Does DSD sound better than PCM?

[Graph Feppar]

I have the feeling I agree with your comments, the best "easy listening experience" is via 16/44.1 FLAC ... but as I have already posted in an earlier post, for "serious listening" I want the highest resolution possible and for me that is both DSD and high resolution PCM recorded SACDs.
Ohh ... "serious listening" happens only when I am home alone, no dogs, no wife, no daughter messing around with their chatting ... or thru the headphones for a more intimate experience ...

Audio is not video,what is resolution? In audio we only care about distortion,noise,phase and frequency response,this is not like buying PC monitor and comparing resolution.DSD is schiit format,it cant even have proper triangular dither so it cant remove quantization distortion.It wastes tons of space for performance that is like 44.1KHz 20bit PCM except it have tons of ultrasonic garbage up top.The entire oversampled noiseshaped 1bit pulse density modulation thing is snakeoil scam,it offers zero advantage,is super inefficient waste of space.

Hi Res is DSD version 2.0,since the old snakeoil format,the DSD was pretty much dead,it was time to introduce fresh new snakeoil format to milk,the Hi Res and its retarded step brother MQA.The entire ultrasound thing laughable hoax,oversamping is not entirely without benefit,it improves SNR by 3db even without dither,but it doubles file size,if you doubled bit depth,you would increase SNR by 96db,this shows how idiotic and inefficient the high samplerate is.

Lets say you listen to very high peak level of 110db and have extra quiet room with 20db noise floor,then even undithered 16bit 44.1 KHz is already overkill by 6db,and you want 24bits? LOL
And thats considering that you listen to test tones and not music.With music the masking effect would reduce your ability to hear noise and distortion to massive degree,even the nastiest harshest of inharmonic distortions is inaudible below about 60-70db with music playing on top.

If it makes you happy,do whatever you like.I too enjoy placebo,its the spice of life,just dont let these snakeoil scammers defecate into your brain and fill it with all sorts of BS,you can enjoy placebo without believing lies.

 

[graz_lag]

... If it makes you happy,do whatever you like.I too enjoy placebo,its the spice of life,just dont let these snakeoil scammers defecate into your brain and fill it with all sorts of BS,you can enjoy placebo without believing lies.

With LOL : lots of love ...
Why do you omit the space after the comma ? You make us (me for sure) short of breathe while reading ...

 

[Graph Feppar]

With LOL : lots of love ...
Why do you omit the space after the comma ? You make us (me for sure) short of breathe while reading ...

I just noticed other people put space after coma . I never noticed this in my entire life (srs).

 

[Blumlein 88]

I have the feeling I agree with your comments, the best "easy listening experience" is via 16/44.1 FLAC ... but as I have already posted in an earlier post, for "serious listening" I want the highest resolution possible and for me that is both DSD and high resolution PCM recorded SACDs.
Ohh ... "serious listening" happens only when I am home alone, no dogs, no wife, no daughter messing around with their chatting ... or thru the headphones for a more intimate experience ...

So can you explain how high resolution helps as it only gains you extra frequency response that you can't hear anyway?

 

[andymok]

Why don't we see what Merging, creator of DXD (hi-res PCM) and big supporter of DSD, developer of both worlds, has to say about the formats?

https://www.merging.com/highlights/high-resolution

and practitioner of both world, 2L (Lindberg Lyd)
The advantages of DXD for SACD
http://www.lindberg.no/english/collection/004.pdf

 

[Roen]

So can you explain how high resolution helps as it only gains you extra frequency response that you can't hear anyway?

Something about ultrasonics and harmonics? I dunno, it rhymes.

 

[Thomas savage]

I just noticed other people put space after coma . I never noticed this in my entire life (srs).

I’m glad this thread has served a purpose lol

 

[graz_lag]

So can you explain how high resolution helps as it only gains you extra frequency response that you can't hear anyway?

I am not so sure I am perfectly understanding your question ... but I try to cover it anyhow ... I beg your pardon @Thomas savage for what it might be judged by another anecdotal experience ... I will send you some rillettes du Mans promised Sir ...

IMHO, higher resolution means signal to noise ratio or dynamic range.
It does not matter how many bits a digital system has, what matters is how low the background noise is, what resolution means is our ears ability to pick out small details in the music.
I think we can all agree that all recordings are not equal, since they range from demonstration discs ---> excellent ---> ... ---> poor ---> very poor ...

When I listen to SACDs or demonstration/excellent CDs, I have the confidence to hear notes fading away into the background.
However, I do not know whether it is my age (53 ) but if I listen to SACDs or high-quality recording CDs or hi-bit FLACs for much more than a few hours in a session I feel I can no longer concentrate on the music enough to hear the details that I seemed to hear at the start of the session.

Oppositely, I can listen to average quality CDs or 16/44.1 FLACs for an entire day, and that on the same Hi-Fi setup, just for the pleasure to be fed by music, I am not interested in being able to catching up the very fine detail.

 

[Thomas savage]

I am not so sure I am perfectly understanding your question ... but I try to cover it anyhow ... I beg your pardon @Thomas savage for what it might be judged by another anecdotal experience ... I will send you some rillettes du Mans promised Sir ...

IMHO, higher resolution means signal to noise ratio or dynamic range.
It does not matter how many bits a digital system has, what matters is how low the background noise is, what resolution means is our ears ability to pick out small details in the music.
I think we can all agree that all recordings are not equal, since they range from demonstration discs ---> excellent ---> ... ---> poor ---> very poor ...

