The sound quality of DSD?

[mansr]

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

Not really. The DVD encryption system was broken already in 1999, making it trivial to copy the discs using only standard PC components. SACD remained unbroken until a decade later, when firmware bugs in (ironically) the PS3 were found to permit copying. Later, a few players from Oppo, Pioneer, and others based on the same hardware platform were also found to have firmware bugs allowing copying of SACDs. To this day, SACD ripping is only possible with select hardware running unpatched firmware. SACD really is a much more secure system, and that is why I won't be buying any.

 

[Jimbob54]

Not really. The DVD encryption system was broken already in 1999, making it trivial to copy the discs using only standard PC components. SACD remained unbroken until a decade later, when firmware bugs in (ironically) the PS3 were found to permit copying. Later, a few players from Oppo, Pioneer, and others based on the same hardware platform were also found to have firmware bugs allowing copying of SACDs. To this day, SACD ripping is only possible with select hardware running unpatched firmware. SACD really is a much more secure system, and that is why I won't be buying any.

Would you buy if that restriction wasnt there? OR be happy with red book anyway? I dont think it interests me. I'm not sure I would pay for hi- res of any description is streamers had red book and red book plus (hi res) tiers. If I was still disc based I dont think I would stump up for the player and higher cost discs either.

 

[Pluto]

SACD really is a much more secure system…

And that is precisely why so many big music execs were wetting themselves with excitement. The key to a successful commercial encryption scheme lies on the reliance on specially licensed hardware. I assumed that your earlier comment –

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

was assuming that those techniques (i.e. pit modulation) would be applied to all future CD derivative technologies. I'm uncertain why, in fact, they were not. Perhaps they made the error of assuming that the far cheaper approaches of

• encryption alone would be sufficient
• encryption with a mandatory Internet connection for verification would be viable

or was Sony sufficiently forward thinking to realise, around the turn of the millennium, that the silver disc really only had a few years to run and a massive investment, therefore, pointless?

 

[mansr]

The key to a successful commercial encryption scheme lies on the reliance on specially licensed hardware.

And even then, sooner or later someone slips up and exposes the secrets.

 

[polmuaddib]

Not really. The DVD encryption system was broken already in 1999, making it trivial to copy the discs using only standard PC components. SACD remained unbroken until a decade later, when firmware bugs in (ironically) the PS3 were found to permit copying. Later, a few players from Oppo, Pioneer, and others based on the same hardware platform were also found to have firmware bugs allowing copying of SACDs. To this day, SACD ripping is only possible with select hardware running unpatched firmware. SACD really is a much more secure system, and that is why I won't be buying any.

Some DVD-Audio had Watermark protection that would only allow 3 to 5 seconds of playback in players that supported watermark detction. And that watermark signal is somehwere in the ultrasonic, forgot which frequency exactly. It is hard to remove without cutting out that frequency band. There is a process explained somehwere. Anyway, i found it was much easier to convert it to DSD.
DVD-Audio are now hard to play in foobar. They are messy. SACD-R works like a charm. You have your 2ch and your mch stream and tags.... You can upsample everything to DSD128 or 256... or leave it as is...

 

[polmuaddib]

Some DVD-Audio had Watermark protection that would only allow 3 to 5 seconds of playback in players that supported watermark detction. And that watermark signal is somehwere in the ultrasonic, forgot which frequency exactly. It is hard to remove without cutting out that frequency band. There is a process explained somehwere. Anyway, i found it was much easier to convert it to DSD.
DVD-Audio are now hard to play in foobar. They are messy. SACD-R works like a charm. You have your 2ch and your mch stream and tags.... You can upsample everything to DSD128 or 256... or leave it as is...

i am talking about backups, of course.

 

[Frank Dernie]

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

For me it is because I have an SACD player but wouldn’t know how to play PCM into my 5.1 system

 

[Pluto]

And even then, sooner or later someone slips up and exposes the secrets.

The only reason, even now, that we are able to break into the world of SACD is because of software authors’ (and/or their managers) carelessness. Had the PS3 crack not happened, it is highly likely that SACD would have remained as secure today as it was when invented. Before you say, “there are other hacks”, it is possible that, had the PS3 break not happened, the inspiration for the other approaches may not have been there. We will never know.

