Why do high up-sampling/ over-sampling rates (DSD,) kill PRAT and aliveness of music? Any ideas?

[bonzo75]

Makes sense, but at the same time I know musicians and recording engineers, truly "golden ear guys" who like Al and me, think that "PCM bite" adds to realism. And I am sure we can find a bunch of other musicians and music teachers who would prefer DSD...

No, your musicians probably don't have the gear experience. It is quite apparent from your digital posts that you have not had sufficient experience with sufficient number of streamers and dacs. My point is, you cannot generalize the statement you made without referring to the particular implementation. I am quite sure you have not sought out sufficient musicians and music teachers who are keen audiophiles

 

[Ron Party]

Caesar, you're not alone in your thoughts/opinions on DSD.

I've posted the following before. It is on point.

Around the time of the inception of WBF I attended a demo at my local high end audio shop in Berkeley. In attendance, amongst others, were Yuki Sugiura of Sony, a genuinely nice man with a wealth of knowledge, because the demo included the then relatively new Sony top of the line flagship speakers, and Cookie Marenco of Blue Coast Records, a vocal proponent of DSD. (I tried to get Cookie to join this forum as an expert; this was back when this forum was actively promoting experts with their own sub-fora.) The seminar was held in the main showroom. Electronics used included the then top of the line dCS stack.

Cookie stood in front of the group in attendance, which included about 20-30 folks, and shared what she believed about the differences in the formats and the superiority of DSD, including things we all have heard like longer tails with DSD, redbook is incapable of capturing the sound of a violin, etc...

Cookie brought with her a recording of some violin music which she had recorded in DSD and then put out on her label on both SACD and CD. She then played both discs. Three people in the group in attendance were violin players. All 3 stated, rather forcefully, that the redbook sounded truer to what they knew to be the violin sound. Cookie's jaw dropped and her eyes glazed over. She recovered quickly and responded with words to the effect of: "Well, that's why we offer the music in different formats."

 

[morricab]

Actually no, most people don't have sufficient compares to make that call. They do exactly what you are doing, take a stand. The PCM preference over DSD, for example, can come because of the experience they have had with their chosen dac. Anyway we are not discussing markets and preferences. The point was is PCM so better than dad as you suggested, and the answer is no it's not. Maybe you should send that file to those who back DAD and ask them to do a compare with their respective dac and software. If they confirm they like the DSD with the file, you should try out their implementation to confirm if it is a matter of preference or of experience. Many a time different preferences also result from differing experiences

I have come down on the side of R2R vs. delta/sigma for PCM but for DSD I do not have.much experience and besides aren't the best implementations "chipless" anyway??

All I can say is that for older SACD players the sound was not better unless on got a Vacuumstate modified player. They actually replaced the whole analog output stage...kind of like what Lampizator used to do.

For PCM, I have heard little that actually tops my BB PCM63 based Monarchy DAC with excellent tube gain stage. My Lampizated Kinergetics (dual UA D20400 chips) is also pretty kickass.

I am looking forward though to trying an Aries Kassandra in the near future.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

Makes sense, but at the same time I know musicians and recording engineers, truly "golden ear guys" who like Al and me, think that "PCM bite" adds to realism. And I am sure we can find a bunch of other musicians and music teachers who would prefer DSD...

Absolutelly. Where was used brain estimation, there will dispute anyway.
No right/wrong brain perception.

If we try use figures as proofs, "threshold of audibility" remove these proofs. If somebody claim what he listen something, we can't say what he don't.
May be double blind tests?

But, me seems, even correct double blind tests are not percepted as final proof.

 

[morricab]

Actually no, most people don't have sufficient compares to make that call. They do exactly what you are doing, take a stand. The PCM preference over DSD, for example, can come because of the experience they have had with their chosen dac. Anyway we are not discussing markets and preferences. The point was is PCM so better than dad as you suggested, and the answer is no it's not. Maybe you should send that file to those who back DAD and ask them to do a compare with their respective dac and software. If they confirm they like the DSD with the file, you should try out their implementation to confirm if it is a matter of preference or of experience. Many a time different preferences also result from differing experiences

Number of compares is irrelevant as long as you have experience with the better examples and are dialed in to how they sound different.

