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

Where's all the brotherly love? Look what digital is doing to us! :| Seriously, I have been on record for a long time as someone who much prefers DSD to PCM. Based on recent events, it appears that PCM may be much better than most of us (some of us) give it credit for, but it's also possibly the hardest and most expensive to get right. Of all people to praise RBCD quality, I never expected Myles to be that guy. During the recent pilgramage Myles made to Magico, he apparently had his doors blown off when listening to RBCD played back via the unobtanium PM DAC. And maybe just maybe, you are never (or at least in the here and now) going to find a single DAC that is optimized for both PCM and DSD.
 
Did I not say that this topic has been beaten to death and I wont waste my time with it. The Benchmark guy keeps bringing this up like something new every 6 months or so (definition of hater…someone who wont let a dead cause go). Miska, Tom, Jud etc have done a great job in letting people know what is what. i invite you to go to the CA link I posted in this thread to get all the insight you need.
 
wisnon said:
I call Bud a hater? Hahahahah. I have no idea whether Bud likes DSD or not and dont really care. You clearly show up your chip on the shoulder in many of your posts.

I now have to question your comprehension skills. I was clearly speaking about the Benchmark guy and I am far from the first to call him a DSD Hater. People even found it hilarious that despite his anti-DSD tirades, he put the feature in his Dac.

I hope you are well paid for your self appointed job.
Click to expand...

I guess the person you are noting as a DSD hater is the author of that article, John Siau

But what gets me is these manufactures that talk down DSD still go on and research, design, engineer, produce and market a DSD capable DAC. It's like hold on I want some of those DSD DAC sales to.
 
CPP, that is why forum people have been rolling on the floor laughing at him. Conflicted hypocrisy!
 
CPP said:
I guess the person you are noting as a DSD hater is the author of that article, John Siau

But what gets me is these manufactures that talk down DSD still go on and research, design, engineer, produce and market a DSD capable DAC. It's like hold on I want some of those DSD DAC sales to.
Click to expand...

To some extent it comes down to how you interpret John's writings. I think it is reasonable to take the position that he is simply pointing out the reasons why DSD is not "clearly superior to DSD" as some claim. From the conclusion:

For these reasons, there is no compelling reason to pay extra for a DSD recording if a 96 kHz version is available. If the choice is between a CD and a DSD version, the DSD version may offer some improvement.
Benchmark recognizes that there are many fine high-resolution recordings that are only available in DSD format. For this reason, Benchmark DAC2 converters are designed to directly accept 24-bit PCM or 1-bit DSD without adding any internal format conversions. This versatility makes it easy to play both high-resolution formats to their fullest potential.
Click to expand...

The market reality is that many prefer PCM and many prefer DSD because it is a subjective measure that turns on a very large number of variables. Making definitive claims regarding superiority is a perilous proposition IMO. Claiming a preference would be more appropriate. It seams reasonable that a manufacturer would develop a product to sell to the entire market. IMO, what is unreasonable is when when people make absolute declarations on something that is not an absolute. I fault folks in both camps equally for this zealotry.

As most know Cyril at Soulution, the boys at Berkeley and other pretty sophisticated designers clearly have declared they view PCM as the better format and I think this is short sighted given the market realities.

From Soulution:
"As we consider the PCM conversion technology as superior, the DSD signals get converted before its final D/A conversion."
Click to expand...

From Berkeley:
the Alpha DAC Reference Series, use multi-bit D/A converters because they provide better performance than 1-bit converters"
Click to expand...

Of course the most egregious partisans are prone to making absolute statements and then declare the matter closed by referencing the views of fellow partisans as the final arbiter. Don't laugh some people actually do these things.
 
Then there is the filter box that treats DSD like analog and only does LPF, which TED Smith agrees is the conceptually purest way to go.

My pal with a Trinity Dac and a GG Dac has been shocked to find out that Jarred was correct. The same channel Classics music sound better in DSD than it does in hiRes PCM, BECAUSE IT WAS RECORDED IN DSD.