That said, to this day, SACD is still a pain in the arris to deal with other than simply putting the disc into a licensed player. I contend that, had Sony managed their licensing and related software development a bit better (i.e. slightly less greed, slightly more development budget), SACD may well have remained uncracked to this day. Whether, of course, there would be the slightest interest in SACD today, had it not been cracked, is another question altogether.

 

[Tks]

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.

I see, well aside from the part of you not caring (don't know why you need to tell us that, since I for one, tend to care and want to understand what people mean when they say something), I guess I'm just confused seeing as how I have SACD's that I've converted to FLACs and I can't hear any difference (late twenties, with 18kHz threshold hearing). I tend to not care too much about formats when listening casually (my mobile setup involves ~96kbps OPUS files), and I appreciate keeping the format natively provided by your purchase just for the sake of preservation. I'm just confused when you say you don't care, nor does it matter to you, but you say you prefer DSD.

Thank you for clarifying at least you're not someone who believes in the whole "source" argument seeing as how no one has access to that most of the time. But I only asked because barring technical descriptors, I am left having to hear people out using natural language (so "close to source" is in the same ballpark of the rest of the descriptors you used later on like "incisive" or whatever any of that other stuff means).

I'd like to just ask one more thing. Can this be replicated? Like what portion of the audio need I look at to find "relaxed" sound, or "fuzzed" sound? The best I ever got with that, is just either more bass (or more bass distortion), or simply less bass (or less bass distortion). Incisive seeming simply something like treble rape for example.

If we're describing the same thing, why not simply speak like that, instead we need potentially proprietary synonyms that require further elaboration. If those words you use have no effect on frequency response descriptors, than I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say "clean" in the slightest.

The only way for these terms to hold exclusive meaning without equivocation on some level, is for your final statement to actually be true (which I highly doubt, because any animal that can hear sounds with ears, will be offended by heavy deviations. Like there is no animal that enjoys 100kHz at full scale being output in front of it's face if it could hear that sound for example. So if by "we all hear different" you mean to say simply: Some of us can only perceive certain frequencies due to whatever physiological reason, then I agree. But if you mean "I can hear the air in between pre recorded sound at 100dB lower than others" or like Rob Watts that claims he can hear distortions at -300dB down, then I'm sorry, but that I simply don't believe without proof. And you can say "well I don't care about proof", then that's when the whole "putting your ideas down" gets re-initiated for example. It would go the same way if I told you I could hear the data stream transmission between wireless signals as they pass through my body, and interpret what is being sent over. You would likely not just accept that at face value, nor would you allow someone to keep constantly talking about it either for long..

 

[mansr]

The only reason, even now, that we are able to break into the world of SACD is because of software authors’ (and/or their managers) carelessness. Had the PS3 crack not happened, it is highly likely that SACD would have remained as secure today as it was when invented. Before you say, “there are other hacks”, it is possible that, had the PS3 break not happened, the inspiration for the other approaches may not have been there. We will never know.

That said, to this day, SACD is still a pain in the arris to deal with other than simply putting the disc into a licensed player. I contend that, had Sony managed their licensing and related software development a bit better (i.e. slightly less greed, slightly more development budget), SACD may well have remained uncracked to this day. Whether, of course, there would be the slightest interest in SACD today, had it not been cracked, is another question altogether.

If the format had become remotely popular, there would have been a) many more devices on the market, and b) much greater incentive for someone to crack one of them.

 

[Pluto]

But could we have cracked the pit processing? We could never have created real physical copies of such discs.

 

[Tks]

But could we have cracked the pit processing? We could never have created real physical copies of such discs.

Is pit processing that weird voids or portions on the disc with nothing on them or something?

 

[mansr]

But could we have cracked the pit processing? We could never have created real physical copies of such discs.

Who cares? If the data can be extracted (using a licensed drive) and played from a PC, there isn't any need to duplicate the disc. How many who download pirate copies of CDs do you think burn them to CD-R?

