DSD is better than PCM!

[Joe Smith]

I do have it on disk, but it's the prior version, I believe. Listing to the 2012 one now just on Spotify, lovely dynamics, even at 320kbps.

 

[manisandher]

I was an SACD early adopter - did a lot of stupid things back in those days. My first player was a Marantz SA-1. I then got a Sony SCD-1. I had both of them at the same time, in different locations.

What I found really facinating was that on dual-layer discs, the SACD version always sounded 'softer' than the PCM 16/44.1 version. Without exception, I preferred the PCM.

I still have ~100 or so SACDs. A while ago, I got hold of a Playstation 3 and extracted the DSD from a few SACDs. Playing back natively... they all sounded 'soft' too. I then gave up. (Still have the Playstation 3 though.)

More recently, I digitised some vinyl on 128 DSD and 24/96 PCM with my RME. Playing back natively, things are now closer between the two formats. But the PCM sounds absolutley fine, so I decided to stick with it.

Mani.

 

[TBone]

I was an SACD early adopter - did a lot of stupid things back in those days. My first player was a Marantz SA-1. I then got a Sony SCD-1. I had both of them at the same time, in different locations.

What I found really facinating was that on dual-layer discs, the SACD version always sounded 'softer' than the PCM 16/44.1 version. Without exception, I preferred the PCM.

Remember the sa777 also sounded "softer" subjectively(w/high freq instruments) with sacd, but also to a lesser extent, with cd. People liked the sound, just not the long wait times and hefty overkill construction. Those layer type SACD could be deceiving, if memory serves, some of those had a more compressed CD layer in comparison to the dsd layer, my PF DSOTM ver. immediately comes to mind ...

 

[antcollinet]

I


I think he was being facetious...

To be fair - it's difficult to tell. Poe's law strikes again.

 

[Jim Shaw]

Guilty. I just had to look at why you singled out the Malibu.

A literary device, perhaps? I have the power to change it, if you insist. I was just thinking of, perhaps, Bentley.

Literary devices can be offered in class A, A/B, and Class D, to better suit balanced, warm, dry, and v-curved tastes. But the preference is by the writer, not so much the troll.

 

[JaccoW]

The only SACD I have is Time Out by The Dave Brubeck Quartet. It is one of the better remasters out there and fun to have. Virtually no hiss underneath and just very nice to listen to in general. Similar to some high-res rips of the original vinyl with less hiss.

I do have some DSD rips of SACD albums just because they are really good remasters of old classical & jazz.

Converted all of them PCM flac (24-bit 44.1kHz) so I could easily listen to them in Musicbee (music library software & player).
They might sound better to some people but so far it is a bit of a faff to play them. Convenience wins out here.

 

[pinpoint_oxford]

The only SACD I have is Time Out by The Dave Brubeck Quartet. It is one of the better remasters out there and fun to have. Virtually no hiss underneath and just very nice to listen to in general. Similar to some high-res rips of the original vinyl with less hiss.

I do have some DSD rips of SACD albums just because they are really good remasters of old classical & jazz.

Converted all of them PCM flac (24-bit 44.1kHz) so I could easily listen to them in Musicbee (music library software & player).
They might sound better to some people but so far it is a bit of a faff to play them. Convenience wins out here.

I have Concord on a Summer Night on SACD. First SACD I bought (didn't even know it was an SACD when I bought it). It's multichannel and recorded direct to disc, which really gives DSD all it can to shine. It sounds stunning, especially the opening track Benjamin.

 

[dadregga]

You buy masterings, you don't buy formats.

Unless you want to buy physical multichannel formats in which case you have a problem

 

[pinpoint_oxford]

You buy masterings, you don't buy formats.

Unless you want to buy physical multichannel formats in which case you have a problem

I agree with you. I don't have a multichannel setup anyway so it doesn't matter.

Purely my opinion here, but DSD has some je ne sais quoi about it that I know I'm not alone in. Why else would MoFi, known for their mastering, still release on SACD?

 

[Blumlein 88]

I agree with you. I don't have a multichannel setup anyway so it doesn't matter.

Purely my opinion here, but DSD has some je ne sais quoi about it that I know I'm not alone in. Why else would MoFi, known for their mastering, still release on SACD?

Because it sells at an elevated price for the same music and mastering.

 

[pinpoint_oxford]

Because [SACD] sells at an elevated price for the same music and mastering.

This is MoFi, they could just as easily charge $30 for a CD instead and I doubt it would change the sales figures.

