Is this guy for real?

[Andre Marc]

I spent 20 minutes replying and then hit the wrong button and 'poof' there it went. it's late, I'm tired. I will try to revisit your question tomorrow and give it a proper answer.

sorry.

Mike, it has happened to me and it is a pita. On the Hoffman forum a draft of a response is automatically saved. I have started a reply on one computer
and even finished it on another, a day later. Perhaps there is a mechanism for the system here to do the same?

 

[amirm]

As long as we are telling stories .... When SACD and DVD-A formats came, I did extensive AB tests including some blind tests. I bought as much music I could buy that existed on DVD-A, SACD and CD simultaneously. Most common was Chesky. As luck would have it, I went to Audio Engineering Society and there as a panel discussion with David there. I raise my hand and tell him that in my testing SACD sounded better and asked his opinion. Shockingly, he told me all the recordings were done and edited using PCM and only converted to SACD on output!

What this says is that either my testing was wrong or that nothing damaging happens with PCM. Instead, DSD conversion or the playback machine (a Sony), added something that was desirable.

 

[c1ferrari]

I raise my hand and tell him that in my testing SACD sounded better and asked his opinion. Shockingly, he told me all the recordings were done and edited using PCM and only converted to SACD on output!

What this says is that either my testing was wrong or that nothing damaging happens with PCM. Instead, DSD conversion or the playback machine (a Sony), added something that was desirable.

This informs me that converters are different and so are their analog output stages.

 

[amirm]

This informs me that converters are different and so are their analog output stages.

That's my (only) logical conclusion too. What I was listening to was decays into noise floor and DACs can certainly differ in how cleanly they reproduce such low level signals.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

As long as we are telling stories .... When SACD and DVD-A formats came, I did extensive AB tests including some blind tests. I bought as much music I could buy that existed on DVD-A, SACD and CD simultaneously. Most common was Chesky. As luck would have it, I went to Audio Engineering Society and there as a panel discussion with David there. I raise my hand and tell him that in my testing SACD sounded better and asked his opinion. Shockingly, he told me all the recordings were done and edited using PCM and only converted to SACD on output!

What this says is that either my testing was wrong or that nothing damaging happens with PCM. Instead, DSD conversion or the playback machine (a Sony), added something that was desirable.

early SACD machines and even conversion processing was all over the board. you had to pay close attention to the details to know what was what. I was an early SACD adapter and very active with it.

today we have access to hundreds/thousands of pure dsd recordings, and hundreds/thousands of direct rips to dsd and 2xdsd........all that dsd stuff we can compare directly to all levels of PCM to form more meaningful opinions. I compare those files every single day.

anyone who cares can easily decide for themselves about PCM and dsd. if one bases their opinion on decade old experiences then that explains much. soon 4x (quad) dsd will be fairly common.

 

[Andre Marc]

early SACD machines and even conversion processing was all over the board. you had to pay close attention to the details to know what was what. I was an early SACD adapter and very active with it.

today we have access to hundreds/thousands of pure dsd recordings, and hundreds/thousands of direct rips to dsd and 2xdsd........all that dsd stuff we can compare directly to all levels of PCM to form more meaningful opinions. I compare those files every single day.

anyone who cares can easily decide for themselves about PCM and dsd. if one bases their opinion on decade old experiences then that explains much. soon 4x (quad) dsd will be fairly common.

There are currently 474 DSD downloads for sale on Suprhirez after all the hoopla and bunch of carnival barkers promising a "DSD Revolution". Less than 300 are rock or pop titles, which is 98% of the market.

And you are talking about quad dsd??? Thanks for the good laugh.

 

[c1ferrari]

That's my (only) logical conclusion too. What I was listening to was decays into noise floor and DACs can certainly differ in how cleanly they reproduce such low level signals.

The limiting factors for me, Amir, are my listening environment and training. The noise floor of my listening environment is probably insufficiently low to audibly and reliably discern decay. I am making a presumptive effort with training, however. I have recently acquired a GML 9500 Mastering Parametric Equalizer and hope to use it to good effect with some difficult recordings we have. Low noise, low distortion, wide bandwidth, and great headroom, are features of this unit I will use to help inform and instruct me as to what I am experiencing, which I hope will result in my communicating intelligently about what I hear in our non-dedicated listening environment.

