The sound quality of DSD?

[HDavidson]

I convert 44100 to DSD64 or 128 on the fly. Strange, but often I prefer DSD64, more dynamic. DSD128 sounds smoother.
In DSD256 I see no point.

 

[LanceLewin]

Is the noise generated the music's noise floor, or is it actually the amplifier after gain?

Heard the noise as I passed a very high volume output on my preamp: suddenly it was loud and frankly outrageous. However, the vendor send me access to DL the Flac version and the entire Noise thing was gone, no matter how high I turned up the volume. The vendor said he could find no fault or irregularities with the DSD64 file I originally purchased, but, Gee...after listening to the Flac version...something was not right.

I made test using both regular and SACD's and turned up the volume to the same level and higher and absolutely no noise was present. Interesting stuff. By the way, is anyone familiar with "M A Recording"? Do they incorporate any type of post-production (or in-production) effects like Sony 360 or others? Just curious, as some of the tracks on theie Demo sounded too amazing!

 

[LanceLewin]

The 'detailed review' was the usual report of astounding hearing abilities unsupported by solid evidence .

Your experience -- DSD files being lower level compared to normal (PCM) -- is a feature of SACD, not a bug. For a given recording, the SACD/DSD equivalent can be as much as 6dB lower in peak level (some sources say as much as 12db! but I haven't seen that). Put another way '0 dB" in DSD world typically translates to -6dBFS in PCM world. The technical reason is that sigma-delta modulators used for coding audio to DSD are unstable if the level is too high. A level that translates to -6dB PCM is the common safety factor used as a result.

SACD hardware players typically prevent users from hearing this, by lowering *CD* output by 6dB. That way the listeners won't feel 'cheated' when their precious SACDs seem to sound 'less good' than their CDs (a perception due to simple psychoacoustics, not anything 'real')

Just turn up the volume when you play DSD, if it bothers you. Or convert the file to PCM and adjust the level so it peaks near 0dBFS, and you'll never need to fuss about it again. (Which is what I do).

You should not have to turn it up so loud that you hear 'noise' in an irritating way. Any noise you are hearing then is tape/production/system noise -- there is no way you will hear the ultrasonic DSD 'noise' in a normally working system.

Really appreciate the comments. Thank you!

 

[Kal Rubinson]

By the way, is anyone familiar with "M A Recording"? Do they incorporate any type of post-production (or in-production) effects like Sony 360 or others?

AFAIK, Todd Garfinkle doesn't do any such post- or in-production effects but he is a master at capturing realistic ambiance at marvelous venues.

 

[bennetng]

Heard the noise as I passed a very high volume output on my preamp: suddenly it was loud and frankly outrageous. However, the vendor send me access to DL the Flac version and the entire Noise thing was gone, no matter how high I turned up the volume. The vendor said he could find no fault or irregularities with the DSD64 file I originally purchased, but, Gee...after listening to the Flac version...something was not right.

I made test using both regular and SACD's and turned up the volume to the same level and higher and absolutely no noise was present. Interesting stuff. By the way, is anyone familiar with "M A Recording"? Do they incorporate any type of post-production (or in-production) effects like Sony 360 or others? Just curious, as some of the tracks on theie Demo sounded too amazing!

Perhaps inadequate ultrasonic filtering from the DAC. If there is no alternative PCM release you can always convert the DSD file to PCM yourself, even on the fly.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds/the-sound-quality-of-dsd.14773/post-520545

The only M A Recording CD I have:
https://forums.cockos.com/showpost.php?s=71f578e284d937da62454d9ca11fdcda&p=1852077&postcount=105

 

[LanceLewin]

AFAIK, Todd Garfinkle doesn't do any such post- or in-production effects but he is a master at capturing realistic ambiance at marvelous venues.

M-A Recording: Just amazing the level of detail Todd captures! I am listening to several tracks I purchased and Demo's he provided, too. The feeling of being present at the actual event is far better than the best Reference Recordings of the mid-90's (well, most anyway, because I have a few RR Jazz recordings from that period that are fascinating!). In any case, listening to some of Todd's tracks are almost scary in their sense of presence. And of course, my Rogue Amp and preamp brings a lot as it relates to a deep and wide stage to these wonderfully mastered sound tracks. Just saying.

 

[Robonaut]

A few foibles do remain:
- The part about not being able to mix or otherwise process without conversion to PCM
- The dishonesty or at best disingenuity of their little graphic showing this pure flow which perhaps applies to I dunno 1.487% of recordings
- The fact that DSD or PCM is rather irrelevant when most of the source material is being scraped off ancient tape, with all those attendant problems
- The part about wondering why not use really good multibit converters...maybe they weren't as good in some specifications at the time? I don't know.

A question about the bolded point. Certain SACD players (like the Sony SCD-XA900ES) allow you to adjust things like levels and distance for each individual speaker in a 5.1 surround setup. Are those players converting the DSD data to PCM to do so?

 

[mansr]

A question about the bolded point. Certain SACD players (like the Sony SCD-XA900ES) allow you to adjust things like levels and distance for each individual speaker in a 5.1 surround setup. Are those players converting the DSD data to PCM to do so?

The distance setting is easily done by delaying the channels by different amounts. The level adjustment is presumably part of the volume control, whatever its type.

 

[mkt]

Whatever that means

 

[krabapple]

That would be interesting to know.

 

[JSmith]

a bit more depth

Pun intended?