When I listen to SACDs or demonstration/excellent CDs, I have the confidence to hear notes fading away into the background.
However, I do not know whether it is my age (53 ) but if I listen to SACDs or high-quality recording CDs or hi-bit FLACs for much more than a few hours in a session I feel I can no longer concentrate on the music enough to hear the details that I seemed to hear at the start of the session.

Oppositely, I can listen to average quality CDs or 16/44.1 FLACs for an entire day, and that on the same Hi-Fi setup, just for the pleasure to be fed by music, I am not interested in being able to catching up the very fine detail.

Porc rillettes du mans you say....

 

[Pluto]

Why don't we see what Merging... big supporter of DSD..., has to say about the formats?

Forgive my cynicism, but it is interesting how many manufacturers of decent professional kit now find that an excursion into the high-end domestic market is recommended by their accountant. At one time, dCS made the best professional converters available. But it behove them to completely abandon their core clientele in the pro world in favour of the domestic market. "Why have you stopped making them", I asked about 10 years ago (I had been a good customer until then) and was told that there was no way they could still sell the pro kit (at the prices they had charged hitherto) while getting away with the astronomical sums they were asking for the domestic stuff; it was simpler to just pull out of the pro market.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I am not so sure I am perfectly understanding your question ... but I try to cover it anyhow ... I beg your pardon @Thomas savage for what it might be judged by another anecdotal experience ... I will send you some rillettes du Mans promised Sir ...

IMHO, higher resolution means signal to noise ratio or dynamic range.
It does not matter how many bits a digital system has, what matters is how low the background noise is, what resolution means is our ears ability to pick out small details in the music.
I think we can all agree that all recordings are not equal, since they range from demonstration discs ---> excellent ---> ... ---> poor ---> very poor ...

When I listen to SACDs or demonstration/excellent CDs, I have the confidence to hear notes fading away into the background.
However, I do not know whether it is my age (53 ) but if I listen to SACDs or high-quality recording CDs or hi-bit FLACs for much more than a few hours in a session I feel I can no longer concentrate on the music enough to hear the details that I seemed to hear at the start of the session.

Oppositely, I can listen to average quality CDs or 16/44.1 FLACs for an entire day, and that on the same Hi-Fi setup, just for the pleasure to be fed by music, I am not interested in being able to catching up the very fine detail.

Being honest and frank you need to learn a little about how digital audio works. Higher sample rates extend frequency response. They don't increase dynamic range.

There is also a very high probability CD mastering is not the same as on other releases. Upsampling can't add details to a file.

 

[andymok]

Higher sample rates extend frequency response. They don't increase dynamic range.

There is also a very high probability CD mastering is not the same as on other releases. Upsampling can't add details to a file.

How about "micro" dynamics, aka impulse response?

 

[Graph Feppar]

How about "micro" dynamics, aka impulse response?

Those impulse response pictures are nothing but lie.The impulse response ringing or "smearing" as they call it is completly inaudible since it exists only at ultrasonic frequencies.The test signal they test for this ringing,that impulse is just one sample at maximum amplitude surrounded by silence.That signal have lot of ultrasonic content that the low pass filter must remove.

 

[Blumlein 88]

How about "micro" dynamics, aka impulse response?

May I suggest the www.xiph.org Digital show and Tell video. It's something like 20 minutes and very informative.

As Graph Feppar says all ringing is ultrasonic and the single sample impulse isn't possible on an ad to da conversion loop.

 

[Graph Feppar]

Yes,I can recommend that xiph video too.I busts the time resolution = sample lenght myth.

I give you helpful tip on how to judge if some filter is "smearing" your music,if it audibly degrades the transients.Filters smear sounds in certain frequency band depending on how is their frequency and phase response at that point.

If the filter phase response is flat and frequency response is flat,then absolutely no smearing or ringing is happening at that frequency.Thats why those brickwall digital linear phase FIR sync filters and analog brickwall bessel filters are the best choice and any of the different "flavor" filters can only degrade the sound since they arent as flat in passband.

What is hillarious to me is when people change their sharp roll off brickwall filter to some super slow roll off filter in hope to decrease that evil pre - post ringing that "smears" the music when in fact its these inferior filters that actually introduce real smearing and ringing into the audible pass band.

 

[Pluto]

How about "micro" dynamics, aka impulse response?

Q – Have you ever seen what you get if you try to record an impulse on an analogue tape machine?
A – Not an impulse, that's for sure.

 

[RayDunzl]

Impulse? Transient?

Recorded a little click, that lasts about 500 microseconds:

Tip of the thumbnail pulled across the tip of the nail of the digitus medius, producing a "click".

Do ADCs ring? I don't see any ringing.

Can't think of a shorter "sound" at the moment, nor how to make one.

 

[mansr]

Let's have some fun with a spectrum analyser. Test device is iFi Nano DAC. Signal is white noise at 88.2 kHz.

Direct PCM:

There's some imaging visible around 8x the sample rate. A better analogue filter after the DAC chip would have removed this.

DSD64:

That's a lot of ultrasonic noise. Amps and tweeters will not like it. The analogue post-filter is really not suitable for this format.

DSD128:

The noise is higher in frequency and somewhat lower in amplitude.

DSD256:

Here the noise is pushed towards even higher frequencies. Although still far stronger than for PCM, it is unlikely to cause any trouble.

Now I'd like to know, what about DSD seems like a good idea?

 

[mansr]

Can't think of a shorter "sound" at the moment, nor how to make one.

An electric discharge across a spark gap might work.

 

[AnalogSteph]

Now I'd like to know, what about DSD seems like a good idea?

*crickets*