[AmpDesigner333]

Some quick thoughts....

1. Many have said high rate PCM sounds better than DSD.
2. High rate PCM has less HF noise than DSD (as you can see easily on a scope).
3. If you use digital volume control on your media player (JRiver, for example), DSD is converted to PCM, scaled, then converted back to DSD.
4. DSD limits connectivity, media player options, DAC options, link reliability, and more.

So, the question is "Why not just convert DSD to high rate PCM?".  I know many on here have had much more experience with DSD playback than me.  Looking forward to some feedback.

Thanks for reading this.

-Tommy O

[Mag]

I think high bit rates can sound real good. IMO however the quality of the recording is the most important criteria regardless of the format. But I prefer to listen to a version of a song that I like over a higher quality sound version.

An example of this Rush's - Moving Pictures- Camera Eye- hi-rez. I prefer the cd version,and if you listen carefully is not the same recording. Most likely a studio practice version which was well recorded.

[AmpDesigner333]

I think high bit rates can sound real good. IMO however the quality of the recording is the most important criteria regardless of the format. But I prefer to listen to a version of a song that I like over a higher quality sound version.

An example of this Rush's - Moving Pictures- Camera Eye- hi-rez. I prefer the cd version,and if you listen carefully is not the same recording. Most likely a studio practice version which was well recorded.

Good point!  Agreed.  Thanks.

[Phil A]

Depends on the source.  Was it old analog tape?  What sample rates was it sample to?  DSD? Double DSD? 24/96? 24/192? 24/384?  etc.  As the other post noted the quality of the recording/original source is really important.  So I'm also suggesting it may be depending on what one is taking that source from.  If it is 24/192 PCM and one is taking it to DSD lets say for the sake of making it more appealing to a certain audio segment then it probably is a bad thing.  The problem is that we consumers all don't have a choice in most cases.  It the best available source is an SACD, then I'd buy the SACD.  If there is a hi-rez PCM source and the SACD, then I'd like most of us would choose the hi-rez PCM.  Also in cases, the source is not transparent as to what it was.  I don't get all wrapped up in what it is.  If I like the music, I'll go for the best version available.  I'll look to forums like this or sources like this for information - http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Steely+Dan&album=aja  and make the best informed choice I can from whatever facts and/or opinions are available.

[G Georgopoulos]

Some quick thoughts....

1. Many have said high rate PCM sounds better than DSD.
2. High rate PCM has less HF noise than DSD (as you can see easily on a scope).
3. If you use digital volume control on your media player (JRiver, for example), DSD is converted to PCM, scaled, then converted back to DSD.
4. DSD limits connectivity, media player options, DAC options, link reliability, and more.

So, the question is "Why not just convert DSD to high rate PCM?".  I know many on here have had much more experience with DSD playback than me.  Looking forward to some feedback.

Thanks for reading this.

-Tommy O

Hi Tom

it's all about high resolution,whichever has native high resolution is the best,that's how computers work,software processing/conversion not a good thing imo
 kind regards

George

[paul79]

It's mostly about the recording IMO.

There are also some DAC's that do wonderfully with DSD, and others not so much... With most DAC's you get a great PCM DAC or a great DSD DAC, even though they will play any format. Some do excellent with both, but this is not common.

[GentleBender]

Depends on the source.  Was it old analog tape?  What sample rates was it sample to?  DSD? Double DSD? 24/96? 24/192? 24/384?  etc.  As the other post noted the quality of the recording/original source is really important.  So I'm also suggesting it may be depending on what one is taking that source from.  If it is 24/192 PCM and one is taking it to DSD lets say for the sake of making it more appealing to a certain audio segment then it probably is a bad thing.  The problem is that we consumers all don't have a choice in most cases.  It the best available source is an SACD, then I'd buy the SACD.  If there is a hi-rez PCM source and the SACD, then I'd like most of us would choose the hi-rez PCM.  Also in cases, the source is not transparent as to what it was.  I don't get all wrapped up in what it is.  If I like the music, I'll go for the best version available.  I'll look to forums like this or sources like this for information - http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Steely+Dan&album=aja  and make the best informed choice I can from whatever facts and/or opinions are available.

Thanks for that link!  That is a great resource to help sort the good from the not so good.

[Ric Schultz]

1. Many have said DSD (especially double and quad speed) sounds better than any PCM.
2. Double speed DSD has 40db (100X) less noise at 50K than does regular single speed DSD......and I am sure quad speed reduces this farther.
3. Many are now saying that using HQ player and upsamping all PCM/DSD to double and especially quad speed DSD gives the best and most analog sound they have ever heard from PCM/DSD.  Link to such an experience:  http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?16542-On-the-12th-Day-of-Christmas-my-true-love-gave-to-me/page9
4. MQA is said to improve high speed PCM....giving it more "analog reality"  Check this out: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/15/154970.html
5. This is just the beginning....it will get even better!

