PCM with room correction, or DSD without?

[curiouspeter]

Let's say you have audio files in DSD format, would you rather convert them to PCM and apply room correction, or would you rather play them as is, assuming a delta-sigma DAC with native DSD support is used?

 

[abdo123]

I would pick room correction above anything else, even if it was the headphone jack of my internet router.

 

[Ron Texas]

PCM with room correction every single time. Room correction makes a dramatic difference. Native PCM as compared to on the fly conversion to PCM sounds the same to me. You will also need an analogue volume control for native DSD. Around here you will sometimes hear the expression "DSD Jail".

 

[dfuller]

I'd rather correction. DSD is a scam anyway, everything is worked on in PCM because not a single DAW out there supports DSD.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Is this going to be unanimous? Is there someone who has actually made the comparison going to argue?

 

[abdo123]

Is this going to be unanimous? Is there someone who has actually made the comparison going to argue?

Unless you live in a giant underground bunker, with a perfect bass and sub-bass response, Room correction is paramount.

 

[curiouspeter]

Is this going to be unanimous? Is there someone who has actually made the comparison going to argue?

I think the only argument is convenience. If the files are already DSD, you can keep the conversion (on-the-fly or batch processed). For those who run Roon Core on lesser hardware, this can make a difference. But I guess one can just convert DSFs into FLACs in advance.

 

[Matias]

Small difference of DSD versus PCM, or large difference of corrected response versus uncorrected? No brainer.

 

[curiouspeter]

I'd rather correction. DSD is a scam anyway, everything is worked on in PCM because not a single DAW out there supports DSD.

Some music (e.g. classical) does not need mixing or complex editing. Just have one mic per channel and record in DSD256. This way, it is possible for a recording to have stayed in DSD the whole time.

 

[dfuller]

Some music (e.g. classical) does not need mixing or complex editing. Just have one mic per channel and record in DSD256. This way, it is possible for a recording to have stayed in DSD the whole time.

DAWs still don't support DSD, and having recorded and mixed orchestras, I can say for a fact that's not really quite accurate.

 

[MetalDaze]

DAWs still don't support DSD, and having recorded and mixed orchestras, I can say for a fact that's not really quite accurate.

I thought the latest MOFI system uses DSD for the entire mastering chain? Up until 2016 or so they used to mix in very high rate PCM and then up-sample to DSD (I believe). Paul at PS Audio also talks a lot about the Sonoma recording and mastering system at their Octave record studio which is all in DSD. Of course these are smaller niche companies with targeted audiences. Not for mass market production.

 

[curiouspeter]

I am just trying to decide if I should get a Modius (or shall I say Bifrost LOL) for my speaker amp or something like a DSD-capable D70s just to be sure.

 

[dfuller]

I thought the latest MOFI system uses DSD for the entire mastering chain? Up until 2016 or so they used to mix in very high rate PCM and then up-sample to DSD (I believe). Paul at PS Audio also talks a lot about the Sonoma recording and mastering system at their Octave record studio which is all in DSD. Of course these are smaller niche companies with targeted audiences. Not for mass market production.

Okay, so the main problems with this are twofold:

1, studios suitable for recording classical are running Pro Tools HD almost exclusively. Pro Tools does not support DSD at any level, only PCM.
2, even DAWs that claim DSD support are transcoding it to high sample rate PCM for processing, and Sonoma is no exception (it's 2.822MHz 8 bit PCM, or as they call it, "DSD-WIDE"). More common is DXD (352.8KHz/24 bit PCM).

I am just trying to decide if I should get a Modius (or shall I say Bifrost LOL) for my speaker amp or something like a DSD-capable D70s just to be sure.

The only downside to the Modius is you need an analog-side volume control. Otherwise, it's a well made solidly performing DAC. I don't consider 192KHz PCM to ever be a bad upper limit.

 

[MetalDaze]

Okay, so the main problems with this are twofold:

1, studios suitable for recording classical are running Pro Tools HD almost exclusively. Pro Tools does not support DSD at any level, only PCM.
2, even DAWs that claim DSD support are transcoding it to high sample rate PCM for processing, and Sonoma is no exception (it's 2.822MHz 8 bit PCM, or as they call it, "DSD-WIDE"). More common is DXD (352.8KHz/24 bit PCM).

I'm familiar with the more common DXD. Which is how pretty much it's been done for editing and mastering since DSD became available.

So what you're saying is even when a company (like mofi for instance) says they are capturing the analog tape at DSD 256. The master archive capture is probably in that container. But then it would be exported to DXD, mastered and then transferred back to DSD 256. Now you have two DSD256 files, one raw, one mastered. And then the mastered version is the one which is then down sampled for the SACD and CD layer?

If true, then its lame. Its essentially the way it has been done all along, but they are holding the file in a higher DSD sample. And marketing it as being DSD from transfer to finish. I know the 1-bit system is essentially useless for mastering and editing, but I thought this latest update to those systems mentioned allowed them to master entirely in the DSD realm.

 

[curiouspeter]

Okay, so the main problems with this are twofold:

1, studios suitable for recording classical are running Pro Tools HD almost exclusively. Pro Tools does not support DSD at any level, only PCM.
2, even DAWs that claim DSD support are transcoding it to high sample rate PCM for processing, and Sonoma is no exception (it's 2.822MHz 8 bit PCM, or as they call it, "DSD-WIDE"). More common is DXD (352.8KHz/24 bit PCM).


The only downside to the Modius is you need an analog-side volume control. Otherwise, it's a well made solidly performing DAC. I don't consider 192KHz PCM to ever be a bad upper limit.

I do have analog volume control on my integrated amp.

I wish it had a USB-B connector though. Micro USB is not very robust.

 

[mansr]

DAWs still don't support DSD

That's because it's impossible to do _any_ editing in DSD. Even a simple splice can't be done without causing a click.

 

[curiouspeter]

That's because it's impossible to do _any_ editing in DSD. Even a simple splice can't be done without causing a click.

Hmm, does it mean I should only buy Flac versions from NativeDSD?

 

[voodooless]

From NativeDSD:

Some labels will perform a session analog mix and balance before A/D conversion, but most labels, perform that mix and balance digitally in post production. In any case, post production always includes editing to correct note or tempo phrasing, and playing errors.

So in other words.. there is nothing native here. It always gets converted to PCM at some point! From then on there is really no point in converting it back to DSD (.. well there was no point in sampling in DSD in the first place either )

That does not mean that these might not be world class recordings and mixes, just that one should not obsess over DSD. Get yourself some room correction.

 

[curiouspeter]

Room correction in Roon looks so complicated. I wonder if 1.8 will make it easier.

 

[Feelas]

Some music (e.g. classical) does not need mixing or complex editing. Just have one mic per channel and record in DSD256. This way, it is possible for a recording to have stayed in DSD the whole time.

Yes, but... why would you do it? There's literally no point. There is no technical benefit.

The room correction, on the other hand...