Thread: DSD versus PCM - Is DSD really better or is it a 'myth'

Originally Posted by Geardaddy

Tape does sound better.

To you, per your opinion.

Originally Posted by Mike Lavigne

so AJ; tell us about all the tape you listen to on master recorders compared to other formats

Like at this studio where I been and know the engineers?
That would serve only to Red Herring your claim, which is quite specific, there being "denser data" on tape. That is an objective claim you made to bolster your subjective opinion, but it has no objective basis and is thus easily falsified.
What you "heard" long term is not "data", it's your subjective opinion.
I get it, you like tape. I do too, under some circumstances. But I don't need an "objective" BS claims as verification for my purely subjective preferences. Tape is not more "data dense". That's nonsense, unless you mean added noise and distortion over digital as "data".
How about you just like the sound better?

Originally Posted by Mike Lavigne

so you've 'been at a studio' and you 'know engineers'.

Yes, that studio and those engineers who use both tape and digital recording. And you? What studio mastering are you attending and comparing?

Originally Posted by Mike Lavigne

I like to talk about what I hear, or what you hear.

Right, because your "denser data" claim is falsifiable, i.e., you don't have any "density" data, just what you "heard".
No one is arguing what you "heard". But your "denser data" claim is specious...and unnecessary.
You like tape. Great. Your subjective choice and opinion. Why is that never enough?

Originally Posted by Geardaddy

What is your frame of reference? System? Room?

For you preferring tape? This thread. Didn't say anything about my preferences, just responding to yours about tape here:

Originally Posted by Geardaddy

Tape does sound better. I think its not necessarily about "data" but data processing and how the brain responds to digital data reconstruction. Our brains appear to have a high degree of sensitivity to discontinuity.

You're giving false objective reasons for your subjective preferences and stating them as absolute. I have absolutely no doubt tape sounds better...to you.

Originally Posted by Geardaddy

Why do you choose the drivers you use in your speakers?

Not because of tape.

I enjoy the irony that some people who love to bash analog in general and sometimes tape in particular proclaim how their digital music sounds so much better and more pure than analog when the reality is that many of their digital recordings were probably sourced from analog tape (unless they strictly listen to music that was originally recorded digitally).

Originally Posted by Mike Lavigne

ok, i'll play.

I have a Reference Recording, the Arnold Overtures, that was recorded with one mic feed into both a ADC at 176/24 and a Tape Machine. I have the HRx master file at 176/24, the 44.1/16 CD, the Tape Project master dub, and the Lp from the master dub. all these recordings were mastered by the same guy, Paul Stubblebine.

I know Paul, he has been to my home.

Ok, so you have no first hand studio experience.

Originally Posted by Mike Lavigne

the tape is more 'dense' sounding than the HRx master file.

Right. Subjectively to you. So your "data" density objective claim has rescinded to a purely subjective one.
Ok, we're on the same page now...and had that subjective only claim been your original claim, we would not be having this conversation.

Originally Posted by Mike Lavigne

now your turn. be specific.

I've heard tape sound better than digital and vice versa...to me. I've heard DSD sound better than CD and vice versa...to me. Sorry, no absolute fanaticism for formats and widgets that are mere conveyances of music....to me.

cheers,

AJ

Originally Posted by mep

I enjoy the irony that some people who love to bash analog in general and sometimes tape in particular proclaim how their digital music sounds so much better and more pure than analog when the reality is that many of their digital recordings were probably sourced from analog tape (unless they strictly listen to music that was originally recorded digitally).

Reminds me of all those golden ear folks swooning for years about the greatness of SACD....only to later find most were upsampled Redbook.
The mind makes it real...

Originally Posted by AJ Soundfield

Reminds me of all those golden ear folks swooning for years about the greatness of SACD....only to later find most were upsampled Redbook.
The mind makes it real...

Yeah, but these were probably the same early CD adopters that thought digital audio was born perfect because Sony told them it was and then took the next leap of faith with SACDs.

Originally Posted by Mike Lavigne

well AJ, I did get a 'cheers' from you at the end.

you do get points for that.

If I'm ever up that way I'd love to hear your system (s?).
But damn, Seattle's on the other side of the earth.

Originally Posted by Geardaddy

Tape does sound better. I think its not necessarily about "data" but data processing and how the brain responds to digital data reconstruction. Our brains appear to have a high degree of sensitivity to discontinuity.

Ah, the TIME domain.

Reverchon may have a point.

Originally Posted by Geardaddy

Norman, that's a purely speculative point obviously, but it makes intuitive sense and is in part an extrapolation of findings in the digital domain.

Try the SBOOster BoTW with the ultra, the active noise reduction filter. They claim it lifts the Aries Femto performance.

Originally Posted by Geardaddy

Avoiding the question does not help your cause.

I answered the question, your claim that tape is better is your personal preference superimposed on reality as an absolute.

Originally Posted by Geardaddy

Tape does sound better.

To you.

This is a DSD vs PCM thread. Perhaps you should start a tape thread and reassert your preference as absolutism, again.

cheers,

AJ

It's NOT the medium or the format, it's the MASTER.