 

[morricab]

Maybe. But also, I am not suggesting one format is better than another. I am suggesting it's different, and people will choose accordingly.

I love NOLA speakers, but at a recent show they had it fed by Playback Designs digital. I walked into the room, and left in 30 seconds, vs. spending 1-2 hours I have done in the past...

Anyways, I am curious if any one is aware of why - technically or scientifically - the high up-sampling rates seem to smooth the sound while trading off the rhythmic drive, "bite", "PRAT", etc.

Well I have the same feeling hearing delta/sigma DACs vs. R2R DACs on PCM, nevermind DSD. Have you heard DSD decoded with a R2R or chipless or DS?? How does affect drive and bite?

 

[microstrip]

Microstrip,

Good Point. For context, let's take a step back. There are a lot of guys in this hobby who hate PCM. "It causes fatigue. It has glare. It lacks ease, palpability. It has harshness!" So they get this "newer" technology marketed to them called DSD. This technology takes away a lot of the digital nasties these folks complain about, and this new format also adds "spaciousness".

But, unfortunately, there is no free lunch. By working with a very high up-sampling rate, in addition to taking away these nasties, DSD also takes away "bite", "rhythmic dynamic drive", "PRAT", "muscular deep bass", or whatever you want to call it and replaces it with a "softness", "fake warmth", "softened attacks", and "lacking life" - in comparison to PCM.

My test for DSD gear is Hard Again by Muddy Waters. Unfortunately, DSD upsampling DACs make Muddy sound like a f*cking p8ssy, sucking all the intensity and energy out of his voice, whereas quality PCM DACs bring out the virility of his voice.

Interestingly, I find similar qualities pressing the upsample button using popular digital computer apps with PCM, with anything above 88/96 making Muddy sound like that friggin pussy instead of expressing raw emotion one listens to blues music for. (I don't really know which app, I think it's Roon, but why take up space in your brain with things that suck and you are not interested in?)

Ultimately, there are manufacturers catering to the PCM crowd and those targeting the DSD crowd. People are going to listen and make their trade-offs, accordingly. All I am simply asking in this thread is if anyone has discovered a technical rationale for this difference in presentation. That's all.

If not, engineers really need to get to work and figure this out, as Muddy must NEVER come across sounding like a pussy, no matter how hard the DSD guys claim it is the ultimate digital format.

Well, you are using for evaluation a recording known for poor dynamic range - around 12 - see http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/120519 - I would risk to say that probably you will find the voice more acceptable when PCM distortions adds some drama and virility to it!

Anyway, IMHO the evidence you refer is too circumstantial and poorly explained to be considered as an useful example. It could be easily explained by factors intrinsic to your system.

 

[bonzo75]

Number of compares is irrelevant as long as you have experience with the better examples and are dialed in to how they sound different.

My point is, he will have to have a sufficient set of
1. different dacs, including those recommended by the people who vote for dsd
2. Different software
3. Different Sources of PCM and DSD - this is important because the way I look at it, you need a dac + streamer flexible for all. Some PCM recordings are better than their DSD equivalents and vice versa. Now there is MQA and DXD. So I would rather have my dac/streamer doing all.

I personally chose my dac based on PCM implementation, but that is only because the compare is easy to carry out, and I do believe the implementation of the dac is what counts. The fact that it does the R2R PCM and DSD almost equal, and the other chipless DSD better, is something we found out later.

Number of compares is relevant to average out any other system/process imperfections.

 

[Al M.]

The bite of PCM vs DSD is different from the bite of Lyra vs Koetsu. The bite of Lyra is more towards real, the bite of PCM can be nothing more than a digital irritation. There are different types of bite in audio.

I am aware that there are different types of bite, and I am keenly aware that artificial digital harshness is very different from portrayal of natural hardness and bite. Great digital gear completely lacks the former, and excels in the latter.

Btw, your above post was a reply to an ex-first trombonist.

You think I didn't know that? I very well remember that from his review of the Golden Gate DAC, as well as from the thread that I started a year or two ago, "The sound of live music".

And just to give you a perspective of my week, I was listening to Richard Tognetti with his chamber orchestra on Monday and Tuesday, Aladdin musical on Wednesday, Schubert 9th and with Anne Sofie von Otter singing his leider stuff yesterday, and Schubert 8th and Brahms Requiem at Barbican today, starting in a couple of hours. Next week a led zep cover band, after that Joshua Bell, then Mahler 7, some baroque, piano, etc.

