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

wisnon said:
Chipless DSD can be done with small signal tubes, as well as DHTs. Pick your poison.
Click to expand...

Of course it can. Mark is the one who correctly brought up the "Big Muthas" as an example of DHT's that have a more flat FR's than other DHT's.

wisnon said:
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
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this from? I don't just like DHT's, I love them. I am on the record saying this many times. It is why I prefer "dos harmonics." I was simply recognizing the implication of not being able to dither a 1 bit stream and how filtering that stream at the top end of the audio band would work nicely with a dht who's plate impedance results in the same. I simply explained why others avoid a filter only topology; they ascribe more value to a full band-with.

wisnon said:
And please quit with the tiresome and sarcastic self-flaggelatory words like simpleton, etc. It is unbecoming.
Stick to normal discourse.
Click to expand...

I was speaking to my friend Mark who has been known to lovingly (at least I like to think) refer to me as Forest Gump. I have a lot of respect for Mark and we communicate well on a lot of issues. He is one of the guys on here who has taught me a lot. I will try my best to not be one of them self-flaggy things to preserve my becomingness.
 
I'd like to diverge a "bit" and ask you guys about DxD which is a PCM mastering format for which some labels choose to release their DSD titles from. What do you say about that?
 
DXD is just very high rate PCM. 24/384, I think.

I guess if you choose to convert DSD to PCM, it makes a certain intuitive sense to use a very highres rate like that.
 
OK, but aren't you fundamentally losing the essence of the DSD recording by blocking to PCM no matter the mastering resolution?

if not, then wouldn't you consider high resolution PCM, i.e. DXD to be a superior format to DSD?

Given that DXD is a mastering friendly format, longer term wouldn't the DXD format prevail as the superior lossless container delivery format especially considering that the cost of processing and storage is continually coming down for both the label and the consumer?

Perhaps all the rage about DSD is currently just another short term fad.

Next year, we will have media players with bigger pipes capable of buffering fatter data streams to powerfully hungry DACs... So from that perspective simply record, master and deliver in DXD without any conversion up and down....

When considering how a lot of digital music is derived, there still really isn't such a thing as lossless digital, especially if there is format conversion involved in the recording and mastering chain is there?

When considering analog tape recordings, 65-80 million magnetic sub micron particles per second depending on the tape quality still doesn't compare to anything conveniently recorded and mastered in digital, does it...
 
at a seminar at the Newport Show in June, this question of DXD verses 2x or Quad dsd was discussed. the mastering/recording guys there said that it depended on how much post processing would be used for the particular recording. if it would stay the same then it's better 'native' dsd. but if it's going to be messed with then DXD results in a better final product and it's more efficient to do the work.

they said that they were agnostic about which was 'better', it was more a matter of what tool is best to use for the application.
 
I dont think there are any fads left. Most recording setups are MULTIbit PCM, or DSD wide. They are all hybrids and hybrids will keep winning out. There are essentially NO PCM recorders left, the overwhelming majority are delta sigma based and editing is mainly done in high rate PCM. There are some like Sonoma that can do quite a bit if not all in DSD, but the majority of the installed base is PCM based (more fleible foor editing).

Also, acoustic music often needs no editing and are directly recorded to DSD.

Horus and other recorders can do some editing in DSD and most DSD editing are done in very minute splices that only convert like a milisecond worth of material for the bulk of changes. Furthermore, DSD seems to be the format of choice for doing analog tape transfer to digital. When Sony bought the Columbia catalog, they found the tape stock was deteriorating fast and had to back up in digital and they chose DSD.

In the end, we will have to deal with fluid formats and eventually decoders will be flexible and be able to deal with whatever, or even more likely, the computer will perform the modulation and transcode to the sweetsport of the Dac hardware. In the old days,m we didnt care if the casette was regular ferrous, Chrome, metal, whatever...we had decks that played the all.

In
 
Mike Lavigne said:
at a seminar at the Newport Show in June, this question of DXD verses 2x or Quad dsd was discussed. the mastering/recording guys there said that it depended on how much post processing would be used for the particular recording. if it would stay the same then it's better 'native' dsd. but if it's going to be messed with then DXD results in a better final product and it's more efficient to do the work.

they said that they were agnostic about which was 'better', it was more a matter of what tool is best to use for the application.
Click to expand...
Yes, and likely they will have output in multiple formats so people can choose their poison.

For the HQP people, they dont care, as they will use their souped up mobos to upconvert on the fly to their sweetspot. Get the math right and almost everything follows from that.
 
the professor said:
How does the Meridian's MQA figure into all of this?
Click to expand...

Very Good question because we can thank Meridian for Dolby TrueHD and now Meridian MQA offers encapsulation within PCM that is backward compatible...

I would think that this would also strengthen the longevity of the PCM format well into the future?
 
