DSD Battle Royale!

[Orb]

Sometimes you need to quit looking at specifications and use your ears to tell you whether something sounds better. Sounds like JA came to that conclusion. For me, there is no comparison between PCM and DSD in terms of which one sounds more real.

Actually MEP their skepticism may be their view on its (DSD) accuracy and being too "soft-analogue" (that was Keith's thoughts to date) - using quotes as the context is in comparison to good/well done hirez PCM.
I know some engineers at some audio manufacturing with extensive digital knowledge/experience feel good hirez PCM may actually be more accurate (these are engineers that have developed both PCM and DSD architecture-solutions), although probably a few other manufacturers who also do both may think otherwise.

Of course this can be split between DSD used as an archive/within the studio and DSD that is decoded with a consumer's DAC (where possibly this is their concern).
Cheers
Orb

 

[microstrip]

Sometimes you need to quit looking at specifications and use your ears to tell you whether something sounds better. Sounds like JA came to that conclusion. For me, there is no comparison between PCM and DSD in terms of which one sounds more real.

Are you referring mainly to your listening experience carried with your Mytek?

 

[microstrip]

Actually MEP their skepticism may be their view on its (DSD) accuracy and being too "soft-analogue" (that was Keith's thoughts to date) - using quotes as the context is in comparison to good/well done hirez PCM.
I know some engineers at some audio manufacturing with extensive digital knowledge/experience feel good hirez PCM may actually be more accurate (these are engineers that have developed both PCM and DSD architecture-solutions), although probably a few other manufacturers who also do both may think otherwise.

Of course this can be split between DSD used as an archive/within the studio and DSD that is decoded with a consumer's DAC (where possibly this is their concern).
Cheers
Orb

My main concern in this DSD/PCM debates is that some of the louder sounding PCM partisans also state that HiRez is not better than Redbook ...

BTW, I was very disappointed to read the review of the Wilson Audio Beethoven/Enescu (PCM 176 kHz FLAC) in the December HifiNews - everywhere I saw glowing references to this work, but they (CB) only give it an average classification in sound quality. Perhaps in this case the DSD transfer was much better sounding.

 

[tailspn]

Actually MEP their skepticism may be their view on its (DSD) accuracy and being too "soft-analogue" (that was Keith's thoughts to date) - using quotes as the context is in comparison to good/well done hirez PCM.
I know some engineers at some audio manufacturing with extensive digital knowledge/experience feel good hirez PCM may actually be more accurate (these are engineers that have developed both PCM and DSD architecture-solutions), although probably a few other manufacturers who also do both may think otherwise.

Of course this can be split between DSD used as an archive/within the studio and DSD that is decoded with a consumer's DAC (where possibly this is their concern).
Cheers
Orb

You raise some very interesting points. IMO, the "some engineers at some audio manufacturing" do not have the benefit of auditioning native DSD recordings prior to the SACD authoring and reading process, and are therefore clueless about the sonic nature of the actual analog freed. Also, since all PCM recordings today, (save those very few recorded with the now thirteen year old Pacific Microsonics ADC) are derived/converted from much higher sampling rate multi-bit Pulse Density Modulation Delta-Sigma Modulator front end ADC's (of which 1-bit two level DSD is one variant), theorizing that PCM "may actually be more accurate" is ridiculous.

You would not find many recording engineers who use DSD to record acoustic music in an actual acoustic environment stating they think PCM is a more accurate recording medium.

Best,
Tom

 

[Bruce B]

You would not find many recording engineers who use DSD to record acoustic music in an actual acoustic environment stating they think PCM is a more accurate recording medium.

Best,
Tom

There is also a bias whereas multi-channel DSD has a much higher price of admission.

