DSD Digital Playback

[John]

Has anyone played with this yet. It seems the best way for digital to go from what I read
I think for me it will suffer the same fate of HD digital audio in that their will not be enough music I want in this medium to warrant it
Here a good article about the format
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue59/dsd.htm

[AlexM]

DSD is an interesting way of encoding music for distribution, but I think it is fundamentally flawed in that the quantisation noise is huge, even if noise-shaping is used to shift it up to high frequencies, why tolerate it at all?. LPCM doesn't have that inherent disadvantage, and can be readily down-sampled or converted into other formats for portable devices.

The article listed overlooks that almost all DSD material is derived from PCM digital masters, and where a DSD source is available for recording, it is always processed into PCM so that it can be mixed in a studio environment. The 'pure' audio path of DSD doesn't exist in the real world, so I'm not sure what its advantages are supposed to be - wide frequency range (ignoring noise) and dynamic range?. Both of those needs are met well by even 24/96Khz LPCM for music use.

Cheers,
Alex

[John]

Have you used it and compared it yet Alex. I want to know if its just flavour of the mouth or has real potential

[AlexM]

Hi John,

Not as a PC-based file product - I don't have a DSD-capable DAC. I have heard quite a bit of SACD, but that is a different subject I guess. FWIW, I didn't like it too much as it sounded a little too 'smooth' in the lower end of the frequency range and a bit unnatural up-top. I have heard a similar effect from upsampled 16/44 material.

I think there is an element of flavour of the month, but at the end of the day there won't be a surfeit of new DSD material, other than SACD rips or analogue transfers as it is a 'dead' production format. I think it is too late for a return from the dead, but I could be wrong.

Cheers,
Alex

[John]

Yes lack of material will be major stumbling block and to be honest puts me off it. There are a few record companies producing DSD file based music for sale. But think this will stay far to specialist
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Alex

[daytona600]

More DSD downloads every month

DSD free music Downloads , more listed on my site

http://dsd-guide.com/free-downloads
http://bluecoastrecords.com/free-downloads
http://www.channelclassics.com/aboutdsd
http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html
http://dsd-guide.com/

DSD in 2.8 & 6.4mhz DSDx64 , DSDx128 , check as some Dacs can,t work with the higher x 128 version

[purite audio]

It is useful if you have lots of SACDs you can rip them and playback from your PC, but as a medium is is tragically flawed.
Keith.

[NRG]

John, have a read of this....

http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=74

[MCRU]

DSD is an interesting way of encoding music for distribution, but I think it is fundamentally flawed in that the quantisation noise is huge, even if noise-shaping is used to shift it up to high frequencies, why tolerate it at all?. LPCM doesn't have that inherent disadvantage, and can be readily down-sampled or converted into other formats for portable devices.

The article listed overlooks that almost all DSD material is derived from PCM digital masters, and where a DSD source is available for recording, it is always processed into PCM so that it can be mixed in a studio environment. The 'pure' audio path of DSD doesn't exist in the real world, so I'm not sure what its advantages are supposed to be - wide frequency range (ignoring noise) and dynamic range?. Both of those needs are met well by even 24/96Khz LPCM for music use.

Cheers,
Alex

don't think so young man, it sounds very good indeed, it can only grow :)

[MCRU]

It is useful if you have lots of SACDs you can rip them and playback from your PC, but as a medium is is tragically flawed.
Keith.

why?

it at the very least will stay around for a long time, more new music is being released all the time, people dismiss something they have no knowledge of too easily

I have been listening to DSD for months now and it sounds excellent, how can it die when so many DSD capable dac's are now available?

[Stratmangler]

It is useful if you have lots of SACDs you can rip them and playback from your PC, but as a medium is is tragically flawed.
Keith.

What can they be ripped on Keith?
I'm aware of the early PS3 possibility, but working early PS3s are extremely difficult to find.

[WOStantonCS100]

A little early to write off DSD considering how fast technology moves. The "noise problem" of DSD x1 (SACD) has already been dealt with as of DSD x2. In my view, all physical digital formats are on a slippery slope as they are no longer a necessity to deliver the product. With storage issues rapidly, if not already, becoming moot points, there's no reason for rejecting a digital format/encoding scheme based on size; shrunk (for portabilty/mp3 players) and maximized (for high resolution) can easily coexist.

I do agree that SACD as a physical format was a perfect example of another bad business decision; but, not a bad audio decision. I would still take a direct analog transfer to DSD x1/SACD over 16/44.1/CD anytime.

DSD has an advantage as an archival medium as it can easily be converted to PCM. Once you're in PCM, you're stuck. I would caution against using "the ministry of the way things are now" as a map to the future. DSD x2 has as much of a stake in high res audio as 24/192, physical formats "be damned", you know what I mean. The only physical format I would bet on is vinyl.

I'm rather undecided on the DAC issue as there are plenty of ways to skin the cat. More and more I view DACS/decoding schemes like phono cartridges.... season to taste. Sometimes I prefer upsampling, sometimes I don't. Sometimes (usually) I prefer the DACS in my Tascam; but, every once in a while, a CD sounds better going thru an outboard DAC or the DAC in the receiver. Crazy world.

[purite audio]

What can they be ripped on Keith?
I'm aware of the early PS3 possibility, but working early PS3s are extremely difficult to find.

Chris you can you an Atlona de-embedder or something similar, rip them to PCM.
Kr Keith.