 

[Pluto]

pit processing

It's extra modulation secreted within the physical bottom of the pits and, if I am not mistaken [NB there is very little accurate information about this stuff in the public domain], placed in an area of the disc not physically accessible by standard drives.

The whole thing is highly tied up in patent and licensing rope. The only mechanisms capable of handling this stuff are directly controlled by Sony.

 

[firedog]

I see, well aside from the part of you not caring (don't know why you need to tell us that, since I for one, tend to care and want to understand what people mean when they say something), I guess I'm just confused seeing as how I have SACD's that I've converted to FLACs and I can't hear any difference (late twenties, with 18kHz threshold hearing). I tend to not care too much about formats when listening casually (my mobile setup involves ~96kbps OPUS files), and I appreciate keeping the format natively provided by your purchase just for the sake of preservation. I'm just confused when you say you don't care, nor does it matter to you, but you say you prefer DSD.

Thank you for clarifying at least you're not someone who believes in the whole "source" argument seeing as how no one has access to that most of the time. But I only asked because barring technical descriptors, I am left having to hear people out using natural language (so "close to source" is in the same ballpark of the rest of the descriptors you used later on like "incisive" or whatever any of that other stuff means).

I'd like to just ask one more thing. Can this be replicated? Like what portion of the audio need I look at to find "relaxed" sound, or "fuzzed" sound? The best I ever got with that, is just either more bass (or more bass distortion), or simply less bass (or less bass distortion). Incisive seeming simply something like treble rape for example.

If we're describing the same thing, why not simply speak like that, instead we need potentially proprietary synonyms that require further elaboration. If those words you use have no effect on frequency response descriptors, than I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say "clean" in the slightest.

The only way for these terms to hold exclusive meaning without equivocation on some level, is for your final statement to actually be true (which I highly doubt, because any animal that can hear sounds with ears, will be offended by heavy deviations. Like there is no animal that enjoys 100kHz at full scale being output in front of it's face if it could hear that sound for example. So if by "we all hear different" you mean to say simply: Some of us can only perceive certain frequencies due to whatever physiological reason, then I agree. But if you mean "I can hear the air in between pre recorded sound at 100dB lower than others" or like Rob Watts that claims he can hear distortions at -300dB down, then I'm sorry, but that I simply don't believe without proof. And you can say "well I don't care about proof", then that's when the whole "putting your ideas down" gets re-initiated for example. It would go the same way if I told you I could hear the data stream transmission between wireless signals as they pass through my body, and interpret what is being sent over. You would likely not just accept that at face value, nor would you allow someone to keep constantly talking about it either for long..

Part of your difficulty is that you are projecting your preconceived ideas onto mine and not reading what I actually wrote.
I didn't say I don't care about proof in general, I said it in relation to your question about what format - PCM or DSD - is more "accurate", and your request for evidence of the same. My answer was I perceive the question as irrelevant and don't see any need to prove it one way or the other - thus I "don't care" about it. They are both accurate - different but accurate. Neither is perfectly accurate. No recording of any type is.

I find it interesting that you've repeatedly said I prefer DSD when I wrote no such thing. If fact, I wrote that I generally listen in PCM and only sometimes in DSD. I also wrote that I'm not interested in format per se.

Further, I made no claims to be able to hear what others don't. So let me try again. Sound arrives at our ears. The same thing arrives at everone's ears. What we hear is not what arrives at our ears. Our brain processes it and what we "hear" is in the brain and not the ears as a result of that processing. It's clear that the result of this processing is not the same for everyone. How you process and react to sound is a result of your unique characteristics, background and experience. If that wasn't true, there'd be no discussion about different speakers - we'd all agree on which ones sound best or which ones we want to own.
Your reaction to sound can also change with experience.

I think my setup sounds accurate and natural. Others think it is "bright". Many people like the sound of room correction following the Harman curve. I think that sound is somewhat dull and lacking in highs. Some people like powerful bass they can physically feel. Others don't. Some people think DSD sounds more like real instruments and players. Others don't. Some people prefer the sound of analog formats. Others prefer digital. People have taste in sound just as they do in other areas. They don't all hear the same thing, even when exposed to the same reproduction, because they interpret-perceive it differently. Actual hearing is in the end perception and not a purely physical phenomenon.

