Why DSD is a terrible idea in 2013

Audioseduction

Active member
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
1,059
Location
Lakeland, Florida
Interesting Quote from Linn.

"Why DSD is a terrible idea in 2013
DSD was invented to solve problems that no longer exist today.

A good idea in 1999, DSD was conceived to improve the quality of music at home over the prevailing 16-bit CD format. By bypassing the down-sampling and up-sampling filters in the CD audio chain, DSD sought to improve performance by shortening the audio signal path:

DSD_vs_PCM2.jpg


However, DSD has been overtaken by modern technology; A-D and D-A converters have moved away from 1-bit, to far superior multi-bit processes, and the down-sampling and up-sampling filters that DSD sought to bypass have been rendered transparent by the use of higher sample rates and modern algorithms. In fact, DSD is now the quality bottleneck in the modern recording and playback chain.

The arrival of 192kHz 24-bit capable Linn DS players in 2007 signalled the end of DSD. There is no longer the need to convert the original Studio Master recording, which is usually in PCM format, to a DSD stream, because the Studio Master can now be decoded natively on the Linn DS player. Hence, a needless and lossy conversion from PCM to DSD has been eliminated.

DSD has, like so many audio formats, come to the end of it's natural life. It's time to move on. "

Why DSD is a terrible idea in 2013
 
Interesting Quote from Linn.

"Why DSD is a terrible idea in 2013
DSD was invented to solve problems that no longer exist today.

A good idea in 1999, DSD was conceived to improve the quality of music at home over the prevailing 16-bit CD format. By bypassing the down-sampling and up-sampling filters in the CD audio chain, DSD sought to improve performance by shortening the audio signal path:

DSD_vs_PCM2.jpg


However, DSD has been overtaken by modern technology; A-D and D-A converters have moved away from 1-bit, to far superior multi-bit processes, and the down-sampling and up-sampling filters that DSD sought to bypass have been rendered transparent by the use of higher sample rates and modern algorithms. In fact, DSD is now the quality bottleneck in the modern recording and playback chain.

The arrival of 192kHz 24-bit capable Linn DS players in 2007 signalled the end of DSD. There is no longer the need to convert the original Studio Master recording, which is usually in PCM format, to a DSD stream, because the Studio Master can now be decoded natively on the Linn DS player. Hence, a needless and lossy conversion from PCM to DSD has been eliminated.

DSD has, like so many audio formats, come to the end of it's natural life. It's time to move on. "

Why DSD is a terrible idea in 2013

Very interesting...thx Can't wait to hear what Norman (Wisnon) has to see about this:exciting:
 
interesting read...i'm no techie. Thanks for posting. will be interesting to read how various people react to this.
 
Interesting Quote from Linn.

"Why DSD is a terrible idea in 2013
DSD was invented to solve problems that no longer exist today.

A good idea in 1999, DSD was conceived to improve the quality of music at home over the prevailing 16-bit CD format. By bypassing the down-sampling and up-sampling filters in the CD audio chain, DSD sought to improve performance by shortening the audio signal path:

DSD_vs_PCM2.jpg


However, DSD has been overtaken by modern technology; A-D and D-A converters have moved away from 1-bit, to far superior multi-bit processes, and the down-sampling and up-sampling filters that DSD sought to bypass have been rendered transparent by the use of higher sample rates and modern algorithms. In fact, DSD is now the quality bottleneck in the modern recording and playback chain.

The arrival of 192kHz 24-bit capable Linn DS players in 2007 signalled the end of DSD. There is no longer the need to convert the original Studio Master recording, which is usually in PCM format, to a DSD stream, because the Studio Master can now be decoded natively on the Linn DS player. Hence, a needless and lossy conversion from PCM to DSD has been eliminated.

DSD has, like so many audio formats, come to the end of it's natural life. It's time to move on. "

Why DSD is a terrible idea in 2013

I'm probably going to take some heat for this,but I agree !!

I am no fan of DSD. DSD files I have listened to can sound good sometimes, but other times the music has an un-natural sound to it, the flow and presentation seem strange. Everything seems discombobulated !!
 
I'm probably going to take some heat for this,but I agree !!

I am no fan of DSD. DSD files I have listened to can sound good sometimes, but other times the music has an un-natural sound to it, the flow and presentation seem strange. Everything seems discombobulated !!

