Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

oldkidLG t1_j6idp83 wrote

DSD is above all of that crap

−11

klogg4 t1_j6ighqh wrote

DSD is dead. Unusable format for an end user. PCM all the way.

4

oldkidLG t1_j6ih466 wrote

Literally every PCM DAC is compatible with DSD via DoP. Direct recording to DSD or analog to DSD conversion are both vastly superior sonically to PCM. There is literally no point to own an audiophile grade DAC if you never use it to listen to DSD.

−5

klogg4 t1_j6ij8dl wrote

>Direct recording to DSD or analog to DSD conversion

..is a strange approach in modern world where digital mixing/mastering is de facto standard, has endless possibilities and it's simply easier. Which leads to a fact that almost everything today is recorded/mixed/mastered digitally. In PCM of course, because there're almost no tools for processing DSD signal the same way you can do with PCM.

>are both vastly superior sonically to PCM.

Very bold statement.

>There is literally no point to own an audiophile grade DAC if you never use it to listen to DSD.

I use hardware to listen to music I like, not to listen to music in DSD, MQA, whatever. I do not need to justify my purchase by using supported formats, I'm here for enjoyment.

4

oldkidLG t1_j6illgj wrote

There is a misconception about the term "lossless" in digital audio. People think that the capture of the real performance is lossless. It isn't, because it is technically not yet possible. Even binaural recordings are a mere approximation of what it is to be there.

However, recording to DSD instead of PCM is a better approximation than PCM, because DSD retains more information and requires less digital processing and filtering.

As a matter of fact, DSD is almost analog. It's a digital continuous stream. Most delta sigma DACs use a multibit bitstream internally that is very comparable to DSD, but something is lost during the unnecessary PCM encoding and decoding steps.

Of course, if the music is digitally produced to begin with, there is no benefit in using DSD. But anything that involves live instruments and/or vocals will sound better if recorded and played back in DSD

−1

klogg4 t1_j6iqpa1 wrote

>Of course, if the music is digitally produced to begin with, there is no benefit in using DSD

Yes, "to begin with". >95% of music in the world is digitally produced, even if it doesn't contain any digital instruments. It's a matter of fact, because digital mixing is a lot easier to perform than analog one. Some DSD releases are converted from PCM masters - it's a matter of fact as well.

DSD is an archiving format for analog sources, it does not have any other use cases. It does not do anything better than PCM in terms of sound. "Better approximation", "more information" and "less digital processing and filtering" - all of this is complete nonsense.

5

oldkidLG t1_j6ircu6 wrote

>DSD is an archiving format for analog sources, it does not have any other use cases. It does not do anything better than PCM in terms of sound. "Better approximation", "more information" and "less digital processing and filtering" - all of this is complete nonsense.

No, it's not. Take any recent DAC chip schematics, and you will see that the DSD circuit is shorter than the PCM one.

DSD take far more samples per second during recording. Of course, it's going to retain more information. You can't argue that

−6

No-Bother6856 t1_j6izh1e wrote

You literally can argue that because this claim is wrong . More samples at a lower bit depth isn't more information and higher sampling frequency past the nyquist frequency isn't actually going to capture more of the 20-20,000hz frequency range anyway. Redbook CD with pcm is already sufficiently high sample rate to reproduce the entire wave form in the range of human hearing (which is beyond what the entire adult population can hear anyway, so 100% of the people buying dacs don't hear to 20khz) the extra sampling frequency of dsd thus isn't capturing more information, its just using higher sample rate as a substitute for the higher bit depth of pcm.

Do quantization errors exist in pcm? Yes. Do quantization errors exist in dsd? Also yes. Is the noise caused by these errors inside the audible frequency range? No. But im sure your cat would prefer you use 196khz pcm instead of CD

5

oldkidLG t1_j6j0hxl wrote

This would only be that simple if capture and reproduction of sound were perfect. In reality, digital filters alter the signal. DSD avoid steep filters and retains the harmonics, whether you think they are audible or not

1

klogg4 t1_j6iwwpp wrote

Yeah, take any recent DAC chip schematics and get sad because most modern delta-sigma DACs are not 1 bit and they do not support DSD direct (ESS Sabre chips all play DSD pre-processed for example). And the circuit is not much shorter. And you didn't even consider looking at how ADCs work, which is another potentially very interesting story...

