DSD is better than PCM!

[sngreen]

Cant believe this is still a debate in 202#.

I have 4 DSD recordings left over that i have not sold, Dylans BOB, SRV texas flood, Floyds DSOTM, and jeff becks blow by blow ... take em up north with me to use as beer coasters (only bc this practice bothers my hi-rez friends big time)

How does it sound "better" esp if the recording is a classic tape based recording from the 60,70,80's ... and a remaster to boot (which generally dont fair well in terms of DR when compared to the orig).

If its DSD native recording, yes, i buy the argument, otherwise ...DSD is such a non issue in the overall scheme of music reproduction - and imo - a total waste of processing power & HD space.

If its DSD native recording, yes, .. in most cases. Otherwise it's a toss, could not agree more.

 

[LTig]

DSD sound better than PCM, this is true.

Uh huh.

 

[Madlop26]

I converted some CD redbook to DSD using dBpoweramp, even there the 650Mb Cd file becomes 2.5Gb DSD file, but the change in quality is instant! The sound has more dimension to it, I am still undecided about the higher rate 96 or 192 PCM files. Roon does the processing, feeding into a March DAC1 via USB, very close to vinyl, and more useful to listen to after a few beers.

oh Jesus, it is digital, you can NOT extract more information from what the original source has already, smh

 

[TBone]

If its DSD native recording, yes, .. in most cases. Otherwise it's a toss, could not agree more.

I still have, somewhere, a DSD rip of LZep2 "RL" version from tape/reel to reel. Never had a chance to audition, moves-over-years, forgot where its stored. Unless its a native rec., thats about the only DSD rec im interested in hearing ...

 

[fordiebianco]

I

oh Jesus, it is digital, you can NOT extract more information from what the original source has already, smh

I think he was being facetious...

 

[Ralph_Cramden]

I converted some CD redbook to DSD using dBpoweramp, even there the 650Mb Cd file becomes 2.5Gb DSD file, but the change in quality is instant! The sound has more dimension to it, I am still undecided about the higher rate 96 or 192 PCM files. Roon does the processing, feeding into a March DAC1 via USB, very close to vinyl, and more useful to listen to after a few beers.

 

[Madlop26]

haha

I


I think he was being facetious...

haha, I think you are right, silly me, although i am not the only one

 

[SuperDave]

You don't "convert" PCM to DSD in postprocessing. You'll be disappointed. It's not like that, because you start with insufficient audio information and are dependent on your processing software, which - I'm sorry - won't be up to the task like any other software tasked with adding information without degrading the total. Is DSD "better?" I dunno. I listen to DSD, in genres beyond my usual because Deep Purple didn't record in DSD, and the recording process is vital when it comes to A:B comparisons. It's either DSD in the studio, or irrelevant.

Stuff recorded in DSD, in the wholly unprofessional opinion of somebody who's looking back at his 60th birthday and using speakers which cost <$1000, is noticeably better to me in A:B with high-bitrate lossless PCM, I freely admit bias, though, unlike some who've never heard the term "anecdote."

 

[phoenixdogfan]

If its DSD native recording, yes, .. in most cases. Otherwise it's a toss, could not agree more.

The irony of all of this is that most of the recordings put out as SACD audio by Sony were just PCM masters up sampled to DSD. So even if DSD were an inherently superior method of recording music (which it isn't), the buyers of that crap weren't about to get the benefit of it. And they paid a premium of around $15 a disk for the "privilege" of being ripped off.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

You don't "convert" PCM to DSD in postprocessing. You'll be disappointed. It's not like that, because you start with insufficient audio information and are dependent on your processing software, which - I'm sorry - won't be up to the task like any other software tasked with adding information without degrading the total. Is DSD "better?" I dunno. I listen to DSD, in genres beyond my usual because Deep Purple didn't record in DSD, and the recording process is vital when it comes to A:B comparisons. It's either DSD in the studio, or irrelevant.

Stuff recorded in DSD, in the wholly unprofessional opinion of somebody who's looking back at his 60th birthday and using speakers which cost <$1000, is noticeably better to me in A:B with high-bitrate lossless PCM, I freely admit bias, though, unlike some who've never heard the term "anecdote."