Have a read here;

https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/

Though you can’t make a direct comparison between the resolution of DSD and PCM, various experts have tried. One estimate is that a 1-bit 2.8224MHz DSD64 SACD has similar resolution to a 20-bit 96KHz PCM. Another estimate is that a 1-bit 2.8224MHz DSD64 SACD is equal to 20-bit 141.12KHz PCM or 24-bit 117.6KHz PCM.
In other words a DSD64 SACD has higher resolution than a 16-bit 44.1KHz Red Book CD, roughly the same resolution as 24-bit 96KHz PCM recording, and not as much resolution as a 24-bit 192KHz PCM recording.
Both DSD and PCM are “quantized,” meaning numeric values are set to approximate the analog signal. Both DSD and PCM have quantization errors. Both DSD and PCM have linearity errors. Both DSD and PCM have quantization noise that requires filtering. In other words, neither one is perfect.

JSmith

 

[PaulD]

Pun intended?

Have a read here;
https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/
JSmith

Or read here from post 2... Which contains this helpful and well researched piece https://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/04/musings-on-sacd-dsd-audio.html

 

[mansr]

That would be interesting to know.

I think the phrase "similar to the professional editing systems" gives it away. They obviously convert it to some multi-bit representation. There is no other way.

 

[Robonaut]

I think the phrase "similar to the professional editing systems" gives it away. They obviously convert it to some multi-bit representation. There is no other way.

It says specifically "The DSP processes the Direct Stream Digital signal in its 1-bit form", though.

 

[mansr]

It says specifically "The DSP processes the Direct Stream Digital signal in its 1-bit form", though.

It does, but since that impossible, there has to be something else going on.

 

[Head_Unit]

A question about the bolded point. Certain SACD players (like the Sony SCD-XA900ES) allow you to adjust things like levels and distance for each individual speaker in a 5.1 surround setup. Are those players converting the DSD data to PCM to do so?

It says specifically "The DSP processes the Direct Stream Digital signal in its 1-bit form", though.

I concur with @mansr - level is probably controlled in the analog output section. Speaker distance is easily done by delaying the 1 bit data. IIRC you cannot implement crossovers or EQ in 1 bit, hence what is said specifically is probably misunderstanding or sleight of hand by the marketing department. Rather like that diagram they loved to showed where the 1 bit was recorded and decoded directly, ignoring how any kind of usual mixing required conversion to at least a few bits, and that most SACD releases were (and still often are) being scraped off old analog tape...
(When discs sound really nice, I credit care and skill, not the technology be it SACD or 24/96 or plain old CD...)

 

[luft262]

I think it's as simple as this...

For the end consumer DSD had an advantage over CD at the time because the bitrate was higher than Redbook CD. Now that most people are switching over to streaming music, Hi-Res PCM usually has an equivalent or higher bitrate than SACD DSD did in the past. Either format would work fine, but since all consumers are using DACs/Devices that support PCM and only some support DSD the streaming services are unlikely to make a move in that direction. For the consumer it doesn't matter what format is used, either can produce excellent sonic fidelity. To me DSD is only relevant if a consumer is playing local files ripped from a CD/SACD or playing those discs directly. In that case the SACD is likely to have a higher sonic fidelity due to having a higher bitrate. Due to convenience, and a lack of local music files, it's irrelevant to me because I'm going to stream all of my music anyway and Hi-Res FLAC/PCM is going to be the best playback available to me and in general it will exceed SACD DSD not because PCM is inherently better, but because a higher bitrate was used in the production of that file and it's also what is available to me from streaming services.

 

[krabapple]

I think it's as simple as this...

For the end consumer DSD had an advantage over CD at the time because the bitrate was higher than Redbook CD.

No, it's not that.

Now that most people are switching over to streaming music, Hi-Res PCM usually has an equivalent or higher bitrate than SACD DSD did in the past. Either format would work fine, but since all consumers are using DACs/Devices that support PCM and only some support DSD the streaming services are unlikely to make a move in that direction. For the consumer it doesn't matter what format is used, either can produce excellent sonic fidelity. To me DSD is only relevant if a consumer is playing local files ripped from a CD/SACD or playing those discs directly. In that case the SACD is likely to have a higher sonic fidelity due to having a higher bitrate.

No.

Differences you hear in normal listening between SACD , hi rez PCM, CD are due to *mastering* differences. (Or trivial differences in analog output level/voltage). You aren't hearing 'bitrate' differences, as you could between low and high bitrate mp3s.

It's that simple.

 

[KeithPhantom]

I think it's as simple as this...

It is actually this simple: you need maximum dynamic range of your music/6 to get the bit depth and twice your highest frequency for sample rate. You don’t need a format, just those conditions fulfilled.

 

[luft262]

No, it's not that.



No.

Differences you hear in normal listening between SACD , hi rez PCM, CD are due to *mastering* differences. (Or trivial differences in analog output level/voltage). You aren't hearing 'bitrate' differences, as you could between low and high bitrate mp3s.

It's that simple.

Bitrate = Sample Rate x Bit Depth

SACD (DSD) is typically 2,822.4 kHz (sample rate) x 1 bit (bit depth) x 2 channels = 5,644.8 Kbps
Redbook CD is 44.1 kHz x 16 bits x 2 channels = 1,411 Kbps
An example of Hi-Res FLAC would be 96 kHz x 24 bits x 2 channels = 4,608 Kbps
Another Hi-Res FLAC example 192 kHz x 24 bits x 2 channels = 9,216 Kbps

Added to this is the fact that FLAC is 30 to 40% smaller in size than a DSD file (so it will be easier and cheaper to stream/store), it carries more metadata (easier to categorize / some DSD Files DFF carry no metadata!), and is supported by vastly more devices.

It's quite possible I'm looking at this wrong. That's why we're all here to share and learn. No need for bold lettering or emotional outbursts.

Please explain if I'm going about this the wrong way.

Thank you.