To my mind, you play back in the most native format you can, so PCM as PCM and DSD/Analog transfers as DSD. You also play to the strength of your better conversion engine, if you cant have the best of both worlds like Elberoth.
There really is no big controversy here, if you have gret equipment in either format, you will enjoy the music. I still prefer the DSD tradeoff, even as I realize its still a tradeoff in dynamics vs naturalness against high grade PCM and PeterSt of Phasure explained (in an email) the technical reason better than anything I have read anywhere.

Charles Hansen of Ayre prefers PCM too, but less for tech reasons and more that he thinks its stupid to be having MORE formats when the mrket is already weak. He says PCM have started to make filter breakthroughs (learned from DSD playback design work) that make the differences so small that its not worth it for the industry to keep splintering. He thinks we should consolidate around PCM as a standard as it makes the most economic sense.

Miska (jussi) from CA forum thinks that you can keep PCM but now use cheap computing power to do the convolution and use the superior DS modulation algorithms to play back through a "filter box" Dac like his open source DSD1 Dac design (all SS). He even claims to do DRC work in pure DSD domain.

Given all these factors, i find the constant "revelations" by Siau as tiresome, repetitive and unhelpful. I dont see DSD proponents making all these persistent, desparate claims, as DSD seems to be advancing on its own merit. I dont see DSD people saying PCM cant sound good and giving spurious reasons why.

Let me throw my pal Flexi a bone. Converting DSD to PCM via Jriver and playing back on any PCM Dac, ie Trinity/Berk Ref/MSB, you name it, will NOT sound better than the same pure DSD track played by by a DSD Dac that does it "right". It just will not.

Adam is on record as saying the reverse is true as well. He prefers native PCM played back on Trinty, vs Jiver upconverted to DSD128 and played back thru his Big7 DSD only Dac. Bonzo preferred it when he heard it at his house, but Adam assumerd him that the Trinity ws not being fed by a proper transport at that time.

My only experience with Trinity was for a weekend in Holland and it was fed by the dedicated Trinity Transport and Trident Emperor grounding Box to Kondo amps to Genesis 1.1 speakers and it was lovely, but then agian the whole system was lovely!
 
wisnon said:
Then there is the filter box that treats DSD like analog and only does LPF, which TED Smith agrees is the conceptually purest way to go.
Click to expand...

Others like Andreas Koch would argue a filter box was ruled out years ago as a viable DSD playback method because you can't dither 1 bit data and as such the only way you can play DSD with only filters is to cut the top of the audible frequency range to eliminate the un-dithered noise inherent in raw 1 bit DSD because this noise is in the audio band. At least that is what he tells me.

I suppose one solution to this problem would be to use DHT tubes in the output stage because they are not full range to begin with so the romantic goodness hides the impact of limited high end frequency range to many listeners. This approach, however, will definitely show up in accurate FR curves if measured.

That said I understand there is a dac from Poland that defies 75 years of established theory on how plate resistance limitations ultimately constrain frequency range in the output of dht's. According to some users this dac is not only flat from 20hz to 20khz but it also has no sonic distortion. It apparently is quite the accomplishment.

wisnon said:
Given all these factors, i find the constant "revelations" by Siau as tiresome, repetitive and unhelpful. I dont see DSD proponents making all these persistent, desparate claims, as DSD seems to be advancing on its own merit. I dont see DSD people saying PCM cant sound good and giving spurious reasons why.
Click to expand...


I think one just made such claims in Post #4 above.
 
mep said:
Of all people to praise RBCD quality, I never expected Myles to be that guy. During the recent pilgramage Myles made to Magico, he apparently had his doors blown off when listening to RBCD played back via the unobtanium PM DAC.
Click to expand...
That is interesting. Could you please provide a link to Myles's adventure? Thanks.
 
FlexibleAudio said:
Others like Andreas Koch would argue a filter box was ruled out years ago as a viable DSD playback method because you can't dither 1 bit data and as such the only way you can play DSD with only filters is to cut the top of the audible frequency range to eliminate the un-dithered noise inherent in raw 1 bit DSD because this noise is in the audio band. At least that is what he tells me.