 

[TBone]

(didn't even know it was an SACD when I bought it)

just not me then ... bought 1 to many sacd's unknowingly at second hand shops ... as if everyone notices that tiny dsd label on back bottom right ...

 

[pinpoint_oxford]

just not me then ... bought 1 to many sacd's unknowingly at second hand shops ... as if everyone notices that tiny dsd label on back bottom right ...

Thankfully pretty much every SACD had a CD layer in it, otherwise I'd have been mad that the "CD" I bought didn't play! I've only one SACD in my collection without the CD layer.

 

[EEE272]

Because it sells at an elevated price for the same music and mastering.

Is it the same mastering?
I don't know MoFi sacd recordings but I did read somewhere that because sacd is kind of small-scale, mixers and sound engineers are sometimes given more freedom. This might lead to versions that they like, instead of versions for the masses. Nevertheless, I am not claiming that this is true but it seemed plausible to me.

I do 100% think that a great conversion of such a disc to CD would sound the same to me.

Another difference is surround that some sacds include. I do enjoy it - just like audio DVD or blu-ray.

 

[TBone]

Is it the same mastering?
I don't know MoFi sacd recordings but I did read somewhere that because sacd is kind of small-scale, mixers and sound engineers are sometimes given more freedom. This might lead to versions that they like, instead of versions for the masses. Nevertheless, I am not claiming that this is true but it seemed plausible to me.

I do 100% think that a great conversion of such a disc to CD would sound the same to me.

Another difference is surround that some sacds include. I do enjoy it - just like audio DVD or blu-ray.

Ime, Mofi's mastering is generally good to hit & miss ... some mfsl lp show an obvious rise at the freq. extremes, esp the low end bass region in comparison to the orig & other remasters.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Ime, Mofi's mastering is generally good to hit & miss ... some mfsl lp show an obvious rise at the freq. extremes, esp the low end bass region in comparison to the orig & other remasters.

You have any MFSL half speed Masters?

 

[TBone]

Yes, a few ...

 

[dadregga]

Every MoFi (and Analogue Productions) master I have that I really love (Many of them are excellent! And very worth owning!) sounds exactly as good on the CD layer, and I have been completely unable to measure a difference (in the human-audible range) between SACD and Redbook PCM layers cut from the same master - and when it comes to digital storage formats like PDM/PCM, it is literally true that if you can't measure a theoretically-audible difference in how sound is encoded in an "on-disk" format, then a difference doesn't exist at the format level.


The nerd part of me likes DSD because it's a technological curio (I collect SACDs! It's fun. They're odd. And weirdly still being made.) - and because SACDs are expensive to make and targeted at a niche/specialist audience, your average SACD release has higher odds of getting a careful/loving mastering job - but that's a purely incidental benefit, and as noted over and over on this forum, DSD is completely worthless as a "better" format versus equivalent quality PCM - and I say that as a fan.

 

[krabapple]

Because it sells at an elevated price for the same music and mastering.

And the mastering is usually new (a remastering) which makes ascribing any audible difference particularly to 'DSD', pretty much impossible.

SACDs never sounded 'soft' to me. (If they do to some, it could be that the DSD layer mastering is more dynamic than the CD layer). They didn't sound like anything particular at all. The releases display the same dependence on mastering choices as any other format. Some sound good. Some don't.

 

[krabapple]

Is it the same mastering?
I don't know MoFi sacd recordings but I did read somewhere that because sacd is kind of small-scale, mixers and sound engineers are sometimes given more freedom. This might lead to versions that they like, instead of versions for the masses. Nevertheless, I am not claiming that this is true but it seemed plausible to me.

Every MoFi (and Analogue Productions) master I have that I really love (Many of them are excellent! And very worth owning!) sounds exactly as good on the CD layer, and I have been completely unable to measure a difference (in the human-audible range) between SACD and Redbook PCM layers cut from the same master - and when it comes to digital storage formats like PDM/PCM, it is literally true that if you can't measure a theoretically-audible difference in how sound is encoded in an "on-disk" format, then a difference doesn't exist at the format level.

It has definitely happened, though, that different masterings are found on different layers. The most famous case is Dark Side of the Moon, which is probably the best selling SACD ever released. The PCM layer had compression absent on the DSD layer. Easily seen in waveform view.

I have another SACD where the *DSD* layer shows evidence of clipping that is absent from the PCM layer! I can only explain it as sheer incompetence or carelessness.

Most DSD/PCM pairs I've looked at from SACDs are the same, though.