The Digital Promised Land-DSD

[jdandy]

Dan-I think you are giving the music companies and the high-end manufacturers way too much credit. Like all things in audio, there is never consensus among all the players. There are certainly manufacturers who don't believe in DSD and believe in PCM and now we have yet another version of digital that is lossy and yet claims to be better sounding than hi-rez (look at Meridian for instance). People who are involved with PCM and don't like DSD don't all agree on what the best sounding version of PCM is. If there was so much consensus among OEMs and the music business, how come they can't even adopt a common connector/cable type for carrying digital signals never mind a common digital format that all would agree is superior? We have the audio equivalent of the tower of Babel now when it comes to digital with hardly anyone agreeing on very much (no different than the rest of high end audio mind you).

And all of this is taking place unbeknownst to John Q. Public who has no idea about digital formats. They understand CDs, and they understand iTunes for downloads. Most of them wouldn't know anything about the different digital formats and would have no idea if you asked them the difference between a CD and a 24/192 let alone higher multiples of the sampling frequency. And my point to all of this is that no one has communicated effectively to the general public that we have something better sounding than RBCD and it's available for purchase. So where is this well rehearsed and executed business plan? IMO, it doesn't exist. And maybe because of the speed at which digital technology is changing, it never will. Will we ever see a mass well publicized roll out of a new format adopted by all the OEMs and record labels and introduced to the public like we last saw with the CD format? Time will tell, but I wouldn't sit on a picket fence waiting for it to happen.

mep.......Excellent post. My point with respect to manufacturers and the music industry was not so much about a joint concerted effort as a group but rather just a thought about how individual companies cater to a market for the sake of profit more than the true advancement of music reproduction. My comment was more a passing thought than a substantiated fact. Granted, that comment was a broad brush stroke. Not all of my thoughts are necessarily ready for prime time. Some should remain in the cobwebs of my mind.

 

[mep]

mep.......Excellent post. My point with respect to manufacturers and the music industry was not so much about a joint concerted effort as a group but rather just a thought about how individual companies cater to a market for the sake of profit more than the true advancement of music reproduction. My comment was more a passing thought than a substantiated fact. Granted, that comment was a broad brush stroke. Not all of my thoughts are necessarily ready for prime time. Some should remain in the cobwebs of my mind.

Dan-I know that feeling quite well. Many is the time I have said things and I wished I had never opened my mouth or hit the 'send' button.

 

[rbbert]

...Bob Ludwig at Gateway Mastering supports DSD. He's a big player. Pop/Rock-which I am guessing is most records...

Although DSD editing has come a long way, no way will it suffice in today's pop/rock world. Even in yesterday's, it only works if the recording and mastering are all analog and then the final "master" is converted to DSD. Otherwise it's PCM>DSD.

 

[rbbert]

Neil Young and Pono are one more example of trying to bring awareness to the general public of a better sounding digital format. How effective has it been? How many of your coworkers if asked would say they have heard of Pono and could explain what it means? My guess is you would be met with a bunch of blank stares if you asked the question. Most people who did adopt the CD format when introduced and quickly kicked their LPs to the curb or dropped them off at the local Goodwill store would be clueless if you asked them what the bit depth and sampling frequency of CDs are. Seriously. Since the advent of the CD and the successful roll out of the hardware and software in the 1980s, digital has shot itself in the foot ever since and no new digital format has been successfully brought to market and widely adopted by the public. SACD and DVDA didn't even register a blip on the radar screen to the public. This 'format war' didn't come close to the VHS/Beta Max slug out that the public did participate in until VHS dealt the fatal blow to Sony. 'Everybody' had a VHS machine and now they have been discarded and now 'everybody' has a DVD player. Those represent successful roll outs of new formats and new products to play them back on.

No argument from me on this. You forgot to mention the success of Bluray, in many ways a harder sell than DVD; the difference between Bluray and DVD for most people is orders of magnitude less than DVD and VHS, and more people stream now as well.

 

[o0OBillO0o]

Although DSD editing has come a long way, no way will it suffice in today's pop/rock world. Even in yesterday's, it only works if the recording and mastering are all analog and then the final "master" is converted to DSD. Otherwise it's PCM>DSD.

Can you explain "it only works if the recording and mastering are all analog?"

My undestandning is recording in the studio from the Mic chain; use an analog mixing board to produce a 2 or multichannel master; save to a final DSD version to be sent to the mastering studio; the mastering studio runs the DSD through their Analog EQ stages; and the resultant track is cut to the master DSD file; Then the master DSD file is sent to SACD or DSD download, Vinyl, Dithered to PCM and put on a CD or digital download. Optionally if you have a multi track DSD recording system (Merging Horus or five Tascam DA-3000s) you can save all live mic feeds and mix at a later time.