Originally Posted by bzr

Thats a given, but, which master recording sounds better, the dsd or the pcm one, "to your ears", or can't you hear the difference?

Unfortunately, that is nearly impossible to tell since there is virtually no way to tell how it was recorded. Then you have no idea if the transfer to a file format was done well or sloppily. Too many variables to state A is better/worse than B.

Duplicate.

Originally Posted by Geardaddy

Paul79 made the same suggestion on Whatsbest. It sounds promising. However, I am loathe to invest $ in the Aries. I am still actively considering a totaldac server. The rate of change with "computers" always gives me pause.

Relatively small $$$. €345 plus shipping and LPSUs keep their value well, for resale. This amount wont even cover shipping on the TD server, so not likely an issue, though I refuse to speak for anyones pocket. Small risk to see if you can maxx out the Aries while waiting for the Computer dust to settle. Get a Regen (and a couple Jitterbugs too while you are at it too, so that know that you threw everything possible at it.

In a year or 2 you can step up to the Server du jour.

Originally Posted by GaryProtein

It's NOT the medium or the format, it's the MASTER.

There are at least 4 albums that have been simultaneously mastered in DSD and hiRez PCM. Massimo on the piano is one. Take a listen to those on your favourite DSD and PCM playback chain and see if you like any one better than the other...

Originally Posted by GaryProtein

It's NOT the medium or the format, it's the MASTER.

Just to be clear, I was referring to the quality of the "master" -- the final assembly of the recorded performance that they use to make the disk, download file, 15 ips tape or whatever that they sell to the consumer.

I agree with Mike. If I compare the same recording on tape vs vinyl vs digital, even DSD, to me and anyone who has heard the comparison, agrees, tape just sounds better.

Take for example, Jacintha, Here's to Ben. I have it in every format. To my ears, the tape sounds the absolute best, and certainly the most natural. But you know what, the DSD is DAMN close. Damn close. The vinyl has a certain magic about it as well. The PCM - to my ears - gets the short end of the stick.

I'm sure we can all find examples where the DSD may sound the best or the PCM might sound the best, but it's my experience, where I've been able to compare multiple formats, tape is king.

But tape is a PITA, expensive and almost impossible to find any kind of volume of albums.

To me, DSD gets me damn close and I can use my iPad to control my Aurender and not even leave the chair!

Final thought: unless you have the ability, in your own system, to compare tape vs vinyl vs DSD vs PCM, you really shouldn't be making "troll" statements. I remember a certain FlexibleAudio (who isn't seeming very Flexible at the moment), bark and bite at all the vinyl guys. He was convinced digital was king. Now he has heard and experienced vinyl and it's all the rage for him (and rightly so). If you think vinyl is good, don't listen to tape.

Put your system together, start listening, tell us what YOU hear and for heavens sake, stop picking fights on every topic. You don't even have your system up and running, let alone these four sources to compare. Geesh.

Mike, you've never heard tape that sounded worse than the digital or vinyl version? Ever?

Originally Posted by AJ Soundfield

Mike, you've never heard tape that sounded worse than the digital or vinyl version? Ever?

Not of the 50 or so tapes I have. Come listen for yourself. Could they make a tape sound worse than DSD? Sure!

No one is arguing the impossible, but we are stating findings based on actual experience. Tape sounds best, but it's a huge PITA and limited.

There aren't a lot of folks here besides myself, Myles, Mike, Dan, Jock and a few others that have all four sources. We can argue all day, but unless you have the four sources in your system and the same recordings to compare, it's a mute point.

Originally Posted by Mike

Not of the 50 or so tapes I have.

There's about a zillion recordings out there, that's a pretty small sample size...

Originally Posted by Mike

Come listen for yourself.

I've heard plenty tape over my lifetime, it's not exactly a new format.
Now you're right, I don't currently own any form of tape, be that open reel, cassette or 8-track.
I think I may have a VCR buried somewhere.
I have a better idea. How about we go to the studio and direct compare the tape vs digital masters that were recorded simultaneously. Same feeds. I already have. You game?

Originally Posted by Mike

Could they make a tape sound worse than DSD? Sure!

By the exact same token, could they make digital (or vinyl) sound worse than tape....yep. IOW, it's not the format per se....

Originally Posted by Mike

There aren't a lot of folks here besides myself, Myles, Mike, Dan, Jock and a few others that have all four sources. We can argue all day, but unless you have the four sources in your system and the same recordings to compare, it's a mute point.

Moot.
We all have our preferences.

cheers,

AJ

Originally Posted by Mike

Not of the 50 or so tapes I have. Come listen for yourself. Could they make a tape sound worse than DSD? Sure!

No one is arguing the impossible, but we are stating findings based on actual experience. Tape sounds best, but it's a huge PITA and limited.

There aren't a lot of folks here besides myself, Myles, Mike, Dan, Jock and a few others that have all four sources. We can argue all day, but unless you have the four sources in your system and the same recordings to compare, it's a mute point.

Most of the Industry insiders I know share the same view. Sounds best but limited, pricey and PITA to play, tough one reel can last a long time between changes.

