• 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). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Does DSD recording benefit Japanese traditional instruments?

tomchris

Active Member
Joined
May 14, 2021
Messages
195
Likes
368
Location
Denmark
You wrote:
Yes, some superior SACD releases probably do exist, but they are most certainly above the usual DSD64/2.8MHz releases.

Please explain what that line is supposed to mean. Could be you're just not a very precise writer.

I guess, that I am probably asking too much of some readers. You do know that you are being pedantic, right?

DSD64 is roughly equivalent to a sample rate of 24-bit/88.2kHz PCM. Since SACDs are able to store an equivalent higher sample rate than CDs, the existence of a superior mastered SACD compared to the CD release is both possible and probable.

However, as the usual SACD DSD64/2.8MHz releases are highly contaminated with Red Book CD upsamples, one should expect a superior SACD to have a better frequency response due to being sourced from a higher resolution PCM master.

Whether or not a SACD release is sourced from low resolution PCM, needs to be verified, just as Archimago has attempted on his blog:
 

dc655321

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2018
Messages
1,597
Likes
2,228
Since SACDs are able to store an equivalent higher sample rate than CDs, the existence of a superior mastered SACD compared to the CD release is both possible and probable

Superior… Numerically?

In what sense might they be superior?
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
19,571
Likes
35,103
More data "can" be stored in DSD64 (~24-bit/88kHz PCM) vs. 16-bit/44kHz PCM format.
At best it is maybe roughly like 20 bit 88.2 khz in terms of information capacity. Yes more than Redbook, but so is DXD or DSD 256. Does not mean it automatically is audibly better. It could be in some edge cases to some people. Mostly very, very, very, very, very few systems could take advantage of the difference even before we get to whether such a system would sound different.
 

tomchris

Active Member
Joined
May 14, 2021
Messages
195
Likes
368
Location
Denmark
At best it is maybe roughly like 20 bit 88.2 khz in terms of information capacity. Yes more than Redbook, but so is DXD or DSD 256. Does not mean it automatically is audibly better. It could be in some edge cases to some people. Mostly very, very, very, very, very few systems could take advantage of the difference even before we get to whether such a system would sound different.

Nor did I claim otherwise in my initial post.

I did not state that SACD was a) audibly better or b) that I could to hear differences. Furthermore, I did not make either DXD, DSD256 or general PCM comparisons.

My focus was on how CD vs SACD started out.

Even though, I explicitly mention being critical of mastering and explain that the quality of SACD releases are highly dubious, somehow this is misconstrued into me defending SACD and uncritically claiming that SACD is superior.

Let me be clear, SACDs or the DSD format is not something I would recommend. It is a wasteful and cumbersome format, filled with ultrasonic noise.

The most mentioned estimate for DSD64 is 24-bit 88.2kHz PCM. Others mentioned estimates are 20-bit 96kHz PCM, 20-bit 141.12kHz PCM and 24-bit 117.6kHz PCM.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
2,875
Likes
3,308
I guess, that I am probably asking too much of some readers. You do know that you are being pedantic, right?

DSD64 is roughly equivalent to a sample rate of 24-bit/88.2kHz PCM. Since SACDs are able to store an equivalent higher sample rate than CDs, the existence of a superior mastered SACD compared to the CD release is both possible and probable.

'superior' in what practical sense?

However, as the usual SACD DSD64/2.8MHz releases are highly contaminated with Red Book CD upsamples, one should expect a superior SACD to have a better frequency response due to being sourced from a higher resolution PCM master.

'a better frequency response' in what practical sense?

Whether or not a SACD release is sourced from low resolution PCM, needs to be verified, just as Archimago has attempted on his blog:

And if it is? You've been had. But your ears won't care.

(Gotta love how 44/16 is 'low resolution')


Nor did I claim otherwise in my initial post.

I did not state that SACD was a) audibly better or b) that I could to hear differences. Furthermore, I did not make either DXD, DSD256 or general PCM comparisons.

My focus was on how CD vs SACD started out.

Even though, I explicitly mention being critical of mastering and explain that the quality of SACD releases are highly dubious, somehow this is misconstrued into me defending SACD and uncritically claiming that SACD is superior.

Let me be clear, SACDs or the DSD format is not something I would recommend. It is a wasteful and cumbersome format, filled with ultrasonic noise.

The most mentioned estimate for DSD64 is 24-bit 88.2kHz PCM. Others mentioned estimates are 20-bit 96kHz PCM, 20-bit 141.12kHz PCM and 24-bit 117.6kHz PCM.

If the practical 'quality' of an SACD release is 'dubious', it's because of the mastering, not because it was sourced from a CD-rate master.

Sourcing an SACD from a CD-rate master when you were promised sweet sweet pure 'hi rez' is false advertising, for sure. But any claim that it actually degrades the sound you hear is...dubious.
 

tomchris

Active Member
Joined
May 14, 2021
Messages
195
Likes
368
Location
Denmark
@krabapple

If the practical 'quality' of an SACD release is 'dubious', it's because of the mastering, not because it was sourced from a CD-rate master.

Sourcing an SACD from a CD-rate master when you were promised sweet sweet pure 'hi rez' is false advertising, for sure. But any claim that it actually degrades the sound you hear is...dubious.

Uhuh.

Good luck with those reading skills of yours, troll. Consider yourself ignored.
 

Snoopy

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2021
Messages
1,566
Likes
1,119
how would I read this? this is a rip of a DSD64 SACD that was supposed to be recorded in DSD128 from Tape.

thinking about getting something from native DSD that was recorded in DSD128 / 256.
would that would different in the spectrogram if its not sourced from tape?

Screenshot 2023-06-03 at 12.29.55.png
Screenshot 2023-06-03 at 12.33.07.png
 

Head_Unit

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
1,281
Likes
642
You can’t process DSD. For any operation other than a simple cut you must convert to multibit first.
True, and I used to think that meant "what's the point" until I read a Stereophile quotation from DSD expert/acolyte Ed Meitner saying the "DSD Wide"* key point was it still kept the 2.8 MHz rate without any explanation as to why. I suggested it would make an interesting followup. Hmmm...I wonder if I could get ahold of Meitner myself...anyone have contact info?

This album https://www.discogs.com/release/4115246-Chick-Corea-Rendezvous-In-New-York is a showpiece of DSD technology. Unfortunately in plain streamed stereo I found the content not too interesting so I didn't get the SACD.

*I could be wrong about the name, it is the intermediate format.
 

voodooless

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
9,173
Likes
15,775
Location
Netherlands
“DSD wide” is just a way to be able to apply conventional processing to DSD data. They usually extend de bit depth to something like 8 bits. The conversion back to 1 bit however means you’ll need to remodulate the data. In effect, your processing in high rate, low bit count PCM.
 

Snoopy

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2021
Messages
1,566
Likes
1,119

dualazmak

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2020
Messages
2,589
Likes
2,658
Location
Ichihara City, Chiba Prefecture, Japan
how would I read this? this is a rip of a DSD64 SACD that was supposed to be recorded in DSD128 from Tape.

thinking about getting something from native DSD that was recorded in DSD128 / 256.
would that would different in the spectrogram if its not sourced from tape?

As for the UHF noise "issues", it also has been observed and discussed in my posts #42 and #62.

I also already fully investigated and discussed it as I summarized here and here. Consequently, I decided always using -48 dB/Oct low-pass (high-cut) filters at 25 kHz.
 
Last edited:

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,098
Likes
3,711
^^^^ There was much debate when hybrid SACDs appeared whether they were remastering some CD layers to be demonstrably less endearing… either to promote SACD or to allow for the CD layer to sound okay in cars etc
 

Head_Unit

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
1,281
Likes
642
DSD Wide = PCM Narrow
But the sampling rate is much "wider" (higher) isn't it? I never did get a reply from Ed Meitner. Then again if all the top DSD is good for is recording boring jazz (sorry Bobby McFerrin fans) then who gives a rat turd?
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
2,875
Likes
3,308
'Wide' and 'Narrow' refer to the bit depth . True DSD is 1-bit. DSD Wide is 8-bit, which is narrow compared to typically 16bit (or more) PCM.
 
Top Bottom