2xDSD - Smoke and mirrors, or will there appear better masterings on it?
- Thread starter Nightlord
- Start date
Well I'm no expert on signal processing either, I'm happy to stand on the shoulders of those who are
Amir is more knowledgeable and he says that no expert in DSP that he knows of regards DSD as not having this flaw (my understanding, paraphrase of what Amir has said on WBF). But then Amir goes to to say it sounds good regardless, a point of disagreement for me.Excellent questions, ones which engage me too. My take on the first is that it was commercially led, not engineering led. Sony and Philips wanted to prolong the royalties they'd had as a result of being the joint inventors of CD, the patents were expiring. They needed something proprietary, not normal PCM. DSD fitted the bill, it was adopted without due technical diligence.
As to the second - I suspect its because so many DACs used to play back RBCD are actually DSD-like inside, meaning they use S-D circuitry and signal processing. So RBCD played back on most people's DACs gets clobbered with noise modulation. With RBCD so heavily compressed, the superior phase response of DSD wins out and DSD gets preferred.
A footnote to your first question. If we go back along the timeline of CD replay, we notice that Philips introduced 'Bitstream' around 1990 - a single bit system for replay. The chips they had were for example SAA7320, SAA7350 and TDA1547, some of these I still have samples of. But then later they abandoned the 1bit approach and adopted multibit S-D (TDA1305 being an example). The vast majority of the industry also have abandoned single bit, the only exception being Sony in DSD.
Last edited:
There were even CD players that had a one bit and a multibit combination some years ago, as they said there were ways with deep LF and High LF data that was not uniform across the two types of processing...
Maybe that is right. Probably is too.
But one is searching for a good enough compromise to get as close to the master tapes as possible.
Using math to filter what one does hear is more of a folly than anything else.
The business element, that you do sort of do get partly correct, is also a factor, it is, true true.
The DxD/DSD nX'd compromise, if you could call it that, seeing as you say, RBCD has some issues with compression going on, seems like a better alternative then , does it not...
Imperial
Maybe that is right. Probably is too.
But one is searching for a good enough compromise to get as close to the master tapes as possible.
Using math to filter what one does hear is more of a folly than anything else.
The business element, that you do sort of do get partly correct, is also a factor, it is, true true.
The DxD/DSD nX'd compromise, if you could call it that, seeing as you say, RBCD has some issues with compression going on, seems like a better alternative then , does it not...
Imperial
Opus,
I have an MSB Diamond DAC. Is it flawed then, and not doing justice to Redbook, is that it? Because everything I play though it sounds great, including Redbook. DSD (and 2xDSD) just sounds better, and I did the same comparisons Mike did, transfering LPs through the Korg.
alexandre
I have an MSB Diamond DAC. Is it flawed then, and not doing justice to Redbook, is that it? Because everything I play though it sounds great, including Redbook. DSD (and 2xDSD) just sounds better, and I did the same comparisons Mike did, transfering LPs through the Korg.
alexandre
Its one possibility, another is that the CDs I've listened to which had DSD mastering on them were flawed. Tell me more about your MSB DAC before I jump to any too-hasty conclusions. How do you use it - what sample rates do you feed it and what sample rates is it using internally? How does it handle both RBCD and DSD in terms of its internal structure?
There are people in the recording industry that see eye to eye with what Opus111 does imply is part of a bigger truth...
Say 2L - The nordic Sound, Lindberg Lyd AS, http://www.2l.no/ and such.
This company has become somewhat of a superb addition to the high-end community, delivering recording quality at a very very high level.
Excerpt form their main site:
"Digital reproduction of analogue sound
At venue recording sessions our analogue to digital converters can do both the one-bit DSD and the multi-bit PCM formats. We can also listen directly to the analogue output from the microphones. Digital eXtreme Definition is a professional audio format that brings “analogue” qualities in 24 bit at 352.8 kHz sampling rate. DXD preserves 8.4672 Mbit/s (3 times the data of DSD) per channel. This leaves headroom for editing and balancing before quantizing to DSD for SACD or PCM for Blu-Ray.
All audio formats on The Nordic Sound are sample rate converted from the same DXD master. Comparing them in our studio we find only subtle differences from DXD down to 192kHz and 96kHz. The obvious degeneration is from 96kHz down to 48kHz. We find DSD, as used in the SACD format, somewhat different in colour from PCM; in some mysterious way DSD is softer and more beautiful but slightly less detailed. In DXD we find the shimmering brilliance from the original analogue source as directly from the microphones. Linear PCM is offered in addition to DTS HD Master Audio on this Blu-ray with the purpose of convincing audiophiles of the true lossless qualities of commercial encoding. The stereo layer of the SACD and the LPCM 2.0-stream on the Blu-ray are both full resolution mix from the original microphones. Mostly we find that the microphone placements used for the surround make a fine stereo. Occasionally we put up extra microphones dedicated for the stereo stream.