Ref: http://www.sonicstudio.com/pdf/dsd/SACD_FormatOverview.pdf

 

[rbbert]

I didn't mean to say it is physically impossible to produce a pop/rock record using only DSD, but I'm pretty sure no studios are set up record multi-track DSD, and the signal processing tools preferred by engineers don't exist in DSD (yet). My comment about all-analog was meant to refer to the re-issue of "classic" older recordings on SACD.

Your own diagram illustrates this well:happy:

 

[Mike]

MQA may make this all a mute point. I think the MQA announcements next week will be very interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[o0OBillO0o]

I didn't mean to say it is physically impossible to produce a pop/rock record using only DSD, but I'm pretty sure no studios are set up record multi-track DSD, and the signal processing tools preferred by engineers don't exist in DSD (yet). My comment about all-analog was meant to refer to the re-issue of "classic" older recordings on SACD.

Your own diagram illustrates this well:happy:

Rob.. It is reasonable that the industry may not be set-up to do the above diagram. Generally, I know that PCM is used in almost every computer aided plug-in for effects.

I can't refute your claim and I really don't know much more than what I can search on the internet about professional recording.

However, these creators of the art get together every year to discuss the future of their craft and I am hopeful that the association that these people belong to are going to do more than PCM based recording.

and one more comment, I am tired of the music of the current 50-70 year olds "high school era" music being re-released on XYZ format. ( I get it- the nostalgia and they have the most disposable income) I prefer new music and if I must, a vinyl or two.

 

[o0OBillO0o]

MQA may make this all a mute point. I think the MQA announcements next week will be very interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because you said it Mike, I am counting on you to make that a reality

 

[mep]

No argument from me on this. You forgot to mention the success of Bluray, in many ways a harder sell than DVD; the difference between Bluray and DVD for most people is orders of magnitude less than DVD and VHS, and more people stream now as well.

One thing the 'public' seems to understand to some small degree is that with video, more resolution is better. Unlike audio, people can easily see the difference between low resolution TV/video and hi def TV/video. Plus, people spend way more time in front of their televisions than they do in front of their stereo systems (assuming they even have a stereo system outside of a boombox) which makes the upgrade an easy sale. When you couple that with DVD players incorporating the ability to play back both Blueray and standard DVD discs, migrating to Blueray was not a giant leap for mankind. But I get your point.

 

[Mike]

Because you said it Mike, I am counting on you to make that a reality

I said "may". They have a major uphill battle on their hands, but I think their approach and technology (new encoding/decoding) is sound (no pun intended). Based on what I heard in Axpona, I give it two big thumbs up. [emoji106][emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[o0OBillO0o]

One thing the 'public' seems to understand to some small degree is that with video, more resolution is better. Unlike audio, people can easily see the difference between low resolution TV/video and hi def TV/video. Plus, people spend way more time in front of their televisions than they do in front of their stereo systems (assuming they even have a stereo system outside of a boombox) which makes the upgrade an easy sale. When you couple that with DVD players incorporating the ability to play back both Blueray and standard DVD discs, migrating to Blueray was not a giant leap for mankind. But I get your point.

Interjecting- Clarity here, there is no resolution that is an apples to apples comparison to video, in audio. bit depth speaks to signal to noise and sample rate speaks to bandwidth. Now multiplying them together gets a bit-rate and has been coined "High resolution" but it's a poor definition. (Opinion) High resolution audio exists on all formats, and generally is product of technically understanding the recording and playback process.

I acknowledge the "orders of magnitude" differences in video resolution between VHS to DVD to Bluray. However with out some facts to back up the claim of "people spend way more time in front of their televisions than" than listening to music, I find that over generalizing. Especially since the crown here (should be) is the listening people of the internet.

 

[mep]

Interjecting- Clarity here, there is no resolution that is an apples to apples comparison to video, in audio. bit depth speaks to signal to noise and sample rate speaks to bandwidth. Now multiplying them together gets a bit-rate and has been coined "High resolution" but it's a poor definition. (Opinion) High resolution audio exists on all formats, and generally is product of technically understanding the recording and playback process.

I acknowledge the "orders of magnitude" differences in video resolution between VHS to DVD to Bluray. However with out some facts to back up the claim of "people spend way more time in front of their televisions than" than listening to music, I find that over generalizing. Especially since the crown here (should be) is the listening people of the internet.

I'm specifically talking about John Q. Public and not audiophiles. Do you seriously have any doubt that the average non-audiophile spends way more time watching TV/movies than they do listening to music at home?

 

[o0OBillO0o]

I said "may". They have a major uphill battle on their hands, but I think their approach and technology (new encoding/decoding) is sound (no pun intended). Based on what I heard in Axpona, I give it two big thumbs up. [emoji106][emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AND Meridian is included DSD as feature in their future and some current products!