 

[mep]

Actually MEP their skepticism may be their view on its (DSD) accuracy and being too "soft-analogue" (that was Keith's thoughts to date) - using quotes as the context is in comparison to good/well done hirez PCM.
I know some engineers at some audio manufacturing with extensive digital knowledge/experience feel good hirez PCM may actually be more accurate (these are engineers that have developed both PCM and DSD architecture-solutions), although probably a few other manufacturers who also do both may think otherwise.

Of course this can be split between DSD used as an archive/within the studio and DSD that is decoded with a consumer's DAC (where possibly this is their concern).
Cheers
Orb

Orb-I like DSD precisely because it does sound like analog, but not "soft" analog whatever that means. I have DSD recordings that sound anything but soft. But back to my other point...I hope that the reasonable among us will give props to JA from Stereophile for being a very experienced engineer who understands specifications and knows how to measure gear. The engineering side of JA's brain told him that PCM should probably sound better, but the part of the brain that actually listens to music instead of specifications told him DSD sounds really good.

 

[mep]

Are you referring mainly to your listening experience carried with your Mytek?

Why yes, I am. Something wrong with that? Doesn't PCM stand for Pretty Crappy Music and DSD stands for Dynamite Sounding Digital?

 

[mep]

You raise some very interesting points. IMO, the "some engineers at some audio manufacturing" do not have the benefit of auditioning native DSD recordings prior to the SACD authoring and reading process, and are therefore clueless about the sonic nature of the actual analog freed. Also, since all PCM recordings today, (save those very few recorded with the now thirteen year old Pacific Microsonics ADC) are derived/converted from much higher sampling rate multi-bit Pulse Density Modulation Delta-Sigma Modulator front end ADC's (of which 1-bit two level DSD is one variant), theorizing that PCM "may actually be more accurate" is ridiculous.

You would not find many recording engineers who use DSD to record acoustic music in an actual acoustic environment stating they think PCM is a more accurate recording medium.

Best,
Tom

Umm, what is an "actual acoustic environment?" Also, how many digital recording engineers do you personally know or you have talked to who told you that PCM is the way to go to record acoustic music in an "actual acoustic environment?"

 

[Orb]

Orb-I like DSD precisely because it does sound like analog, but not "soft" analog whatever that means. I have DSD recordings that sound anything but soft. But back to my other point...I hope that the reasonable among us will give props to JA from Stereophile for being a very experienced engineer who understands specifications and knows how to measure gear. The engineering side of JA's brain told him that PCM should probably sound better, but the part of the brain that actually listens to music instead of specifications told him DSD sounds really good.

I knew some would take the term "soft" to an extreme
Again please appreciate the context is about comparing good hirez PCM to DSD, and it is more than one audio digital engineer that feels the hirez PCM is more "accurate" - again quotes because this can be taken to extremes that are outside the context when evaluating both.
Anyway as I mentioned there are probably other engineers that may feel the opposite, but this highlights a potential reason for valid skepticism.
This is not just about JA btw and just picking up what I feel was the wrong angle you had on this subject due to other highly technical/knowledgable audio people who have certain level of doubt themselves.

Cheers
Orb

 

[wisnon]

Umm, what is an "actual acoustic environment?" Also, how many digital recording engineers do you personally know or you have talked to who told you that PCM is the way to go to record acoustic music in an "actual acoustic environment?"

Tom is, I believe, an industry insider. He may even be a recording engineer (or a hardware designer).

I cant recall exactly, but I recall this from ComputerAudiophile.

 

[Orb]

You raise some very interesting points. IMO, the "some engineers at some audio manufacturing" do not have the benefit of auditioning native DSD recordings prior to the SACD authoring and reading process, and are therefore clueless about the sonic nature of the actual analog freed. Also, since all PCM recordings today, (save those very few recorded with the now thirteen year old Pacific Microsonics ADC) are derived/converted from much higher sampling rate multi-bit Pulse Density Modulation Delta-Sigma Modulator front end ADC's (of which 1-bit two level DSD is one variant), theorizing that PCM "may actually be more accurate" is ridiculous.