 

[edorr]

As long as we are telling stories .... When SACD and DVD-A formats came, I did extensive AB tests including some blind tests. I bought as much music I could buy that existed on DVD-A, SACD and CD simultaneously. Most common was Chesky. As luck would have it, I went to Audio Engineering Society and there as a panel discussion with David there. I raise my hand and tell him that in my testing SACD sounded better and asked his opinion. Shockingly, he told me all the recordings were done and edited using PCM and only converted to SACD on output!

What this says is that either my testing was wrong or that nothing damaging happens with PCM. Instead, DSD conversion or the playback machine (a Sony), added something that was desirable.

This is of course precisely what playack designs, EMM Labs and now PS audio are doing. If digital is in PCM format at any stage in the production / playback stage, we are really not talking about inherent superiority of DSD / PCM, but about the best way to convert PCM to analog.

 

[amirm]

early SACD machines and even conversion processing was all over the board. you had to pay close attention to the details to know what was what. I was an early SACD adapter and very active with it.

today we have access to hundreds/thousands of pure dsd recordings, and hundreds/thousands of direct rips to dsd and 2xdsd........all that dsd stuff we can compare directly to all levels of PCM to form more meaningful opinions. I compare those files every single day.

The story I wrote is unrelated to the point you are making. It talked about how our assumptions can be just wrong. I assumed that recoding in DSD was the reason SACD sounded better. That turned out to be completely false. The only way I learned that was by investigating the facts, i.e. asking the person who recorded the music. What this says that you can't just rely on your assumptions even as carefully gathered ones as I had at the time.

I allow my total assessment of audio technology to have some element of shaky ground. Reading your posts, I don't get that from your opinion of formats. It seems that you have 100% confidence in what you think you know of these formats. It would be trivial for me to disprove a lot of those using my methodology. Your answer to that would that you don't value my methodology. In which case, you don't have a viable foundation to argue with me on this point. Any such statement as you are making needs to be evaluated by removing your bias of which format is better and that bigger numbers are better. Until you do that, then I don't put value on your technical assessments of this type Mike. Any more than you would listen to me explain how from engineering and math/signal processing, the outcome you like is the less performant one.

This is why I earlier said that any sweeping statement you make needs to be prefaced with "in my view of what I hear and what my brain says, XYZ is better." You can't eliminate that preface and hope to be convincing to me while relying on anecdotal personal experiences Mike.

anyone who cares can easily decide for themselves about PCM and dsd. if one bases their opinion on decade old experiences then that explains much. soon 4x (quad) dsd will be fairly common.

I care. Tell me how I would decide without knowing which format is which when I listen that you would accept as methodology. I am all ears, pun intended .

As to 4x DSD or whatever being convincing, markets are driven by merits, marketing, or both. We spoke of Acura vs Honda earlier. Acura is built by the same company but the marketing quotient is higher with the brand positioned as luxury. Likewise, it is human nature to like bigger numbers. If DSD is good, then 4X DSD is much better. You have to accept this principal and then explain on merit alone why that is indicative of any merit there. Without it, the transition to 4X DSD will be purely based on marketing and obvious one at that.

 

[c1ferrari]

There are currently 474 DSD downloads for sale on Suprhirez after all the hoopla and bunch of carnival barkers promising a "DSD Revolution". And you are talking about quad dsd??? Thanks for the good laugh.

Hi Andre,

Provenance...analog --> DSD
digital --> native format :b

I can add additional hilarity...I'm waiting for a well-sorted quad DSD recorder

 

[c1ferrari]

...the transition to 4X DSD will be purely based on marketing and obvious one at that.

Amir, my understanding is the 'noise' inherent in this conversion will be located in a different portion of the spectrum.
I'm given to understand this approach will have a favorable effect on the audio pass band.

 

[Bruce B]

That's a good-sounding CD, Bruce...I still have the copy you gave me. What tape stock were you using?

Back then they were still using some NOS 499

 

[c1ferrari]

^^^Thanks.

