DSD - (Don't Stream Digital)

This is quite interesting, thanks for sharing James....I think its this "noise" and "limiting" frequency that makes DSD sound more analog sounding IMO.

I also personally find 24/96 recordings to sound better (as in, more pleasing to the ear) than 24/192 of the same recording. I can't explain why - but I do.

As you will recall, there was discussion about how "less is more".

http://www.pstracks.com/pauls-posts/when-less-is-more/10751/
 
Quite honestly, I find the whole digital debate rather tiring. "Our bits are bigger than your bits", "our bites are better than your bites". Too funny. What I find interesting in all these debates is that they rarely talk about how something SOUNDS. They would rather trot out some Spectragraph or tired, overused white paper to prove a point. This doesn't tell me how it will sound:

dsd_64_spectragraph.jpg


I rarely (if ever) hear the "audio via computer" folks use traditional audiophile language to describe a product or recording in a particular format. Their arguments begin and end with scopes and graphs and geek speak. Their arguments rarely if ever say something like "I realize on the various scopes and spectragraphs that X appears better, but Y sounds better to me due to its ability to separate instruments and vocals into their proper space while maintaining a transparency unrivaled by other DACS."

I stay current on the latest and greatest arguments and technology surrounding digital only to avoid ignorance, but in the end, I let my ears be the ultimate judge, and there are certainly no absolutes....generalities, yes....but no absolutes.

Generally, DSD sounds better to me than the same recording in 24/96 or 24/192 PCM format. Generally, I find 24/96 PCM recordings more pleasing to my ears and more "meaty" than the same recording in 24/192. I find streaming hi res via Ethernet preferable to USB. But...there are always exceptions in my own listening experiences.


Here is an article which at least uses traditional audiophile language to explain the differences they are hearing:

PCM v DSD Comparison: 16/44.1, 24/96, 24/192, 64x DSD, 128x DSD | AudioStream
 
Just chiming in on usage. For me, digital and streaming is background. I have 20 million songs to choose from and can set things up to play through the system sounding great. Pristine ? I would not know because its not the medium I use to sit in the music room and just listen, its just background.

When I do sit in the music room and "listen", its always vinyl and THAT needs to be spot on. So I never worry about does this format or that format of digital sound better. It sounds sufficient for my needs. I do however; understand why someone who "listens" to digital music would want the very best. It is analogous to my vinyl play. Anything less than stellar would not cut it. Just my 2 cents :eyebrow:
 
My 2cents worth...

I've now been 100% digital for several years now. No CD, no SACD no vinyl.
High Rez digital has far exceeded anything I've ever experienced.
No disk spinners of any kind in my listening room. No fans or hard drives for that matter either.

I'm now on my 8th computer player/server now. Mostly for myself, some for others.
Try as I might, all digital front ends I've built sound virtually identical. Atom to Haswell. Identical. DACs are where I spot significant differences.

Beyond all these discussions about bits.. I still find the actual recording techniques matter far more than the format. I have 16/44 recordings that sound wonderful. ... And I have 24/192 recordings that sound like crap.

Generally speaking I've not been spending the extra money for 24/192.

FLAC and WAV mostly... And the WAV are due to my being swayed by forum chatter.
I've never detected 2 cents worth of difference between WAV/FLAC.

Come to think of it... I spent thousands of dollars on SACD players and SACDs years ago. What a disaster and waste if $.

In my case, the reason I don't get into describing motherboards in audiophile terms is that assuming each system is set up properly, they sound the same.

I listen to digital hour after hour after hour. No fatigue, no stress... Just the most pleasing music reproduction I've ever experienced.

Again... Just my own opinion.
 
My 2cents worth...

I've now been 100% digital for several years now. No CD, no SACD no vinyl.
High Rez digital has far exceeded anything I've ever experienced.
No disk spinners of any kind in my listening room. No fans or hard drives for that matter either.

I'm now on my 8th computer player/server now. Mostly for myself, some for others.
Try as I might, all digital front ends I've built sound virtually identical. Atom to Haswell. Identical. DACs are where I spot significant differences.

Beyond all these discussions about bits.. I still find the actual recording techniques matter far more than the format. I have 16/44 recordings that sound wonderful. ... And I have 24/192 recordings that sound like crap.

Generally speaking I've not been spending the extra money for 24/192.

FLAC and WAV mostly... And the WAV are due to my being swayed by forum chatter.
I've never detected 2 cents worth of difference between WAV/FLAC.

Come to think of it... I spent thousands of dollars on SACD players and SACDs years ago. What a disaster and waste if $.

In my case, the reason I don't get into describing motherboards in audiophile terms is that assuming each system is set up properly, they sound the same.

I listen to digital hour after hour after hour. No fatigue, no stress... Just the most pleasing music reproduction I've ever experienced.

Again... Just my own opinion.

That's cool. I find some SACD's quite a bit better than the CD.

I have finally found a digital I like. The Marantz NA11S1 with the Ethernet connection as the main input. Very analog sounding.
 
Dr. AIX

Re: DSD - (Don't Stream Digital)

James...thanks for the heads up on this thread. I admit to being a PCM guy but I do not have a horse in the game regarding hardware or codecs as some of the DSD advocates do. I do believe that the end listening experience of both DSD and HD PCM can be terrific. The recordings that we did in Montana to analog tape, 96/24-bit PCM and DSD 64 were all great when played back through VTL tubes amps, Transparent Cables and Wilson Alexandria XLF loudspeakers. Peter McGrath, myself and others all agreed that the DSD and PCM sounded really wonderful.