 

[mcdonalk]

The assertion that DSD is converted to PCM for editing may be a rehetorical one. A few weeks ago, our local audio club had a videoconference with Gus Skinas, a recording engineer who was involved in the development of DSD recording and editing systems with Sony. I believe that his current system is the Sonoma recorder and editor. I asked him about this very statement: is DSD converted to PCM for editing? He replied that with the Sonoma system, this is not the case. With a competing system, Pyramix, he stated that the PCM stage may be used, but he wasn't sure. With the Sonoma system, when editing DSD, he explained, each DSD 1-bit sample is changed to a corresponding single multibit sample, not a traditional quantized value, that contains the information needed for editing. So, there is one multibit sample for each 1-bit sample. Obviously, the additional "multibits" associated with each DSD sample are discarded in the final stage. Of course, he would be expected to be an advocate, and he was. His position that the audible difference is a direct reflection of the much higher sample rate compared to PCM. His current project, that he had just finished and "shipped" was the conversion of the analog source for Hendrix' "Are You Experienced" which will soon be available on SACD. (SACD seems to be the only available high definition format for the original Hendrix recordings.) Partly based on this interesting interview, and partly to have fun with my DAC, I purchased DSD256 downlaods of the attached two recordings from nativedsd.com. They may be the best recordings I have ever heard. To satisfy my curiosity, I have also ordered the CD (PCM, of course) version of the Prokofiev recording for comparison.

.

 

[bennetng]

The assertion that DSD is converted to PCM for editing may be a rehetorical one. A few weeks ago, our local audio club had a videoconference with Gus Skinas, a recording engineer who was involved in the development of DSD recording and editing systems with Sony. I believe that his current system is the Sonoma recorder and editor. I asked him about this very statement: is DSD converted to PCM for editing? He replied that with the Sonoma system, this is not the case. With a competing system, Pyramix, he stated that the PCM stage may be used, but he wasn't sure. With the Sonoma system, when editing DSD, he explained, each DSD 1-bit sample is changed to a corresponding single multibit sample, not a traditional quantized value, that contains the information needed for editing. So, there is one multibit sample for each 1-bit sample. Obviously, the additional "multibits" associated with each DSD sample are discarded in the final stage. Of course, he would be expected to be an advocate, and he was. His position that the audible difference is a direct reflection of the much higher sample rate compared to PCM. His current project, that he had just finished and "shipped" was the conversion of the analog source for Hendrix' "Are You Experienced" which will soon be available on SACD. (SACD seems to be the only available high definition format for the original Hendrix recordings.) Partly based on this interesting interview, and partly to have fun with my DAC, I purchased DSD256 downlaods of the attached two recordings from nativedsd.com. They may be the best recordings I have ever heard. To satisfy my curiosity, I have also ordered the CD (PCM, of course) version of the Prokofiev recording for comparison.View attachment 75487View attachment 75488.

Extremely simple. It is possible to have a 1-bit PCM file being sent to a 24 or 32-bit DAC, by padding to a higher bit-depth in a lossless (reversible) manner, as demonstrated here. Conversely, any PCM editing involving a higher bit-depth output, that bit-depth is preserved up to what the DAC supports.

However, a DAC with DSD input only accepts 1-bit. No matter how many bits the processing outside of the DAC are, no matter you call it PCM or DSD, at the end it must be reduced to 1-bit again if you use the DSD format. The only thing you can do is using a higher sample rate, which means resampling, and it is not lossless (not reversible) as long as it involves filtering and noise shaping. More info:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds/the-sound-quality-of-dsd.14773/post-466073

So it is very clear, with PCM and a given bitrate you can have different combinations of bit-depth and sample rate, but not in DSD.

Something sound different is not a proof of whether PCM or DSD is better, since it is perfectly possible to have two CDDA releases with obvious differences as well.