I suppose one solution to this problem would be to use DHT tubes in the output stage because they are not full range to begin with so the romantic goodness hides the impact of limited high end frequency range to many listeners. This approach, however, will definitely show up in accurate FR curves if measured.

That said I understand there is a dac from Poland that defies 75 years of established theory on how plate resistance limitations ultimately constrain frequency range in the output of dht's. According to some users this dac is not only flat from 20hz to 20khz but it also has no sonic distortion. It apparently is quite the accomplishment.




I think one just made such claims in Post #4 above.
Click to expand...

I don't think that applies to the 845 and 211 since they were designed to be used in transmitters as well as AF applications.
 
mep said:
I don't think that applies to the 845 and 211 since they were designed to be used in transmitters as well as AF applications.
Click to expand...


Mark if you can show me the test curves from a reputable source I would love to see them. That is the kind of informative stuff I am after on forums. I obviously have never seen such a thing. Certainly they are more flat than most dht's but I have not seen them to be flat. I am so ignorant I didn't even know this question was disputed.
 
Mark, I don't know if you had any regard for the late Dr. Harvey Rosenberg, but I always thought his work regarding the "optimal aural matrix strategy" relating to dht's was pretty insightful.

He does a great job of addressing their magic and there significant limitations. I found his concept of using unique dht's for the part of the audio band where that particular dht excels, along with a tunable amplifier to dial in voltage, current, and OPT performance to optimize around each tubes plate impedance was really interesting. He nicely addressed the reasoning by behind this approach as it relates to the audio band limitations of each of the dht design, including the big gorillas you reference.

It has been a long time since I read the article below so I had to track it down but, Mark I would genuinely love to hear your thoughts on this piece.

CURRENT THINKING OF THE DHT REVOLUTION
 
microstrip said:
These FR measurements are mainly due to circuit and transformers, not to the power tubes. These power tubes typically had a bandwidth of several tens of megahertz.
Click to expand...


Actually I think it is the combination of the effects of those things on the tubes and the resulting output of the incumbent system. While technically you are probably correct as it relates to the 211's measured in isolation, my question would be if you need power circuits and OPT's to make the 211's generate the current needed to make music, I am not sure that your measurements matter . Do you have an FR curve from a reputable source of an amp, preamp, or source using 211's that shows a flat response to 10's of mega hertz cuz thats what we are talking about and I would genuinely love to see how that works.
 
FlexibleAudio said:
Here is a couple I am familiar with:

Cary Audio Design CAD-805 monoblock power amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com



Air Tight ATM-211 tube monoblock power amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com
Click to expand...


Paul-The 211 and 845 are listed in the RCA transmitting tube manual and not the RCA receiving tube manual. Are you confusing the FR of the 211 and 845 tubes after it has been run through an output transformer vice how flat the tube itself is across the audio band and beyond?
 
mep said:
Paul-The 211 and 845 are listed in the RCA transmitting tube manual and not the RCA receiving tube manual. Are you confusing the FR of the 211 and 845 tubes after it has been run through an output transformer vice how flat the tube itself is across the audio band and beyond?
Click to expand...

I as you are well aware I am a simpleton but I don't believe I am the one confusing anything. In post #67 I said:

I suppose one solution to this problem would be to use DHT tubes in the output stage because they are not full range to begin with so the romantic goodness hides the impact of limited high end frequency range to many listeners. This approach, however, will definitely show up in accurate FR curves if measured.
Click to expand...


I was specifically referring to the use of dht's in the output stage of a chip-less DSD dac and my belief that the FR curves of such an audio device will likely not show flat from 20hz to 20khz. This of course refers to the output of the audio device. I am not sure why a specific discussion about the performance of dht's in such devices morphed into a dialog about bench tests of nominally loaded dht's. What's the the relevance of this to my comment?
 
Chipless DSD can be done with small signal tubes, as well as DHTs. Pick your poison.

I like many people like it and dont feel we are suffering in anyway, but if a graph is telling you that you are indeed suffering, go ahead and believe the graph, not your "lying" ears. LoL

And please quit with the tiresome and sarcastic self-flaggelatory words like simpleton, etc. It is unbecoming.
Stick to normal discourse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top