My message is not that consumers shouldn't enjoy their vinyl LPs, analog tape, CD, SA-CDs, DVD-As, Blu-ray and HD Files...but instead that they should be aware of some of the differences between them.

There is a reason that PCM and recently HD PCM rules the world of professional audio production, is the format for CD, DVD-Audio, Blu-ray and virtually all high quality digital downloads (prior to compression being applied). Heck, it's even the go to format for those producing and marketing DSD-based releases (DXD is just PCM with three letters that invoke DSD...I actually thought it was DSD for a long time).

There is room in the world for all these formats. My concern about DSD is that it confuses the issues associated with better quality digital downloads in a world that isn't clear at all. It does a fantastic job of reproducing audio up to CD specs, the so-called "audio band" the it touted in the white papers and articles on the format. I'm interested in the increased frequency response and the real world dynamic range of 96 kHz/24-bit PCM.

Finally, the world (even the HD-Audio world) is moving to streaming. Orastream is already doing it and the writing is on the wall...variable bandwidth streaming algorithms for HD-Audio are already in place (MP4SLS)...I'm not aware of any efforts on the DSD side of the equation.

Even the Mark Levinson interview that was linked to above contains his admission that the world is a PCM place....and he's recognized that PCM is the future.

Thanks for the links to my daily posts at RealHD-Audio.com...this has become a great way to get information out.
 
In the raging digital battle of DSD vs PCM, it seems like there must be a winner. I would argue that both formats are winners and supporting DSD and PCM is a 1+1=3 equation. Here's how:

If we accept the fact the PCM only players cannot play native DSD files, but DSD players can play both PCM files and DSD files, then we need to ask those in the pro-PCM camp - shouldn't you be supporting DSD as a means for better PCM? Let me explain: as I understand it, the most advanced DA chips today can support both PCM and DSD. Although the inner workings of DA chips are quite secretive, I would hypothesize that the chips which handle both, use "Delta Sigma modulation" for encoding/processing/decoding of both PCM and DSD files. That means, more processing power for PCM - which means better optimization of playback, which means better SQ - and isn't that what we are after?

So I would argue that it has nothing to do with the actual recording format battle of DSD vs PCM or PCM vs DSD - it has to do with optimization of playback of PCM BECAUSE of the support of DSD and that is why, in my opinion, even those manufacturers who don't support DSD as a playback method, should incorporate DSD as a means to an ends for better PCM. 1+1=3.
 
Hi

No Really I have not but with a lot of issues in audio I find both sides of the story need to be told before we can make intelligent decisions.

james
 
Pardon, but with a title of "Don't Stream Digital" it sure appears that way.

I can't say anything about hi res PCM as to how it compares to DSD. I can say that I've heard DSD and 24bit FLAC and I prefer DSD. I won't go along with the crowd and say it sounded more "analog". To me, DSD sounds less filtered, less processed, less compressed. It had an ease about it that made you relax. This could be attributed to a lot of things. For example to get 24Bit flac from DSD most apply filters to the inaudible range and claim that it doesn't affect the sound. I don't know, but there's a lot that goes into making hi res flac. Much less so than DSD. <RANT> So why not give consumers the audio format with the least filters, compression, processing, etc.? PCM or DSD -- who really cares which is better just give us both and let us play with our toys! This exact sort of thought process (that there has to be one winner, a King if you will) that ruined the video industry. The beauty here is that there's not a medium to tie to a format for your make believe war. You don't have to worry about Beta vs VHS or CD vs SACD vs Blu-ray. This is the day and age of the Internet and those who care about DSD and hi res audio, PCM, etc. will have fast enough connections to download whatever formats you throw our way. Just put it out there for us to make our own decisions. </RANT>


Hi

No Really I have not but with a lot of issues in audio I find both sides of the story need to be told before we can make intelligent decisions.

james
 
Pardon, but with a title of "Don't Stream Digital" it sure appears that way.

I can't say anything about hi res PCM as to how it compares to DSD. I can say that I've heard DSD and 24bit FLAC and I prefer DSD. I won't go along with the crowd and say it sounded more "analog". To me, DSD sounds less filtered, less processed, less compressed. It had an ease about it that made you relax. This could be attributed to a lot of things. For example to get 24Bit flac from DSD most apply filters to the inaudible range and claim that it doesn't affect the sound. I don't know, but there's a lot that goes into making hi res flac. Much less so than DSD. <RANT> So why not give consumers the audio format with the least filters, compression, processing, etc.? PCM or DSD -- who really cares which is better just give us both and let us play with our toys! This exact sort of thought process (that there has to be one winner, a King if you will) that ruined the video industry. The beauty here is that there's not a medium to tie to a format for your make believe war. You don't have to worry about Beta vs VHS or CD vs SACD vs Blu-ray. This is the day and age of the Internet and those who care about DSD and hi res audio, PCM, etc. will have fast enough connections to download whatever formats you throw our way. Just put it out there for us to make our own decisions. </RANT>

Well said!
 
OK I will keep my controversial opinions to myself from now on.:lol:

james

No..no..don't do that! What fun is a discussion that's only one sided? If you think DSD is kind of a waste of time and PCM will rule to day - say so. Your opinions are just as valid as anyone else's.

I can see both sides of the argument - but no one has addressed my point above. It is my opinion that DA chips that have DSD capabilities are in fact superior for PCM!

Mike
 
Im with Mike. We appreciate you participation James. I prefer a bit more direct line of disagreement thats all. My opinions certainly do ot reflect everyone's and yours are important for us to know.
 
The heading I used DSD-- Don't Stream Digital -- meant no disrespect - I just wanted to draw attention and create discussion :heart:

james
 
Back
Top