You would not find many recording engineers who use DSD to record acoustic music in an actual acoustic environment stating they think PCM is a more accurate recording medium.

Best,
Tom

Tom,
at least one of the engineer teams I am talking about develop both studio and consumer gear and are moderately popular
As I mentioned; maybe part of the issue is the consumer side DAC aspect and NOT the studio process.

I will leave it alone, there is no easy or simple answer to this subject anyway.
Cheers
Orb

 

[wisnon]

Orb-I like DSD precisely because it does sound like analog, but not "soft" analog whatever that means. I have DSD recordings that sound anything but soft. But back to my other point...I hope that the reasonable among us will give props to JA from Stereophile for being a very experienced engineer who understands specifications and knows how to measure gear. The engineering side of JA's brain told him that PCM should probably sound better, but the part of the brain that actually listens to music instead of specifications told him DSD sounds really good.

This I can agree with.

 

[garylkoh]

Umm, what is an "actual acoustic environment?" Also, how many digital recording engineers do you personally know or you have talked to who told you that PCM is the way to go to record acoustic music in an "actual acoustic environment?"

I would say that the most extreme of recording engineers who record in actual acoustic environments is Todd Garfinkle - whom I am honored to personally know. He has recorded with PCM for many, many years, and most of the recordings he has made and that we all love have been on PCM.

Since discovering the Korg MR2000, he has been recording on DSD, and he told me the recordings he has currently done are much better for it.

Todd is as format agnostic as any I have met. All he cares for is the music - not the format it is in. When he made the vinyl of Sera una Noche, he sent me his test pressings prior to production. One sounded quite a bit better than the other and I told him so. He told me that I picked the one cut from DSD. We had both come to the same conclusion - the vinyl cut from DSD sounded better than when cut from PCM - even though the music was originally recorded in PCM.

 

[tailspn]

Umm, what is an "actual acoustic environment?"

A performance space for unamplified music, usually, but not necessarily designed to accommodate an audience, as opposed to a recording studio, where the environment is added in post processing.

Also, how many digital recording engineers do you personally know or you have talked to who told you that PCM is the way to go to record acoustic music in an "actual acoustic environment?"

None. All the engineers I know, or have worked with all record in DSD. But several, Morten Lindberg of 2L and Keith Johnson of Reference Recordings have publicly expressed their preference for PCM recording of their projects.

 

[Bruce B]

But several, Morten Lindberg of 2L and Keith Johnson of Reference Recordings have publicly expressed their preference for PCM recording of their projects.

We all know why Keith Johnson prefers PCM.....

 

[tailspn]

We all know why Keith Johnson prefers PCM.....

How true....

 

[microstrip]

Why yes, I am. Something wrong with that? Doesn't PCM stand for Pretty Crappy Music and DSD stands for Dynamite Sounding Digital?

No, but we can not discard the possibility that the Mytek PCM implementation is much inferior to the DSD one, and your strong opinions are partially due to it. Some people reported that they have found it to have a "dry" balance in it, perhaps DSD favors it. Just thinking loud, extreme opinions sometimes have hidden causes!

 

[microstrip]

(...) We had both come to the same conclusion - the vinyl cut from DSD sounded better than when cut from PCM - even though the music was originally recorded in PCM.

Gary,
Do you know of any equipment that can trans-code PCM to DSD in real time during playback, without writing or saving the DSD to files?

 

[Bruce B]

One sounded quite a bit better than the other and I told him so. He told me that I picked the one cut from DSD. We had both come to the same conclusion - the vinyl cut from DSD sounded better than when cut from PCM - even though the music was originally recorded in PCM.

So what was the DAC used to cut the vinyl?

 

[Orb]

Gary,
Do you know of any equipment that can trans-code PCM to DSD in real time during playback, without writing or saving the DSD to files?

I thought the latest dCS Vivaldi Upsampler could?
Would need to check to be sure though.
Cheers
Orb