>DSD take far more samples per second during recording.

1 bit samples, might you. Which do not replicate sound wave in any way, unlike PCM.

3

oldkidLG t1_j6iyvys wrote

>1 bit samples, might you. Which do not replicate sound wave in any way, unlike PCM.

That's wrong. To replicate dynamic range of the analog signal, each sample is encoded to be played back at higher or lower frequency than the one before it. With at least 2.8 million samples per second, this creates a much better capture of the sound than anything PCM

That's funny that you chose ESS as an example, because recent AKM chips, (pre and post factory fire) all include a direct DSD path with a simple low pass filter.

There are also Sony's S-Master class D amp technology that send DSD directly to the amplification stage. That wouldn't be possible if DSD wasn't a faithful representation of the analog signal.

1

Solypsist_27 t1_j6ixsen wrote

The real question is : do you need all of that information to enjoy music conventionally? No. And if you were super keen on digital artifacts and maximum performance? Well, unless you're a superhuman with higher hearing resolution, many studies state that it's still just snake oil.

2

oldkidLG t1_j6izcu5 wrote

Go check the frequencies produced by real musical instruments. You will see that they by far exceed 20khz. Of course, we cannot hear these, but as they are harmonics, they interact with the audible range of sound and we are perfectly able to notice when they're missing

−2

Solypsist_27 t1_j6j53dk wrote

If they interact in any measurable way, they do so in pcm recordings as well. The biggest thing that affects sound quality when considering higher resolution than 320kbps mp3s is recording/mastering quality. If you're concerned about the interactions of ultrasonic harmonics between instruments, as long as the sounds are digitally produced and separately recorded, such an interaction is never possible. Once you factor this as well, you will notice this "quality" must also be present in pcm recordings, as long as it's audible, if it's not audible then no quality of recording will make you hear that.

Another thing to infer from the fact that mastering/recording quality plays such a big factor in the perceived sound quality and intelligibility of music, is the fact that natively dsd music cannot be objectively compared to high quality pcm, since as long as they're recorder the same, they will sound the same.

3

oldkidLG t1_j6j6zp5 wrote

Again, you completely disregard the impact of digital filters on the sound. To mitigate this negative impact, the higher the sampling rate, the better

0

No-Bother6856 t1_j6iy0lk wrote

The capture of live recordings is limited by the micrphones sure... but losses is lossless in the sense you can fully recreate a sinusoidal wave form in the frequency ranges of human hearing. The math supports this. If you are suggesting pcm is incapable of storing some sort of data that can be captured by dsd then id love to hear what exactly that is. The only real reason to use dsd as a format is to avoid the errors introduced when converting dsd to pcm which isnt a problem if the audio was recorded in pcm to begin with. So its not so much that pure dsd is superior than pure pcm that it is that pure pcm and dsd are theoretically superior than converting between the two.

So sure, if you are trying to listen to the small portion of recordings that is natively dsd then having a dsd dac is the right choice but thats not actually going to sound better than if the same exact session had been recorded straight to pcm and then played back with pcm instead.

And yes, I have a dsd dac

1

oldkidLG t1_j6j2i7o wrote

Both DSD and PCM capture the same live stream from the microphone, but DSD playback is more straightforward with far less digital filtered steps involved. I have just mentioned Sony's S-Master technology in another comment, which sends DSD directly to the amplification stage without digital to analog conversion. And the output is music

1

No-Bother6856 t1_j6j3uxz wrote

If its going from dsd to a transducer and producing sound then it has done a digital to analog conversion, that basically just means you have a speaker level dac, which is admittedly quite cool. And its true that dsd is more straight forward but for a delta sigma dac that natively supports dsd the pcm playback is just fine, you aren't going to have audible loss.

4

HongKong_Bussy_Lmao t1_j6m3lnv wrote

It's dead cuz no one is using it. That's what happens in a free market

1

oldkidLG t1_j6m5sqx wrote

It sure sounds darn good for a dead format

1

HongKong_Bussy_Lmao t1_j6m66r8 wrote

Imagine thinking you can hear any meaningful sound above 20hz, and your transducers can reproduce these sounds in the first place

1

oldkidLG t1_j6mejmg wrote

I can't. But those high frequency harmonics influence what I can hear, impacting things like soundstage and timbre

1