The sound quality of DSD?

[Tks]

It's unfortunate that some of the posters on this forum seem to participate mostly to put others down, and seem to think if someone has a different taste/preference than them, or reacts differently to a sound, that that is illegitimate. Somehow it is hard for them to understand that even if we listen to the same thing, we may not hear the same thing. There are personal differences.
Example: my bright and harsh sounding can be your accurate and detailed. And so on.

When you make statements like "don't know, don't care" when asked for an explination of what you even mean when you say DSD is better or more preferable or more true to source, is the exact sort of thing that will attract the sorts of people that will "put you down". No one really cares about putting you down so much as putting down your unsubstantiated ideas down until they can offer more understanding to questions someone might have. People here aren't seeking anymore solely subjectively based machinations, especially for something contentious. There's enough of that anywhere you turn.

Maybe you have gave it more thought, so I'll try asking what the guy asked before. You say DSD sounds different. Does that mean it isn't more true to source, or are you saying it is more true to source?

Also regardless of how different it sounds. What exactly are these differences you're hearing?

 

[Pluto]

SACD would have never ever replaced the CD

I might be tempted to argue that it could have done, had Sony been less arrogant, more focused and willing to throw money at the mission of destroying Red Book in favour of the “format for the new millennium”.

 

[firedog]

Sure, we do. Any release not in the same data format as the source should be investigated for provenance and process.

People care, but they buy them anyway. The good thing about the classical market is that they include the recording info, So you generally know if the source is PCM. The older SACDs are all derived from PCM, even Redbook, if they aren't conversion from tape.
How many classical labels record in dsd and make a mulichannel direct from that, without any conversion during the process to PCM? ? Not many. Most of it is either sourced from PCM or processed as PCM at some point in the recording to mastering to disc production process.

 

[firedog]

When you make statements like "don't know, don't care" when asked for an explination of what you even mean when you say DSD is better or more preferable or more true to source, is the exact sort of thing that will attract the sorts of people that will "put you down". No one really cares about putting you down so much as putting down your unsubstantiated ideas down until they can offer more understanding to questions someone might have. People here aren't seeking anymore solely subjectively based machinations, especially for something contentious. There's enough of that anywhere you turn.

Maybe you have gave it more thought, so I'll try asking what the guy asked before. You say DSD sounds different. Does that mean it isn't more true to source, or are you saying it is more true to source?

Also regardless of how different it sounds. What exactly are these differences you're hearing?

And I'll give you the same answer - it doesn't matter to me. I care about how it sounds. I'm not interested in the format per se. I said it sounds different. I didn't say better or more accurate. I think the technical argument about what is more "accurate to source" is irrelevant, and I don't know the answer.
As far as I'm concerned. both are accurate to source, they get there in a different way. No recorded disc is truly accurate to source, anyway. They are all approximations.You don't have any real way of knowing when you hear in two sets of playback - DSD or PCM - if one is more accurate or not. You didn't hear the source.

People here argue about whether one is more accurate as if there's a clear answer. There's not. That's why you find dueling experts/engineers on both sides of the argument, and well informed people in the field who disagree about it. The people who record in DSD can give you all the technical arguments about why they find it superior, and vice versa.

BTW, I mostly listen in PCM, and I use DRC, so I'm generally converting source files to PCM anyway.

But, how does DSD sound different to me? It has what I call a more connected or solid sound. A little less space or air between instruments, and more of a feeling that the instruments that are playing together are connected and part of a whole. I'd also classify it as sounding a bit more "relaxed".
PCM has more space and air, and is a bit more "incisive". I think the people who strongly prefer DSD react to that sound I described as more natural or analog sounding and that's why they like it. I don't think everyone reacts to it that way. I think it can also be perceived by some as less "clean" - as if it's been "fuzzed up" a tiny bit or softened-even overly softened.

I do sometimes listen to direct DSD from a DSD source, and I sometimes convert playback to DSD to hear that DSD difference. It's not my default way of listening, but I find it enjoyable sometimes. My POV is that it's 2 flavors of recorded sound, and preference for one over the other is simply a matter of taste. I don't think when we all listen to the same playback that we actually always perceive the same thing. Our brains interpret what what comes in our ears, and we don't all interpret sounds the same way.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

People care, but they buy them anyway. The good thing about the classical market is that they include the recording info, So you generally know if the source is PCM. The older SACDs are all derived from PCM, even Redbook, if they aren't conversion from tape.

Agreed.

How many classical labels record in dsd and make a mulichannel direct from that, without any conversion during the process to PCM? ? Not many. Most of it is either sourced from PCM or processed as PCM at some point in the recording to mastering to disc production process.

That, too, but the better labels limit or minimize such conversions. In the many cases where I have been able to compare the master DFFs with the released DSD (ripped or downloaded), differences (edits/cuts aside) are rarely discernible.