Great for you. Our perceptions about bite seem to differ.

Apart from live music, you do need gear experience to make the connection. Listening to one thing at Goodwin's, one thing at home, another at Peter's, will not be sufficient. You need to get all in a room, in different set ups, to complete the connection.

No, you can make the connection between different gear as long as you have the reference of live music in your mind. And no, having analog and digital gear in one system is not necessarily conclusive either. Different interconnects, different sensitivities to power conditioners and cables, the influence of phono amps on the analog side, or digital direct vs. going through a pre-amp on the digital side, etc. can all make a direct comparison of digital and analog within even the same system elusive. I certainly do have experience with that.

 

[bonzo75]

No, you can make the connection between different gear as long as you have the reference of live music in your mind. And no, having analog and digital gear in one system is not necessarily conclusive either. Different interconnects, different sensitivities to power conditioners and cables, the influence of phono amps on the analog side, or digital direct vs. going through a pre-amp on the digital side, etc. can all make a direct comparison of digital and analog within even the same system elusive. I certainly do have experience with that.

This is exactly why you need multiple compares to average out set up issues. Conclusions are valid only if they repeat across systems.

The other problem I noticed when I had a system is my live music reference would get reset/confused by my own system sound as soon as I came home and started listening to music. The "unlearning" happened only after a few months of selling off the speakers

 

[Al M.]

Caesar, you're not alone in your thoughts/opinions on DSD.

I've posted the following before. It is on point.

Around the time of the inception of WBF I attended a demo at my local high end audio shop in Berkeley. In attendance, amongst others, were Yuki Sugiura of Sony, a genuinely nice man with a wealth of knowledge, because the demo included the then relatively new Sony top of the line flagship speakers, and Cookie Marenco of Blue Coast Records, a vocal proponent of DSD. (I tried to get Cookie to join this forum as an expert; this was back when this forum was actively promoting experts with their own sub-fora.) The seminar was held in the main showroom. Electronics used included the then top of the line dCS stack.

Cookie stood in front of the group in attendance, which included about 20-30 folks, and shared what she believed about the differences in the formats and the superiority of DSD, including things we all have heard like longer tails with DSD, redbook is incapable of capturing the sound of a violin, etc...

Cookie brought with her a recording of some violin music which she had recorded in DSD and then put out on her label on both SACD and CD. She then played both discs. Three people in the group in attendance were violin players. All 3 stated, rather forcefully, that the redbook sounded truer to what they knew to be the violin sound. Cookie's jaw dropped and her eyes glazed over. She recovered quickly and responded with words to the effect of: "Well, that's why we offer the music in different formats."

Thank you for this, Ron. Excellent!

 

[Al M.]

The other problem I noticed when I had a system is my live music reference would get reset/confused by my own system sound as soon as I came home and started listening to music. The "unlearning" happened only after a few months of selling off the speakers

That is always a problem, I concur. This is why regular visits to live performances can be helpful just to repeatedly check and control your perceptions, as well as biases. Another important thing that I noticed: when going to live concerts it is paramount to close your eyes from time to time, to really just listen to the sound. Always having your eyes open can greatly fool you about the sound -- including, and in particular, the bite of the music. Brass can sound so much more 'beautiful' when watching all that golden shimmer before your eyes...Seriously, I am not kidding.

I think we all have experience with ears being influenced by the eyes. I guess people here will generally concur that a concert performance on a regular average TV can sound so great when you watch the musicians playing -- your brain fills in from memory how the music is supposed to sound when you see the musicians, a matter of expectation. Yet once you close your eyes you realize how abysmally crappy the TV sound really is!

 

[bonzo75]

That is always a problem, I concur. This is why regular visits to live performances can be helpful just to repeatedly check and control your perceptions, as well as biases. Another important thing that I noticed: when going to live concerts it is paramount to close your eyes from time to time, to really just listen to the sound. Always having your eyes open can greatly fool you about the sound -- including the bite of the music. Brass can sound so much more 'beautiful' when watching all that golden shimmer before your eyes...Seriously, I am not kidding.

