEAC study is that the DA-3000 sounds better with DSD sources; nothing else.

It would be more interesting to compare different DACs with various formats.

For me 1 bit DSD has always been a dead letter due to its incompatibility with DSP.
My testing has shown the main benefit with DSD is how it's handled in the DAC anyways. So your Mola Mola is perfect for what you're doing because it allows you to take advantage of both DSP, and upsampling to 1 bit. Even if you tried something like HQplayer with that DAC, you would likely see little or no benefit.
 

Blumlein 88

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
7,282
Likes
8,032
#10
This test would indicate a difference. It does not indicate the DSD was more accurate or of higher fidelity however. I am reminded of comparisons I did with triode and wideband SS amps. In such a test, the triode would have cleaned up at 100% every category listed above. Then I could run the output of the triode amp into the SS amp. It was the same sound. So the SS wasn't incapable of that sound. It simply wasn't adding the euphony to the signal.

Nevertheless, a genuine perceptible difference is worthy news. The one we need added is converting 192 PCM to double DSD then comparing to the original 192.

I also would like to know more about the details of the presentation. Did they play PCM first in every instance for example? One would think they knew enough not to do this.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom