Does DSD sound better than PCM?

[Miska]

PCM is sent as file bytes when accessed from NAS, so definitely not 32 bits per sample. And 4K video streaming works fine over exactly the same wireless repeater as the one used for audio duties.

Sure... So as I said earlier the problem is somewhere else, maybe NAS or something?

I just tested with my laptop connected to WiFi, from my Linux server running Samba, SMB mount to my laptop and NAA connection to Mac Mini where exaSound e28 DAC is connected. I can play 5.0 channel DSD256 file from the network share through HQPlayer to 8 channel output at DSD256 to the NAA/DAC. So the data is going over the WiFi twice, plus three extra channels being sent to the NAA. And still it works...

 

[John Deas]

AFAIK, Cookie records and works in analog and converts to DSD for distribution. Has that changed?

She records to DSD256/analog tape or just DSD256, then mixes through an analog console back to DSD256 as she is not happy about the sound from Sonoma or Pyramix 'in the box' mixing.

 

[John Deas]

The ones that get paid to, would be my guess.

Get paid?

 

[RayDunzl]

Get paid?

It's a colloquial expression used by musicians (and probably others in the industry) when, for example, after a gig, some tokens appear that can be exchanged for Cheeseburger.

*remembers playing a one nighter at Club Iola, later to always be referred to as Club I'll Owe Ya.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

She records to DSD256/analog tape or just DSD256, then mixes through an analog console back to DSD256 as she is not happy about the sound from Sonoma or Pyramix 'in the box' mixing.

Sure muddies up the issue, doesn't it?

 

[danadam]

She described the process: What is the work flow when recording in DSD?

 

[andreasmaaan]

She described the process: What is the work flow when recording in DSD?

So she is basically mixing in analogue. DSD just happens to be the format she is transferring from/to. This is understandable, since doing a good mix is next to impossible using the very limited range of DSD tools available.

Analogue is a valid way of doing things if you like the gear you use, either because it has particular features or creates particular kinds of distortion that you like. But compared to purely digital recording and mixing, it is not high fidelity.

 

[Miska]

Regardless of PCM or DSD, lot of mixing/mastering engineers prefer to mix and process in analog domain. For them, digital recorder is just replacement for analog tape machine.

Not all digital is high fidelity either... Something being digital doesn't automatically mean it is better.

 

[Soniclife]

But compared to purely digital recording and mixing, it is not high fidelity.

I think that is going a bit far, not as high as currently possible fidelity maybe be a better way of putting it.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I think that is going a bit far, not as high as currently possible fidelity maybe be a better way of putting it.

I didn’t mean to imply it’s low fidelity. What I meant was that it results in mixes that are technically inferior in terms of fidelity to mixes produced purely in the digital domain (but not necessarily worse sounding ofc).

 

[andreasmaaan]

Regardless of PCM or DSD, lot of mixing/mastering engineers prefer to mix and process in analog domain. For them, digital recorder is just replacement for analog tape machine.

Not all digital is high fidelity either... Something being digital doesn't automatically mean it is better.

It depends how you define “better”.

Certainly, digital mixes using 32 bit floating point processing (or even 24 bit for that matter) and then bounced using appropriate (readily available) dither and anti-aliasing will introduce less noise and distortion than a mix that has passed through an analogue console and effects units.

Of course the noise and distortion introduced by analogue gear may be preferred, or so low in level as to not be of audible concern, and I make no comment about which will sound better - I’m speaking here simply in terms of fidelity.

And yes you're right of course, analogue is a common way for this work to be done, which is why I pointed out in my earlier post that it was a valid method and that there may be good reason to prefer it.

 

[andymok]

There's a lot of limitations mixing ITB actually. Mixing and editing may not be a big deal, but when it comes to processors/plug-ins, many of them claim to have emulated the machines, very few actually did

Enough is not enough, all they can do, is to capture the original signal/a master as close as possible to minimise loses, use DAW as transport and work it out from there

The very best engineers mix an orchestra live in analogue, capture in DSD then call it a day.

I realise music production and music creation, acoustic and "pop" recording are very different kind of mindset

 

[andreasmaaan]

I don't think it's helpful to think about it in terms of what the "best" engineers do, as there are different best ways to do things depending on the engineer's preferences and aims.

There are various advantages and disadvantages to each approach.

Recording, mixing and mastering entirely in PCM provides extremely low noise and distortion, although it restricts the engineer to a limited (albeit very large) range of DAWs and effects processors.

Doing the same in DSD provides similarly low noise and distortion, but restricts the engineer to an extremely narrow range of DAWs and processors, which is probably the reason why almost nobody does it.

Using a combination of analogue and PCM involves some (often entirely worthwhile) trade-offs in terms of noise and distortion, while offering the widest range of DAWs, processors and effects units.

If the engineer doesn't require any PCM-based processing and prefers particular analogue machines, mixing entirely in analogue and then capturing in DSD is also a valid approach.

 

[Pluto]

Is there any downside of 384khz 32bit?

The wider you open the window, the more sh*t gets in.

 

[John Deas]

Sure muddies up the issue, doesn't it?

Well, She doesn't like the sound of PCM, doesn't like the effect that 'in the box' mixing of DSD does to it so it's the logical thing to do. I'm sure if possible she would like to record on analog tape all the time and sell you the tape if that were in any way financially or practically possible but it's not.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Well, She doesn't like the sound of PCM, doesn't like the effect that 'in the box' mixing of DSD does to it so it's the logical thing to do. I'm sure if possible she would like to record on analog tape all the time and sell you the tape if that were in any way financially or practically possible but it's not.

I know but it is idiosyncratic. If you like it, OK.

 

[John Deas]

It's a colloquial expression used by musicians (and probably others in the industry) when, for example, after a gig, some tokens appear that can be exchanged for Cheeseburger.

*remembers playing a one nighter at Club Iola, later to always be referred to as Club I'll Owe Ya.

So she is basically mixing in analogue. DSD just happens to be the format she is transferring from/to. This is understandable, since doing a good mix is next to impossible using the very limited range of DSD tools available.

Analogue is a valid way of doing things if you like the gear you use, either because it has particular features or creates particular kinds of distortion that you like. But compared to purely digital recording and mixing, it is not high fidelity.

DSD isn't the format she "just happens to be transferring to" it's a clear decision - She does not like the sound of PCM digital and does not like the digital mixing that is available in DSD.

 

[John Deas]

I know but it is idiosyncratic. If you like it, OK.

Bottom line. She cares incredibly about her own project recordings sounding right and this is the technique she's chosen. If anyone out there is willing to cough up the very substantial amount of money required to create a DAW that can mix DSD without screwing it around I'm sure she'd be delighted.

 

[Soniclife]

She also thinks wave and flac sound different.
https://dsd-guide.com/believe-what-...ad-dsd-wav-flac-conversions-what-does-it-mean

 

[andreasmaaan]

DSD isn't the format she "just happens to be transferring to" it's a clear decision - She does not like the sound of PCM digital and does not like the digital mixing that is available in DSD.

Yes ok, we'll end up round in circles if we keep going

My point is that PCM doesn't have a "sound" as it is transparent, i.e. noise and all forms of distortion are well below audible thresholds (assuming sufficient bitrate, sample rate, and filtering).

If she thinks PCM sounds inherently different from DSD (as opposed to how particular masters of recordings that may happen to be in either PCM or DSD format might sound) she is mistaken, just as she seems to be about WAV and FLAC.