 

[firedog]

The assertion that DSD is converted to PCM for editing may be a rehetorical one. A few weeks ago, our local audio club had a videoconference with Gus Skinas, a recording engineer who was involved in the development of DSD recording and editing systems with Sony. I believe that his current system is the Sonoma recorder and editor. I asked him about this very statement: is DSD converted to PCM for editing? He replied that with the Sonoma system, this is not the case. With a competing system, Pyramix, he stated that the PCM stage may be used, but he wasn't sure. With the Sonoma system, when editing DSD, he explained, each DSD 1-bit sample is changed to a corresponding single multibit sample, not a traditional quantized value, that contains the information needed for editing. So, there is one multibit sample for each 1-bit sample. Obviously, the additional "multibits" associated with each DSD sample are discarded in the final stage. Of course, he would be expected to be an advocate, and he was. His position that the audible difference is a direct reflection of the much higher sample rate compared to PCM. His current project, that he had just finished and "shipped" was the conversion of the analog source for Hendrix' "Are You Experienced" which will soon be available on SACD. (SACD seems to be the only available high definition format for the original Hendrix recordings.) Partly based on this interesting interview, and partly to have fun with my DAC, I purchased DSD256 downlaods of the attached two recordings from nativedsd.com. They may be the best recordings I have ever heard. To satisfy my curiosity, I have also ordered the CD (PCM, of course) version of the Prokofiev recording for comparison.View attachment 75487View attachment 75488.

The system Gus is talking about works, but it doesn't allow for traditional mixing, etc. Basically you have to record live and then edit. Obviously you can also do multiple takes and edit those together. It makes great sounding recordings - essentially pure DSD - but is mostly suitable for smaller ensembles. There is also some orchestral recording done this way, but you have to really know what you are doing, and obviously the cost of multiple takes with an orchestra gets prohibitive.
It isn't suitable for any kind of popular music that relies on multi-track recording, which is why almost all new recordings in DSD are either smallish ensembles and orchestras, with a bit of jazz and world music.

Note: I'm glad to hear about the Hendrix hybrid SACD, I've had it on "back order", "upcoming release" since 12/2019.... For whatever reason, the Hendrix family hasn't put out much of his catalog in hi-res of any type. Some is avialable as SACD- 4 albums counting this one. Electric Ladyland was released as high res blue ray in a hi-res 5.1 remix and 2 channel remaster (not remix) as a box set only last year. Not available except in the box set.

 

[firedog]

Extremely simple. It is possible to have a 1-bit PCM file being sent to a 24 or 32-bit DAC, by padding to a higher bit-depth in a lossless (reversible) manner, as demonstrated here. Conversely, any PCM editing involving a higher bit-depth output, that bit-depth is preserved up to what the DAC supports.

However, a DAC with DSD input only accepts 1-bit, no matter how many bits the processing outside of the DAC is, no matter you call it PCM or DSD, at the end it must be reduced to 1-bit again if you use the DSD format, the only thing you can do is using a higher sample rate, which means resampling, and it is not lossless (not reversible) as long as it involves filtering and noise shaping. More info:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds/the-sound-quality-of-dsd.14773/post-466073

So it is very clear, with PCM and a given bitrate you can have different combinations of bit-depth and sample rate, but not is DSD.

Gus is talking about a system where you edit DSD and only the fraction of the second of the edit iself is converted to multibit /PCM and back to one bit/Delta Sigma. A file in DSD that undergoes this process will remain 99.99% "pure" delta sigma, as it were. So it can be played back on a DAC that has a 1-bit process without conversion to PCM. That's why, as I noted above, it isn't suitable for multi-track recording and isn't used except for music that is recorded "live".

 

[bennetng]

Gus is talking about a system where you edit DSD and only the fraction of the second of the edit iself is converted to multibit /PCM and back to one bit/Delta Sigma. A file in DSD that undergoes this process will remain 99.99% "pure" delta sigma, as it were. So it can be played back on a DAC that has a 1-bit process without conversion to PCM. That's why, as I noted above, it isn't suitable for multi-track recording and isn't used except for music that is recorded "live".

If it is the case then it means the explanation from mcdonalk is incorrect, and I was commenting about that part. It is unfair to compare a cut and paste + short crossfade editing process to a complete system like Pyramix and other DAWs.