 

[bennetng]

DXD is 24bit 352.8kHz. It's a lot like DSD.

What the impulse responses of DSD64 and 44.1k really look like:

The truth is if you want a shorter impulse response, then you need a slower DSD filter, and the result is more ultrasonic noise. If you want to get rid of the ultrasonic noise, then you need a steeper DSD filter, and results in a longer impulse response. You can't have both and that illustration is a lie and exaggerated the differences. For 44.1kHz PCM you can also get a shorter impulse response, at the expense of more imaging artifacts, so no free lunch here too. Of course SACD still has an advantage over CDDA in terms of ENOB and frequency bandwidth due to the sheer 4x data rate, but for data efficiency you only need about 3x the CDDA data rate to exceed what DSD64 can do, for example, 24-bit/88.2kHz, 22-bit/96kHz and so on.

 

[Pluto]

differences (edits/cuts aside) are rarely discernible

And that is simply because it is possible to go from DSD to PCM and back again a dozen times without it being noticeable. The fact is that, these days, the potential of both techniques is so far beyond our threshold of hearing that it really doesn't matter what you use.

But audiopiles tend to have a penchant for the obscure, the difficult, the complex and the expensive.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

And that is simply because it is possible to go from DSD to PCM and back again a dozen times without it being noticeable. The fact is that, these days, the potential of both techniques is so far beyond our threshold of hearing that it really doesn't matter what you use.

Exactly. My bias towards DSD is simply due to the available multichannel classical repertoire compared with alternative formats.

But audiopiles tend to have a penchant for the obscure, the difficult, the complex and the expensive.

True. Audiophiles, also.

 

[Buster Chestnut]

Exactly. My bias towards DSD is simply due to the available multichannel classical repertoire compared with alternative formats.

I just want the best quality recording I can find. Don’t care if it’s DSD or LSD

 

[Wes]

LSD without a doubt.

 

[Pluto]

Audiophiles, also

Audiopiles tend to be more painful

 

[KeithPhantom]

I might be tempted to argue that it could have done, had Sony been less arrogant, more focused and willing to throw money at the mission of destroying Red Book in favour of the “format for the new millennium”.

Even if Sony made it an open standard, the problem to solve would be how to edit DSD data without converting it to PCM. This is something that would require years and replacing whole productivity chains only to introduce a standard that was harder to deal with compared to simple PCM at higher sample rates/bit depths.

 

[Chrispy]

I can't imagine buying SACD except for the multich mixes....

 

[KeithPhantom]

I can't imagine buying SACD except for the multich mixes....

PCM can do the same, so why not use PCM instead?

 

[Chrispy]

PCM can do the same, so why not use PCM instead?

Dictated mostly by availability. I get multich wherever/however I can. That my players mostly support multich sacd just was a reason to support going in that direction for some more choices other than dvd/bluray.

 

[mansr]

Even if Sony made it an open standard, the problem to solve would be how to edit DSD data without converting it to PCM. This is something that would require years and replacing whole productivity chains only to introduce a standard that was harder to deal with compared to simple PCM at higher sample rates/bit depths.

It's worse than that. It is mathematically impossible to do anything (useful) at all with a DSD stream.

 

[Pluto]

Even if Sony made it an open standard, the problem to solve would be how to edit DSD data

“Not my problem. If you want to devise a production process that's DSD-based from beginning to end, you go ahead.”

All that big music wants to achieve is a delivery format proof against the evils of piracy, without which the industry could afford more Cadillacs, trips to Bermuda, bottles of Bollinger and, just perhaps, bring on a few more new acts. The pressure for a totally DSD production chain comes entirely from a clique of consumers so small that it really doesn't matter.

Red Book CD was introduced at a time when, in all likelihood, the only digital process in the entire chain was the final conversion. So the idea of a delivery technology that was entirely different to the rest of the production technology was, by no means, anathema.

 

[mansr]

All that big music wants to achieve is a delivery format proof against the evils of piracy

DSD is neither here not there with respect to that. Once you have the data, conversion to a more convenient format is trivial, and the protection measures on SACD would be equally effective with PCM data.

 

[Jimbob54]

Audiopiles tend to be more painful

Sounds it

 

[Pluto]

the protection measures on SACD would be equally effective with PCM data

True. And this is, more or less, what was later achieved with the introduction of DVD-Audio.

But there were loud voices within big music supporting the perceived benefits of keeping the delivery format totally unlike anything the consumer could access. Put yourself inside the mind of a big music exec back in the glory days when Red Book first arrived. Most consumers had no idea of what digital audio even was, never mind the ability to copy and manipulate it. It was that level of detachment being sought.

It's the kind of thing lawyers say when asked for their view on technical matters and, as everybody knows, the opinion of lawyers counts far more than that of technical specialists.