But Mark, to be fair, the DSD files you heard were DSD files converted to PCM and then played through your LINN. Using the original DSD files and a native DSD DAC would likely produce a much different result.
 
Here we go with format wars....vinyl vs digital....PCM vs DSD.....

Again, why would you not want a DAC that does DSD. First, it is generally accepted in the technical circles that a DSD DAC chip is superior not just because it can decode DSD, but because it's a better chip for PCM. I had this very conversation with Ken Ishiwata from Marantz. So, if you're not a fan of DSD, fine, buy a DAC that supports DSD to get better PCM!

I enjoy my vinyl, 24/96, 24/192, redbook rips and my DSD files. DSD doesn't have to win for PCM to lose and visa versa. There is room for both and whatever sounds better is best for the consumer.
 
This is an old article well debated to death (and to my mind torn apart). There will be people on all sides trying to sell you ideas from their less than perfect understanding of the tech.

The first misconception out there is bit rate comparison. Technically DSD64 is equivalent to 16/176 PCM, UNTIL you realize the apples to oranges comparison. PCM carries all the prior info PLUS a small change, like a frame of celluloid film. You then run them together and get get a motion picture (or a stream of music in this case). DSD carries ONLY the change, no prior baggage, thus is able to carry a MUCH higher density of info per given data package. DSD is the higher resolution format, comparable to 32/352 (DXD). Take this to double rate DSD and its game over!

The best judge is your own ears though…I know how my ears vote! DSD128 is unreal…what say you Bob?

Mike: I agree, choice is GOOD here. Like tape players that can do Metal/Chrome or regular cassettes back in the day, so too being able to replay any format natively is a GOOD thing. DSD and PCM (even RBCD) is heavenly. Ask Bob about the plain vanilla RBCD SuperCD!
 
Last edited:
This is an old article well debated to death (and to my mind torn apart). There will be people on all sides trying to sell you ideas from their less than perfect understanding of the tech.

The first misconception out there is bit rate comparison. Technically DSD64 is equivalent to 16/176 PCM, UNTIL you realize the appeals to orates comparison. PCM carries all the prior info and a small change, like a frame of celluloid film. You then run them together and get get a motion picture. DSD carries ONLy the change, no prior baggage, thus is able to carry a MUCH higher density of info per given package of data. DSD is the higher resolution format, comparable to 32/352 (DXD). Take this to double rate DSD and its game over!

The best judge is your own ears though…I know how my ears vote! DSD128 is unreal…what say you Bob?

Mike: I agree, choice is GOOD here. Like tape players that can do Metal/Chrome or regular cassettes back in the day, so too being able to replay any format natively is a GOOD thing. DSD and PCM (even RBCD) is heavenly. Ask Bob about the plain vanilla RBCD SuperCD!

+1.....what Norman and Mike said.
 
Most of what I have read on the issue of PCM vs DSD have generally fallen into one of two groups. Manufacturers and recording engineers find no advantage with DSD, possibly a disadvantage with the potential of higher noise. Audiophiles and reviewers say they hear better quality sound with DSD.
 
Here is Michael Lavorgna's interview with Andreas Koch (founder of Playback Designs and one of the original designers/developers of the SACD standard): Q&A with Andreas Koch | AudioStream

Similar diagram used to explain DSD conversion process:

11613andreas1.jpg


Dynamic range and noise floor via PCM vs. DSD:

11613andreas2.jpg
 
Here we go with format wars....vinyl vs digital....PCM vs DSD.....

Again, why would you not want a DAC that does DSD. First, it is generally accepted in the technical circles that a DSD DAC chip is superior not just because it can decode DSD, but because it's a better chip for PCM. I had this very conversation with Ken Ishiwata from Marantz. So, if you're not a fan of DSD, fine, buy a DAC that supports DSD to get better PCM!

I enjoy my vinyl, 24/96, 24/192, redbook rips and my DSD files. DSD doesn't have to win for PCM to lose and visa versa. There is room for both and whatever sounds better is best for the consumer.

I've yet to hear digital that sounds better than what comes out of my Linn DS !!
 
At RMAF I heard some pretty darn good sounding DSD tracks. A little early perhaps but there is great potential and there are some fantastic DACs that support this format and, I'm sure, there will be more to come.

Mike
 
Back
Top