It's a core tenet of information theory that it's impossible to add more information to a closed system than it had in the first place. You can't magically take a 16/44.1 and make it have the same amount of information as a 24/96 recording. Whether that extra information makes an audible difference in the perceived quality of the recording is another matter, but, the information can't be added after the fact, because it wasn't captured in the recording the the first place.

 

[Bleib]

DSD gets noisier the higher up in frequency you come, it can even become dirtier than regular CD redbook audio

 

[mhardy6647]

The irony of all of this is that most of the recordings put out as SACD audio by Sony were just PCM masters up sampled to DSD. So even if DSD were an inherently superior method of recording music (which it isn't), the buyers of that crap weren't about to get the benefit of it. And they paid a premium of around $15 a disk for the "privilege" of being ripped off.

Just out of healthy scientific/academic curiosity -- where have the data that document this allegation appeared?
I'd love to read it in context.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Just out of healthy scientific/academic curiosity -- where have the data that document this allegation appeared?

All you have to do is look at the date of the original recording which, if it predates the appearance of SACD, is indicative. OTOH, there are many from other labels (and some from Sony) which are from DSD or other high-resolution originals.

 

[Jim Shaw]

I replied to one of Paul's Octave Records DSD misinfomercials describing the probable path of a DSD master through mixing, editing, layering, processing, prep for mastering, mastering, and distribution. Either he blocked it or nobody had a reply. I assume his fans hadn't a clue what I was talking about. Here's the clue: you can't edit, mix, or do any of the other things studios and producers (and artists demand) without taking the files back through PCM and/or even analog formats.

DSD was intended and designed for archival storage of audio material, where editing consists of start and stop. Despite nearly unlimited resources, Sony abandoned the DSD methods because the native files are unworkable and unwieldy without changing, recoding, transcoding, and converting to other workable formats. (Try telling a conductor that he must take it from the top because the 2nd oboe hit a blue note in the third movement of a Beethoven symphony.)

There might have been some arguments in favor of DSD quality back a few years ago when the SOTA in PCM was 16/48k. Today, we are doing 32-bit floating-point at rates of 256k+ samples, and quality in the recording is no longer a "nut to crack."

Today, production is a problem for music listeners -- the willful distortion of even good music to sound appealing on a ghetto blaster, Bluetooth speaker, Apple AirPods, or in a Chevy Malibu. Try cracking that nut...

 

[TBone]

The irony of all of this is that most of the recordings put out as SACD audio by Sony were just PCM masters up sampled to DSD. So even if DSD were an inherently superior method of recording music (which it isn't), the buyers of that crap weren't about to get the benefit of it. And they paid a premium of around $15 a disk for the "privilege" of being ripped off.

Exactly, ripped off ... afaic DSD was dead in the water on startup. At least with new vinyl, even if the sq is compromised, you often get a nice tangible package for $15 more, maybe a nice booklet or poster. The kids seem to luv that stuff. Younger visitors never rummage thro my cds, never look at my computer audio playlists ... but they always flip through my lps with keen interest. Never understood DSD remasters of classic albums ... what exactly did those DSDs offer ...

 

[JSmith]

DSD gets noisier the higher up in frequency you come, it can even become dirtier than regular CD redbook audio

Yeah but it preserves all that high frequency data no one can hear... ya can't lose that!


JSmith

 

[TBone]

Today, production is a problem for music listeners -- the willful distortion of even good music to sound appealing on a ghetto blaster, Bluetooth speaker, Apple AirPods, or in a Chevy Malibu. Try cracking that nut...

sad but true, the hobby has certainly changed over time ... lost along the way ...

 

[drplinker]

DSD sound better than PCM, this is true.

For a second I thought you meant "DSD" literally sounds better than "PCM"

 

[radix]

Today, production is a problem for music listeners -- the willful distortion of even good music to sound appealing on a ghetto blaster, Bluetooth speaker, Apple AirPods, or in a Chevy Malibu. Try cracking that nut...

Chevrolet Malibu | Bose Automotive

Chevrolet and Bose Automotive partner to offer the Chevrolet Malibu with premium audio with an advanced Bose sound system.

automotive.bose.com

 

[dfuller]

Just out of healthy scientific/academic curiosity -- where have the data that document this allegation appeared?
I'd love to read it in context.

Speaking from experience here, there is no DAW - not one - that works in PDM audio. It's completely unworkable, you can't edit or process the audio. So if it's touched a DAW, it's been PCM.