[AlexM]

A little early to write off DSD considering how fast technology moves. The "noise problem" of DSD x1 (SACD) has already been dealt with as of DSD x2. In my view, all physical digital formats are on a slippery slope as they are no longer a necessity to deliver the product. With storage issues rapidly, if not already, becoming moot points, there's no reason for rejecting a digital format/encoding scheme based on size; shrunk (for portabilty/mp3 players) and maximized (for high resolution) can easily coexist.

I do agree that SACD as a physical format was a perfect example of another bad business decision; but, not a bad audio decision. I would still take a direct analog transfer to DSD x1/SACD over 16/44.1/CD anytime.

DSD has an advantage as an archival medium as it can easily be converted to PCM. Once you're in PCM, you're stuck. I would caution against using "the ministry of the way things are now" as a map to the future. DSD x2 has as much of a stake in high res audio as 24/192, physical formats "be damned", you know what I mean. The only physical format I would bet on is vinyl.

I'm rather undecided on the DAC issue as there are plenty of ways to skin the cat. More and more I view DACS/decoding schemes like phono cartridges.... season to taste. Sometimes I prefer upsampling, sometimes I don't. Sometimes (usually) I prefer the DACS in my Tascam; but, every once in a while, a CD sounds better going thru an outboard DAC or the DAC in the receiver. Crazy world.



Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

I don't disagree with much of what you said, other than that a) there is nothing to stop conversion from LPCM to DSD - that always happens during production and mastering anyway and.b) DSD128 still has exactly the same issues as DSD64, albeit that the noise just appears higher in the ultrasonic.

I just don't get the compelling average of DSD over LPCM at 24/192. The disadvantages are not limited to noise and lack of easy handling / transcoding - replay gain or any gain or volume processing isn't possible without conversion to PCM.first, throwing away the purity of the concept and introducing new issues too.

Anyway, the recording, production quality mastering is the limiting factor for sq, not DSD vs. PCM as a distribution format. My DAC and many others already use a delta sigma converter, so in a sense I get a bitstream/Dsd output whether I like it or not.

Cheers,
Alex

P.s. read the article linked in post #8 by NRG. It gives you a good idea what the issues are DSD.

[AlexM]

David,

I stand by what I said wrt problems with DSD encoding compared to hires LPCM.

I didn't say it couldn't sound good, but I would disagree that of itself it sounds better than a PCM hires transfer of a common master - are you suggesting that this is the case, and what is the basis for that, if so?. Not putting words into your mouth, but just curious...

Regards,
Alex

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

[Andrei]

My experience with DSD is mainly limited to SACD. All I can say is that it sounds better than CD. My player, and most others I believe, convert the DSD to PCM. All the same it is better than CD. I also tried downloading a DSD sample (from 2L I think) and played that in Foobar2000 with a DSD plugin. There was a background hiss - not sure of the cause of that but not pleasant.

[Gazjam]

DSD (particularly DSDx2) sounds REALLY good played natively through a DSD capable Dac.

For my own experience, I heard native DSD (x1 and x2) played from Jriver into a Mytek 192 Dac and it sounded fantastic.
Better than CD? absolutely, and then some.

Though when I compared to 24/192 through a different Dac the differences were more of a preferred "flavour" than an absolute one is better.

If more music is released in DSD format (and not just tinkly hifi nonsense :)) the it SHOULD take off. It deserves to imo.
DSD capable Dacs are coming down in price all the time and if you have a large SACD collection its a no brainer if your moving to file based audio.

[WOStantonCS100]

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

I don't disagree with much of what you said, other than that a) there is nothing to stop conversion from LPCM to DSD - that always happens during production and mastering anyway and.b) DSD128 still has exactly the same issues as DSD64, albeit that the noise just appears higher in the ultrasonic.

I just don't get the compelling average of DSD over LPCM at 24/192. The disadvantages are not limited to noise and lack of easy handling / transcoding - replay gain or any gain or volume processing isn't possible without conversion to PCM.first, throwing away the purity of the concept and introducing new issues too.

Anyway, the recording, production quality mastering is the limiting factor for sq, not DSD vs. PCM as a distribution format. My DAC and many others already use a delta sigma converter, so in a sense I get a bitstream/Dsd output whether I like it or not.

Cheers,
Alex

P.s. read the article linked in post #8 by NRG. It gives you a good idea what the issues are DSD.

Yes, right, but, we're talking about ultrasonic noise rising beyond 20kHz, in the case of 5.6MHz DSD, far beyond. With any decent filtering, this is a non-issue. No format is without it's compromises. PCM certainly isn't (zero crossings and such). Honestly, from a consumer point of view, I'm not concerned at all with processing, at least, digitally, DSD or hi-res PCM for that matter. I prefer that to be taken care of in the recording/mastering phase. When it comes to playback, other than DSD or PCM being a carrier, I'm of a mind that if I want the volume processed... I turn a stepped-potentiometer clockwise. :lol: That is to say, the format can be "digital"; but, I prefer all else to remain analog.

Quoted from the referred to post:

JS: Shh! Please don’t use the PCM word! But OK yes, it is probably safe to say for about 99% of the DSD projects that have been done. There may be a few exceptions where somebody set up a microphone to a DSD direct to disc project and have done nothing with it. No processing, no level changes, no filtering, no mixing or have used that for archiving an analog tape…or archiving a vinyl disc.

That is where my real interest in hi res resides; in the archiving of vinyl and tape or reissues from analog masters. If the mastering was done right, there shouldn't be all that much need to futz with it or if so, remaster it before it hits the recorder, whether that be DSD128 or 24/192 or beyond.