I personally prefer extremely high resolution PCM over the DSD and I would claim that DSD is not transparent. But it all comes down to what the sound from your speakers can do to your body and mind. I find that the placement of microphones has an infinite more important role in the final experience of music, than the difference between HiRes PCM and DSD. Sometimes a lie can be more beautiful than the truth!"
Interesting indeed, and still catering to all needs, the listener is left to make up their mind.
Worthwhile mention I think, as one can get a file in a variety of formats for comparative listening.
Imperial.
Say 2L - The nordic Sound, Lindberg Lyd AS, http://www.2l.no/ and such.
This company has become somewhat of a superb addition to the high-end community, delivering recording quality at a very very high level.
Excerpt form their main site:
"Digital reproduction of analogue sound
At venue recording sessions our analogue to digital converters can do both the one-bit DSD and the multi-bit PCM formats. We can also listen directly to the analogue output from the microphones. Digital eXtreme Definition is a professional audio format that brings “analogue” qualities in 24 bit at 352.8 kHz sampling rate. DXD preserves 8.4672 Mbit/s (3 times the data of DSD) per channel. This leaves headroom for editing and balancing before quantizing to DSD for SACD or PCM for Blu-Ray.
All audio formats on The Nordic Sound are sample rate converted from the same DXD master. Comparing them in our studio we find only subtle differences from DXD down to 192kHz and 96kHz. The obvious degeneration is from 96kHz down to 48kHz. We find DSD, as used in the SACD format, somewhat different in colour from PCM; in some mysterious way DSD is softer and more beautiful but slightly less detailed. In DXD we find the shimmering brilliance from the original analogue source as directly from the microphones. Linear PCM is offered in addition to DTS HD Master Audio on this Blu-ray with the purpose of convincing audiophiles of the true lossless qualities of commercial encoding. The stereo layer of the SACD and the LPCM 2.0-stream on the Blu-ray are both full resolution mix from the original microphones. Mostly we find that the microphone placements used for the surround make a fine stereo. Occasionally we put up extra microphones dedicated for the stereo stream.
I personally prefer extremely high resolution PCM over the DSD and I would claim that DSD is not transparent. But it all comes down to what the sound from your speakers can do to your body and mind. I find that the placement of microphones has an infinite more important role in the final experience of music, than the difference between HiRes PCM and DSD. Sometimes a lie can be more beautiful than the truth!"
Interesting indeed, and still catering to all needs, the listener is left to make up their mind.
Worthwhile mention I think, as one can get a file in a variety of formats for comparative listening.
Imperial.
i use the Playback Designs MPS-5 for discs and for my server dac. my server feeds PCM, dsd, and 2xdsd to the dac thru USB. the PD uses a programmable dac designed by Andreas Koch . i'm quite happy with my RBCD performance. i think the MPS-5 is competitive with any RBCD players out there.
http://www.playbackdesigns.com/start-here/2-dimensional-dac/
i would ask whether you have any high quality analog sources in your system to actually compare to how RBCD and dsd sound in your system compared to that source. all the theory in the world still needs to be proved by listening.
a fully equiped professional mastering studio did the majority of them. some were done in my system with various professional tools. others were done at an audio show i was at in a room with an ATR-102 and a KORG.
I hope that you good backups of these files, but I think that for increased safety you should keep a backup in a small country of western Europe.
i'm sure if i call on you to help me out you would do it.
you never know.
my understanding is that there now is good support for mastering in dsd.
The MSB is a ladder DAC. For PCM, the best results were with upsampling on, to 32/352, and the default 32x filter. Mine has the dedicated clock module installed, which also makes a considerable difference, and it's easy to notice, since it's possible to engage/disengage with the remote.
It accepts DSD in all the inputs. In my setup, I can listen to SACDs from the transport, using the I2S/Ethernet cable, and DSD from a MacBook Pro, through the USB.
I've asked the designer (Larry) whether the DSD signal is converted to PCM, and he claims it's not, neither in the transport, or inside the DAC. It's native DSD.
alexandre
My hypothesis then is that your DAC isn't doing justice to RBCD's dynamics - you're missing out. Andreas Koch last time I read about him had drunk deeply at the well of DSD koolaid. I'd not want him as the designer of my RBCD DAC.
No I don't have any analog sources whatsoever in my home, let alone in my system. When DSD sounds so obviously inferior to RBCD, wouldn't a high quality analog source make DSD sound yet worse?
I take it its a proprietary design, no off-the-shelf DAC chips being used?
That's contrary to my own experience on RBCD where the best results have been obtained with the lowest sample rates. I'm a NOS devotee. I conjecture you're getting appreciable noise modulation by virtue of running so fast. The presence of noise modulation means a less dynamic sound.
What's Larry using for the DSD 1bit DAC element? Is he willing to share?
This thread has gone a little off-topic in a fascinating way!