Choice is good for the consumer!
maybe a nightmare for the industry people though. loL
 
Well I hope that those who control the catalogues eg. Sony ATV are smart enough to be making generationally fresh analogue master tape copies while they are transferring to the "best lessor digital of the day".

In many respects, if stored correctly, good magnetic tape stock deteriorates very slowly and sheds little with each use.

I think just like libraries need to preserve books while we favour eReaders, music catalogues need magnetic tape for prolonged preservation of the original material, especially if tape was the original recorded format.

I don't believe digital today is good enough as a true primary transfer medium for historical archives of music and cinema that was originally recorded on tape and film. Furthermore, no digital format technology has proven any longevity potential to date.
 
Julot said:
I am not aware of a rationale as to why DSD would be better than PCM. Not that I need one as proof, but a curious manufacturer would like to understand.

After a few years of trials, I came to the conclusion that PCM DAC conversion is often poorly made, and that musically satisfying DSD DAC conversion is simply easier. I never made it to the point where I missed DSD though, which would have tipped the balance.

I also found that the stages upstream of the DAC are more important than people assume, and I ended up spending (and advising clients to spend) more on digital transport than on DAC, as counter-intuitive as that may be.

But of course, given how few DSD files are actually available (not to mention affordable), that is a bit of a moot point for those who love to explore new music.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The transport is probably at least important than the dac (which are a far sexier product to market and thus all the attention). The problem is that most of the available solutions are all DIY variations on the same half assed computer model.
 
The real question is why master tape is still so much better. In Mike L's universe, its still master tape > vinyl > digital....regardless of the format. I have audio friends who still cannot stand digital regardless of whether the Trinity or Lampizator is doing the honors. Still more work to be done....
 
Geardaddy said:
The real question is why master tape is still so much better. In Mike L's universe, its still master tape > vinyl > digital....regardless of the format. I have audio friends who still cannot stand digital regardless of whether the Trinity or Lampizator is doing the honors. Still more work to be done....
Click to expand...

a denser amount of data is on tape. and less manipulation of that data between the microphone and the media. forget what digital people tell you and just listen to tape. it has authority and weight and texture and a palpability which digital can't quite accomplish. when a high quality tape is played on a master recorder level RTR deck you hear what that format is capable of and it's staggering. and even if the data tells you that digital has this theoretical higher dynamic range and lower noise floor that is hogwash; you hear farther into the noise floor with tape. analog reveals information far into it's noise floor; digital has a cutoff that has to be avoided. so numbers are only part of the story. and then when I go from 1/4" 15ips to 1/2" 15ips the gap gets even bigger.

1/2" tape rules!!!

great digital is very very good and yet there is a gap in the overall degree of reality. vinyl is closer to tape than the best digital.

I will say that this Trinity dac has certainly changed my viewpoint on how big the gap might be between digital and analog tape or vinyl. I say 'might' because I need more time and back and forth between formats to have a more complete picture. but the ceiling of digital performance has certainly risen more than a little.

and from where i sit today; PCM is on the same level if slightly different than dsd/2xdsd. they each have their strengths. ask me in a few more months and I won't be surprised if I prefer PCM.....but I don't know that right now.
 
Mike Lavigne said:
a denser amount of data is on tape. and less manipulation of that data between the microphone and the media. forget what digital people tell you and just listen to tape. it has authority and weight and texture and a palpability which digital can't quite accomplish. when a high quality tape is played on a master recorder level RTR deck you hear what that format is capable of and it's staggering. and even if the data tells you that digital has this theoretical higher dynamic range and lower noise floor that is hogwash; you hear farther into the noise floor with tape. analog reveals information far into it's noise floor; digital has a cutoff that has to be avoided. so numbers are only part of the story. and then when I go from 1/4" 15ips to 1/2" 15ips the gap gets even bigger.

1/2" tape rules!!!

great digital is very very good and yet there is a gap in the overall degree of reality. vinyl is closer to tape than the best digital.
Click to expand...

I hate to admit this, but that's the gospel truth Mike. Paul at tube research labs was constantly on me to buy the Scully deck and have him modify it. He had nothing but scorn for digital, and even vinyl. Unfortunately, I have young kids and it is just not practical at this point.

In reference to tape, the one phrase that comes to mind is dynamic density. Digital just does not come close even with tubes or NOS chipsets.

As for the format banter, I agree again Mike. I have recordings in PCM that are fantastic and ones in DSD that are fantastic. It's all up to the engineer...
 
Mike Lavigne said:
a denser amount of data is on tape.
Click to expand...
No. That's an objective claim, easily falsified.
How about, you subjectively like the sound of tape better than _ ?
Anything wrong with not needed falsifiable "objective" reasons, to just like something better Mike?
 
AJ Soundfield said:
No. That's an objective claim, easily falsified.
How about, you subjectively like the sound of tape better than _ ?
Anything wrong with not needed falsifiable "objective" reasons, to just like something better Mike?
Click to expand...

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 must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top