The sound quality of DSD?

[SIY]

I can get skin hearing by shoving my hand in my speaker's reflex port.

Does it squeal with delight?

 

[watchnerd]

Does it squeal with delight?

 

[Pluto]

since about two or three years ago, there is a software that can determine the precise % of portion of DSD that has gone trough any PCM conversion during its way from raw native DSD

And this software is... ?

 

[watchnerd]

And this software is... ?

I can't figure out how it would know.

 

[Pluto]

I can't figure out how it would know.

Let's remain open-minded!

 

[krabapple]

Transient response will always decide in this case. And PCM - unless ridiculosly high sample rate, like DXD (356 kHz, IIRC ) and above, will lose out to DSD - flat out.

It does depend on the capabilities of the overall system, though ; if amplifiers and end transducers ( be it headphones or speakers ) can not reproduce approx "flat" to
at least 40 kHz, most of the DSD advantage will not be reproduced and thus not audible.
But, this is not the deficiency of the DSD ...

At this point I'm left wondering, is there any tired, debunked, zombie canard about DSD vs PCM that you *won't* roll out?

 

[mansr]

I can't figure out how it would know.

If parts of a recording have been manipulated and remodulated, it may be possible to detect the joins. If the entire track were converted to PCM and back to DSD, there would be no way of knowing.

 

[Pluto]

no way of knowing

But as I suggested, let's remain open-minded for the time being.

 

[mansr]

But as I suggested, let's remain open-minded for the time being.

OK, you could look at the noise spectrum and compare it to that of known modulators.

 

[analogSurviver]

And this software is... ?

I have misplaced the info and had to ask a friend who alerted me to its existence in the first place - again.

And - it is sad news indeed: https://www.xivero.com/shop/musicscope/

But you can still download the soft for the trial period and probably legally obtain the license - it was $27.15 and Euro 24.37 back in November 2016.

Here a nice review of MusicScope :
https://audioxpress.com/article/fresh-from-the-bench-xivero-musicscope

 

[analogSurviver]

If parts of a recording have been manipulated and remodulated, it may be possible to detect the joins. If the entire track were converted to PCM and back to DSD, there would be no way of knowing.

Yes, I understand it also this way. If joints are found, that means that native DSD has been edited trough some kind of PCM - but only in very short duration, slightly before and after the actual joint of two pieces. All the rest should be DSD. If entire file has been converted to PCM and edited/mastered in PCM as usual, what else knowing is needed - BUSTED !

 

[mansr]

Yes, I understand it also this way. If joints are found, that means that native DSD has been edited trough some kind of PCM - but only in very short duration, slightly before and after the actual joint of two pieces. All the rest should be DSD. If entire file has been converted to PCM and edited/mastered in PCM as usual, what else knowing is needed - BUSTED !

How would you tell if the whole file has been converted? There won't be any splices to detect. Unless the noise spectrum is identifiable as matching a known software modulator, you'd never know.

 

[analogSurviver]

How would you tell if the whole file has been converted? There won't be any splices to detect. Unless the noise spectrum is identifiable as matching a known software modulator, you'd never know.

I have yet to use the soft... - but, noise spectrum should be identifiable. As a matter of fact, noise spectrum change(s) alone should suffice to tell if the DSD recording has been converted to PCM only at splits - AKA DOING IT RIGHT.
Otherwise, there should be no noise spectrum changes, meaning the whole file has been first converted to PCM, edited/mastered in PCM and only in the end converted back to DSD - aka DOING IT WRONG.

 

[analogSurviver]

At this point I'm left wondering, is there any tired, debunked, zombie canard about DSD vs PCM that you *won't* roll out?

Nope - since idealized rosy glasses graphic presentations of pulse response of PCM vs DSD do not correspond to the actual performance of real world devices.
Which is definitely not to say that they do not approximate them rather well also in practice - particularly in say RME ADI2 Pro FS. Used for real - not for RBCD.

 

[SIY]

Nope - since idealized rosy glasses graphic presentations of pulse response of PCM vs DSD do not correspond to the actual performance of real world devices.
Which is definitely not to say that they do not approximate them rather well also in practice - particularly in say RME ADI2 Pro FS. Used for real - not for RBCD.

So much handwave, so little actual evidence.

 

[Pluto]

I've had a look at this software and while I can see nothing obviously wrong with it, neither can I see any magical ability to detect anything other than schoolboy errors in technique.

 

[Thomas savage]

Iv always felt disappointed by DSD , all my 2ch SACDS sound better to me on the PCM layer , however that may be due to the crappy ' audiophile' mastering on the DSD layer .

I'm certain if you get identical masters , 128 DSD and 96 PCM will be indistinguishable.

Why is this still something we talk about ?

 

[mansr]

I have yet to use the soft... - but, noise spectrum should be identifiable. As a matter of fact, noise spectrum change(s) alone should suffice to tell if the DSD recording has been converted to PCM only at splits - AKA DOING IT RIGHT.
Otherwise, there should be no noise spectrum changes, meaning the whole file has been first converted to PCM, edited/mastered in PCM and only in the end converted back to DSD - aka DOING IT WRONG.

How would you tell the difference between an untouched file and one that has been converted in its entirety?

 

[Pluto]

I'm certain if you get identical masters , 128 DSD and 96 PCM will be indistinguishable

I'd put money on it.

The entire DSD debacle goes back the best part of 20 years. Back then it undoubtedly was better than the PCM then available. Sony and the others who ran “big music” saw DSD and its relationship with SACD as a solution to the problem of CD copying. But PCM got better and better; as soon as bit 18+ became fairly reliable (rather than part of random noise), DSD became obsolescent.

 

[analogSurviver]

Iv always felt disappointed by DSD , all my 2ch SACDS sound better to me on the PCM layer , however that may be due to the crappy ' audiophile' mastering on the DSD layer .

I'm certain if you get identical masters , 128 DSD and 96 PCM will be indistinguishable.

Why is this still something we talk about ?

It is perfectly possible that SACDs sound better on their PCM layer - and it is usually the hardware used for the playback. If the actual DAC used is optimized for PCM and has DSD more as an afterthought or "must check box", that is rather common. If the DAC used is about equally at home both in PCM and DSD (not to mention if it is optimized primarily for DSD ), then DSD will sound better.
Why would you think that the mastering for the PCM and DSD layer has to be different ( other than format ) ? And why would crappy mastering have to be "audiophile" - and furthermore assigned to DSD layer only ?

I do NOT "get" identical masters - I have to actually make them. Microphone feed and parallel recording both to DSD and PCM. Anything else is one step further removed from the original sound.
And, to my expereience, DSD128 and PCM96/24 are NOT indistinguishable.
Very close, yes - indistinguishable, no.