I do that often. But live is one perspective. If you need to find out why people with a live background like DSD, you need to pick up your dac and fly over to their's to listen to what they are hearing - that is the only way to do it. Till then we are not discussing preferences and tastes or live experiences, we are just discussing gear experiences.

 

[Al M.]

I do that often. But live is one perspective. If you need to find out why people with a live background like DSD, you need to pick up your dac and fly over to their's to listen to what they are hearing - that is the only way to do it. Till then we are not discussing preferences and tastes or live experiences, we are just discussing gear experiences.

As I said in my first post on this thread, DSD can have the right bite, so at this point I have few quarrrels with DSD at its best (which can also have great PRAT or rhythm & timing). And analog at its best (also pressing-dependent) can have great bite too! But the idea that great PCM is wrong on realistic bite is just -- wrong.

But DSD alas also can sound soft and bland, and I am afraid that in some cases listeners prefer that DSD sound because they like a softer presentation, not because they like a realistic one.

Yet I guess in some sense the discussion is moot. As mentioned on this thread, a lot of modern A/D converters operate in DSD anyway, so even if you listen to PCM the recording is often pre-processed as DSD right at the source.

I guess the softness comes in at lesser DSD D/A conversion.

 

[MadFloyd]

Personally, I enjoy rock, blues, and jazz, and can't stand how DSD makes the vast majority of these recordings so dull. DSD sure does make things smoother, but without the snappiness PRAT, DSD sounds very artificial to me.

Personal tastes aside, does anybody understand or have any theories why the high up-sampling/ oversampling rates of DSD, and such, kill the snappiness, aliveness, and PRAT of music?

Maybe your system is on the dull side of things such that anything smooth in terms of source adds up to too much smooth? If your system is already softening transients you are going to be sensitive to this.

 

[bonzo75]

As I said in my first post on this thread, DSD can have the right bite, so at this point I have few quarrrels with DSD at its best. But the idea that great PCM is wrong on realistic bite is just -- wrong.

But DSD alas also can sound soft and bland, and I am afraid that in some cases listeners prefer that DSD sound because they like a softer presentation, not because they like a realistic one.

Yet I guess in some sense the discussion is moot. As mentioned on this thread, a lot of modern A/D converters operate in DSD anyway, so even if you listen to PCM the recording is often pre-processed as DSD right at the source.

I guess the softness comes in at lesser DSD D/A conversion.

That is different. There will obviously be bad DSD, and such softening will not be real. Which is why my point in this thread has all along been that no way can a generalization like Caesar's be right - there is just not enough evidence, it is too case specific of which recording, dac, and software is being used.

 

[Al M.]

That is different. There will obviously be bad DSD, and such softening will not be real. Which is why my point in this thread has all along been that no way can a generalization like Caesar's be right - there is just not enough evidence, it is too case specific of which recording, dac, and software is being used.

Now we agree, Ked!

 

[FrantzM]

HI

My perspective... DSD has always seemed to me as solution in search of a problem ... The main reason why SONY developed it, was DRM.. not much else. Of course they had to dress it up with a marketing techno-babble and people liked it or perhaps the market-talk ...
AS it stands, Basic RBCD PCM even something as low-bro as Tidal streamed from a non-optimized PC/laptop are as good as it gets and take no back seat to anything .

Now trying to answer the thread question, one that I don't fully understand .. I have heard some DSD that I like and even in those that I didn't like I didn't find DSD objectionable... Since 99.9999999% of the music I care to listen is on PCM, I don't care much about DSD ....

 

[opus112]

Yet I guess in some sense the discussion is moot. As mentioned on this thread, a lot of modern A/D converters operate in DSD anyway, so even if you listen to PCM the recording is often pre-processed as DSD right at the source.

This is a common mis-conception, I think its one actively promoted by DSD enthusiasts too (I've seen claims of 'DSD-like' ADCs for example) but there is a difference between most modern ADCs and DSD. The difference is in the number of bits in the modulator. I'm aware of one (the Grimm) which uses a single bit modulator, there may well be others but many (likely most) use multi-bit modulators (typically up to 5 bits). Modulators with more than just a single bit can be effectively dithered, single bit ones can't. Its the lack of ability to correctly dither which Lipshitz and Vanderkooy claim is the fly in the ointment for DSD.

 

[Folsom]

Is that code for Delta-sigma isn't DSD?