I do like the concept of fixing everything all the way back to the microphone. To me that is a great deal of research to account for what effects each process had on the production of the music. It's really out of this world!

 

[o0OBillO0o]

I'm specifically talking about John Q. Public and not audiophiles. Do you seriously have any doubt that the average non-audiophile spends way more time watching TV/movies than they do listening to music at home?

I do- I see people running, walking, and working to music everyday. TV is for the over 40 crowd and stay at home spouses/partners. again- these are my own anecdotes.

 

[Alrainbow]

The vast majority of people listening to music are non audio heads like us. Weather we want it or not we are a pebble on the beach. Regarding yet another format to buy my music a 10 time will not happen . So what ever meridian is doing its nice but keep it. Although I would like to litsten to it . Now weather some hear feel DSd is better than PCM I really do not. It's preference for me. And here is a thought the majority do not know what really good DSd reproduction sounds like. MEP you have a heard a lampi I think ? And if you did in what way did the MyTek sound like the dsd on the lampi. Since I own both the MyTek is nice but that's not DSd . The PCM on the MyTek is something I never liked either. Now I sound like a fool or someone who is making claims right. But I am not meaning to be this way. Our audio world is really about what we like as individuals and nothing more . Although if you put a bunch of us in one room with one system some would like it . But I'll bet just as many would not. For me DSd is nice when I am in the mood but I also like the bite of PCM too. And recordings that I know well in PCM are for me to stay that way. There are some and growing that upsample PCM to DSd , this is bad for me but that is me. For me chipless or what ever that means sounds best wtih DSd. My ifi DSd micro sounds better than my MyTek ever did with DSd. But again it's still my choice. I did a post a while back regarding that I think we all hear diffrent . I was surprised of the answers. What we like or have become to Like is a product of all we hear both daily and over our lifetime. As much as we are here as a group and its a group I have grown to respect and enjoy as I learn . But the more I learn the more I know I am different but still we are the same in some regards . I do feel that DSd is close to analog and the best format to reclaim the old analog stuff. But there is something about PCM I like too.
Plese do not take offense to any of my clames or views it's just mine and I am not claiming to know more than anyone except learning more about what I like.
Al

 

[Mike]

Al - all good points, but the market is ripe for MQA. I love DSD, but due to its limitations (closed format, massive size, difficulty to stream, etc) it just won't ever catch on mainstream. That's where I think MQA has a shot. It offers something to the recording industry in terms of a better mousetrap for preserving recordings. It has a manageable size. MQA DAC's will start at $200 and we may even see the encoding/decoding technology licensed for much less.

MP3 sucks and now most people know it - with a small thanks to Neil Young to tell the remaining folks who didn't know!

Never say never as far as MQA is concerned. If it betters many other formats and gives us a chance to get a better remaster and "fix" some of the recording faults of the day, then I'm all for it.

DSD is what Beta was to VHS. MQA has the potential to be the next Blu-Ray.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Myles B. Astor]

AND Meridian is included DSD as feature in their future and some current products!

I do like the concept of fixing everything all the way back to the microphone. To me that is a great deal of research to account for what effects each process had on the production of the music. It's really out of this world!

Fixing would require going back to 2-track recording. Nothing but nothing has the purity, resolution and transparency of a well done 2-track recording.

 

[rbbert]

AND Meridian is included DSD as feature in their future and some current products!

I do like the concept of fixing everything all the way back to the microphone. To me that is a great deal of research to account for what effects each process had on the production of the music. It's really out of this world!

Again, this is certainly a worthwhile ideal, and there is little question that digital sound reproduction would significantly improve if DAC characteristics matched ADC, but how does one do that in a practical way?

 

[o0OBillO0o]

Fixing would require going back to 2-track recording. Nothing but nothing has the purity, resolution and transparency of a well done 2-track recording.

I agree. I also am fond of minimal mic'ing.

Again, this is certainly a worthwhile ideal, and there is little question that digital sound reproduction would significantly improve if DAC characteristics matched ADC, but how does one do that in a practical way?

Well that "practical way" is what Mike and Meridian MQA claim. If I knew, I would post a good diatribe to the "why." I've got to do some more reading and catch up on the Absolute Sound's coverage and a few other papers on why MQA. Ostensibly, it looks close to the Pacific Microsonics Hight Definitions Compact Disc (HDCD) (Unofficial List), now owned by Microsoft, encoding. Where low level "noise", that we cannot hear, has encoded extra information about the audio track. Essentially 20bit recordings have been published on CDs. MQA is doing something similar to this, along with additional metadata that provides insight to recording. When played back with MQA "decoder" the hidden metadata is decoded and we all, allegedly, get the product that Mike and MQA are talking about.

Fun times and I hope it delivers!