Back to the OT, though, as a couple of posts have mentioned it's not an industry-wide practice to apply heavy handed techniques to mastering, it's very much a recording by recording decision. There are examples of good and bad mastering on every label in every genre being produced currently, although it is unfortunately true that (still) the vast majority of major label releases are overcompressed and overprocessed.
Back to the OT, though, as a couple of posts have mentioned it's not an industry-wide practice to apply heavy handed techniques to mastering, it's very much a recording by recording decision. There are examples of good and bad mastering on every label in every genre being produced currently, although it is unfortunately true that (still) the vast majority of major label releases are overcompressed and overprocessed.
Interesting - thanks for sharing it - I concur with that writer's subjective impressions - DSD to my ears too sounds far from being transparent.
That DSD doesn't have linear resolution relative the frequency is known, so the comment quoted is not very odd.
The making up their mind is the same old one as always: do you want to stay subjective, or do you want to decide from the actual facts?
There are lots of releases coming i 2013/2014 recorded the very good way.
Availability will be in several formats, also in the formats mentioned.
Seeing as you are from Sweden I suspect you are well aware of this?
Eller tar jeg feil når jeg anntar du kjenner til opptaks scenen i norden? Skulle tro dette var meget godt kjent hos oss nordboere? (writing in nordic... )
I suspect that the recording companies does not want to get fully into the battle that we are waging, not on their behalf...So they speak somewhat not taking sides, I guess? The actual facts..
I've dabbled some in studios myself in my younger years and well, the amount of processing that takes place would scare the **** out of all but the most deaf single minded direct to vinyl fanatic...
But who cares about how music is made, it's the experience when listening that is the pudding! You take a bite, it resolves into a complex experience! evolving as you consume! Different system = different experience!
There is no correct way to consume music... one has to listen, in the end...
Med vennlig hilsen.
My hypothesis then is that your DAC isn't doing justice to RBCD's dynamics - you're missing out. Andreas Koch last time I read about him had drunk deeply at the well of DSD koolaid. I'd not want him as the designer of my RBCD DAC.
have you listened to any of his designs?
not worth commenting on.
No, I haven't. If you give me a good reason to seek them out though, I might be interested. What does he bring to the table which is innovative for RBCD replay?
i cannot comment on the technical aspects of his dac designs (the links i put in the previous posts will lead you to details about him and his dacs if you are interested). i can only say that RBCD thru his dac sounds more like my analog than other dacs i've heard. when i go to audio shows and go to many rooms the Playback Designs dacs i hear are consistently more natural sounding and right to my ears.
i find that the Playback Designs does space and detail more like analog. i hear farther into the music and it does not have the 'flatness' i get from most other dacs. i can listen to digital all day long thru his dacs.
All of this digital mudslinging is kind of funny. Opus, maybe you are really on to something with your NOS DACs that you design, build, or modify from other OEMs. I was always led to believe that NOS DACs had the worst technical performance with regards to the almighty specifications that people who love specifications love. I keep reading from your writings that the only reason people who don't love the sound of RBCD don't love the sound of RBCDs is because they aren't using a NOS DAC. On the other side of the digital scale we have some members on this forum who think that the sound of MP3s is just dandy.
I'm sure because I have the Mytek Stereo 192 DAC that it is causing me to believe that DSD sounds better than RBCD and Hi-Rez digital files up to 24/192. Maybe I really need to get my hands on one of those souped up sub-$200 NOS that has been hotrodded to get rid of the NOS droop you are always talking about and then the digital angels would come singing in my ears. In the meantime, DSD will remain my favorite digital format to listen to because it does sound "beautiful" and more closely resembles the sound of analog to my ears. There is no doubt in my system (and my ears) where DSD stands in the digital pecking order.
I'm sure because I have the Mytek Stereo 192 DAC that it is causing me to believe that DSD sounds better than RBCD and Hi-Rez digital files up to 24/192. Maybe I really need to get my hands on one of those souped up sub-$200 NOS that has been hotrodded to get rid of the NOS droop you are always talking about and then the digital angels would come singing in my ears. In the meantime, DSD will remain my favorite digital format to listen to because it does sound "beautiful" and more closely resembles the sound of analog to my ears. There is no doubt in my system (and my ears) where DSD stands in the digital pecking order.
Yes, proprietary, fully programmable design.
Isn't it obvious to you that the designer thought about that appreciable noise modulation, and took steps to make sure that it doesn't happen? Specially since they emphasize the importance of upsampling in the manual (that can be downloaded for free on their website, btw).
Look that manual up on their site, it'll provide you a bit more information than I'm able to convey here...
I just wanted to give you another point of view, that sometimes all your theory doesn't add up in practice, and if work is applied to a problem (DSD' issues), good results can be had. And these good results can only be "measured" by one instrument, the ear.
alexandre
Similar threads
- Sticky