 

[rbbert]

I went with Winston to Japan a few years ago to record the Yamamoto Trio - "A Wonderful Trio". The studio, Audio Haus, is state of the art. We spent two days recording this album and with Winston trying to cover all bases, captured in 24/192 on a PT rig, 1/4" tape on an ATR 102, DXD on my Pyramix rig and DSD using a Tascam DV-RA1000HD using the EMM Labs ADC8 IV as the converter.
The drums and upright bass were segregated into iso rooms with visual of the pianist in the big room. I could easily walk into the rooms where the were and then walk into the control room and listen on the big monitors. All mic feeds were going into an SSL 9K with minimal EQ.
I could monitor on my headphones at the time for my DSD and DXD rigs.
To me, I felt the DXD was indistinguishable from the room sound, but preferred the DSD recording because it sounded like a Trio playing instead of 3 different people in 3 different rooms. The PCM just sounded a little unnatural to me. The PT recording was even worse. The tape we felt was a little dark, not enough sparkle.
I've done this experiment as many times as I can. Now with the new Horus, DSD as I remember is even better. I really wish we had the choice of tape machine and tape that day. I'm sure it would have been a completely different story!

Which of the recordings was used for the official release?

 

[Joe Whip]

Quad DSD. Really??? I am sure there will be a lot more of it but that is because the labels can suck even more cash out of the audiophile crowd. The higher we go the higher the price. I was talking to a DSD devotee at Axpona would deals with DSD and he agreed. And he sells this stuff. At what point does is stop, Octo DSD? Triple DXD?

 

[esldude]

Quad DSD. Really??? I am sure there will be a lot more of it but that is because the labels can suck even more cash out of the audiophile crowd. The higher we go the higher the price. I was talking to a DSD devotee at Axpona would deals with DSD and he agreed. And he sells this stuff. At what point does is stop, Octo DSD? Triple DXD?

It won't stop. Twice what we have already is what is needed for nirvana. We should be at 1536 khz/32 bit PCM in about 4 years with early rumblings of going to 3072 khz. Transient smearing and all don't you know.

 

[Orb]

I went with Winston to Japan a few years ago to record the Yamamoto Trio - "A Wonderful Trio". The studio, Audio Haus, is state of the art. We spent two days recording this album and with Winston trying to cover all bases, captured in 24/192 on a PT rig, 1/4" tape on an ATR 102, DXD on my Pyramix rig and DSD using a Tascam DV-RA1000HD using the EMM Labs ADC8 IV as the converter.
The drums and upright bass were segregated into iso rooms with visual of the pianist in the big room. I could easily walk into the rooms where the were and then walk into the control room and listen on the big monitors. All mic feeds were going into an SSL 9K with minimal EQ.
I could monitor on my headphones at the time for my DSD and DXD rigs.
To me, I felt the DXD was indistinguishable from the room sound, but preferred the DSD recording because it sounded like a Trio playing instead of 3 different people in 3 different rooms. The PCM just sounded a little unnatural to me. The PT recording was even worse. The tape we felt was a little dark, not enough sparkle.
I've done this experiment as many times as I can. Now with the new Horus, DSD as I remember is even better. I really wish we had the choice of tape machine and tape that day. I'm sure it would have been a completely different story!

Just to take a different perspective to what has been posted so far in response.
Would it be fair to say part of the sound quality was also determined by the mixing/multitrack-channels coming together to create a unified stereo sound?
In other words it is at this stage the PCM sounded more unnatural and DSD better, which would be different argument to that normally used when comparing analogue/DSD/PCM.
Appreciate I am missing out a lot on the technical side just looking at this angle from a high level as another food for thought.

Thanks
Orb

 

[amirm]

Amir, my understanding is the 'noise' inherent in this conversion will be located in a different portion of the spectrum.
I'm given to understand this approach will have a favorable effect on the audio pass band.

What I was saying is that adoption that Mike is talking about for 4x DSD in my opinion is purely based on the assumption that "4X" anything is better than that anything by itself. If tomorrow an 8X comes, that will be the next to have. No one is adopting it because of the reason you mention. After all, that is an objective observation, not subjective.

 

[rbbert]

You're no fun, Amir

 

[Bruce B]

Which of the recordings was used for the official release?

The DXD 24/352.8 recording from a DAD AX24 -> Pyramix file.