I know someone selling some tapes as he went for a wireless all in one music system.

Originally Posted by FlexibleAudio

What I will do is call out BS when I see it. I certainly admit, that seems to be a problem around here some times.

I certainly agree with this! Hahaha

Originally Posted by FlexibleAudio

Wow Mike a lot of pent up frustration there. Did you read my post? I too prefer tape > vinyl > dsd > pcm and so do most of my friends but that has nothing to do with my point. It is a subjective view and I am not omniscient or ignorant enough to make an absolute claim and would never do so. I felt AJ was taking an unnecessary drubbing for stating an obvious. Its opinion not fact. I disagree with his preferences but not the logic of his point.

Regarding the rest of your insults. I have had my systems up and running since 1975. Vinyl constituted the first 10 years of that time. As I have told you several times my current system is Rotel and B&W and I listen to it daily. Why do you care and what does it have to do with my view about the folly of making absolute statements about formats? When on earth did I ever argue digital is superior to vinyl? I was considering buying my digital front end first in my new system for a while but never made any such comments. You have me confused with someone else.

What I will do is call out BS when I see it. I certainly admit, that seems to be a problem around here some times.

Paul - if you prefer GENERALLY (as do I) tape > vinyl > dsd > pcm - then we can definitely agree on something. Of course, it's possible to make any format sound better than the other. But I haven't heard a CD beat my tape - ever, never ever. In fact, I HAVE recorded my CD's to tape and the CD recorded to tape sounds better than the same CD played through any of my players.

I am not insulting you, but frankly, people are sick and tired of the constant arguing by a select few. Discussions, disagreements are fine, but most of these threads turn into the proverbial beating of a dead horse.

I can't speak for everyone, but I like to read threads about "went and heard the new Magico S7's and compared to the S5's, you could hear X, Y, Z." OR "I've been comparing the AMG V12 to the Transrotor and with the right setup, like a Benz cart, the V12 delivers X, Y, Z over the Transrotor."

Threads with constant arguing about absolutes and fighting the impossibles is just silly. It's like having a Ferrari vs Ford Fiesta thread. Someone says "well, a Ferrari F430 will always beat a Ford Fiesta in a 0-60 mph race" - most people think "yeah, that's true!", but then there is always one guy who says, "well, what if the Ferrari was loaded down with cement, would it still win?" These types of arguments are just stupid.

Look, I'll be brutally honest, I field PM's from people all day complaining about a select few on this site who like to make every thread into an ego, chest pounding argument. We have almost 6000 members, we get 800,000 hits a month from all over the world, there are a lot of people who don't post or don't post often. But they are sure reading and they think these types of threads are nothing more than pounding chests and ego thumping.

Let's get back to discussing actual real life experiences, preferences, interesting findings, heck, even measurements and most importantly music, rather than "if the Ferrari was loaded down with cement" arguments. Yes, I'm sure there are examples where the digital sounds better than the tape, but I sure haven't heard any myself and I sure don't see anyone listing any actual real life examples.

Paul - nobody is creating spin, but help me understand, who has made patently false statements and if patently false statements have been made, have you been able to counter those statements with real life examples?

If someone says DHT's test flat from 20hz to 20khz, who am I to argue? I haven't tested them. No clue. Don't care. That kind of nonsense would cut into my listening time! But, have you? Have you run your own tests?

If someone says USB is superior to I2S, I think its splitting hairs. I have compared the two? I have. And in the example of the PS Audio DAC, I found i2s did sound better with one of the firmware releases, but it sounded worse with the others. So, in this example, it depends. But GENERALLY SPEAKING, I think its not a terrible argument to say USB is superior to I2S. Again, have you had a USB and I2S DAC in your system to compare?

There is no substitute for experience. Otherwise its just a thesis.

Mike-I agree with what you said. It's pointless for people who don't own all the formats and listen to them regularly to argue against the findings of those who do.

one correlation I have seen from numerous forums is the bigger the troll, the more challenged their system is in terms of performance.

Originally Posted by FlexibleAudio

Wow Mike a lot of pent up frustration there. Did you read my post? I too prefer tape > vinyl > dsd > pcm and so do most of my friends but that has nothing to do with my point. It is a subjective view and I am not omniscient or ignorant enough to make an absolute claim and would never do so. I felt AJ was taking an unnecessary drubbing for stating an obvious. Its opinion not fact. I disagree with his preferences but not the logic of his point.

Regarding the rest of your insults. I have had my systems up and running since 1975. Vinyl constituted the first 10 years of that time. As I have told you several times my current system is Rotel and B&W and I listen to it daily. Why do you care and what does it have to do with my view about the folly of making absolute statements about formats? When on earth did I ever argue digital is superior to vinyl? I was considering buying my digital front end first in my new system for a while but never made any such comments. You have me confused with someone else.

What I will do is call out BS when I see it. I certainly admit, that seems to be a problem around here some times.

How can it be subjective when you take a master or second generation tape, transfer it via PCM or DSD and compare it to the master? Either the digital file is a mirror image of the tape or it isn't. It doesn't get simpler nor more objective. Many of us have done that.