[jhm731]

Daniel Weiss of Weiss Engineering on DSD:

http://www.weiss.ch/assets/content/41/white-paper-on-DSD.pdf

[JoshK]

I think high bit rates can sound real good. IMO however the quality of the recording is the most important criteria regardless of the format. But I prefer to listen to a version of a song that I like over a higher quality sound version.

An example of this Rush's - Moving Pictures- Camera Eye- hi-rez. I prefer the cd version,and if you listen carefully is not the same recording. Most likely a studio practice version which was well recorded.

Absolutely.  I don't listen to music because it sounds good on my hi-fi.   I have a hi-fi so that I can enjoy the fullest of the music I want to listen to. 

[nicksgem10s]

Absolutely.  I don't listen to music because it sounds good on my hi-fi.   I have a hi-fi so that I can enjoy the fullest of the music I want to listen to. 

Possibly the best comment I have ever read on an audio forum.  Hope you are well JoshK!

There have been times I have forgotten this simple truth. 

It is the music that moves me not the equipment.  The reason I am so interested in the gear was that I wanted to be able to enjoy the music I love even more.

-Nick

[G Georgopoulos]

You guys are saying we love music on low end gear too, as well as high end,which do you prefer???
sounds like you guys B.S. me...

[JoshK]

dude, I would say 75% of my listening is on sh*t gear relative to my hi-fi, but I don't get enough time listening on the hi-fi.  For me, I almost completely shut out the audiophile aspect, except when I want to choose something for my system, which I haven't done much to in quite a while.   I used to post here all the freakin time, now I mostly post about music or the odd thread here or there.   (I was a moderator on a few sub-groups from way back).    Times change, I realised that I just have to like how my stereo sounds so I can enjoy music without bitching too much.   Most of my bitchin is because I spent too much for it not to sound right.   In that end, I found setup and acoustics are 10x more useful than exotic cables, tube rolling, this or that upgrade in components.. 

I am not trying to preach or act holier than thou.  I learned by the school of hard knocks.

[G Georgopoulos]

dude, I would say 75% of my listening is on sh*t gear relative to my hi-fi, but I don't get enough time listening on the hi-fi.  For me, I almost completely shut out the audiophile aspect, except when I want to choose something for my system, which I haven't done much to in quite a while.   I used to post here all the freakin time, now I mostly post about music or the odd thread here or there.   (I was a moderator on a few sub-groups from way back).    Times change, I realised that I just have to like how my stereo sounds so I can enjoy music without bitching too much.   Most of my bitchin is because I spent too much for it not to sound right.   In that end, I found setup and acoustics are 10x more useful than exotic cables, tube rolling, this or that upgrade in components.. 

I am not trying to preach or act holier than thou.  I learned by the school of hard knocks.

ok, no worries, i see your point,but we should stick to the topic of this thread i think...

cheers mate...

[ACHiPo]

 

Looked for a "coin flipping" emoticon, but didn't see one, so went with the "teetertotter" one instead.  I suspect that high-rate PCM and DSD can deliver the music.  My experience with DSD (and bias for) has to do with my initial experience with SACDs, which were much better than Redbook CDs, and close enough to vinyl so that I didn't have a preference which format I listened to.  The hi-rez digital files I have in PCM sound good enough, too, such that I really don't have a preference between DSD or PCM.  Now maybe with a better DAC I'll have a preference, but I suspect (hope) that a better DAC will make both formats sound better.

[AmpDesigner333]

Here's an interesting article (not from me, although I do know Ben ---- he's a great guy, but he's trying to sell his R2R ladder DAC, so keep that in mind):
http://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/

"DSD has significantly higher quantization noise than PCM, and the noise is much closer to audible frequencies, requiring significantly more sophisticated digital filters, as well as noise-shaping and upsampling algorithms, that can result in distortion of the analog signal."

Back to the reason for this thread....  Why not just convert DSD to high rate PCM?  That way the interface is less taxed, sonics are preserved, and the hardware involved is less costly for the same performance.  The marketing guys at Sony will always poop all over PCM because they are trying to sell DSD, but as the user, you have every right to know the truth!

In any case, please be cognizant of opinions versus facts.  There's math behind this, and I for one believe in math beyond any opinions.

-Tommy

[G Georgopoulos]

"Pulse-code modulation (PCM) is a method used to digitally represent sampled analog signals. It is the standard form of digital audio in computers, Compact Discs, digital telephony and other digital audio applications."

SACD and DSD sound like they have a long way to go to beat PCM...

[mfsoa]

Why not just convert DSD to high rate PCM?

My understanding, from reading on the web ('cause stuff on the web is always right) and not from an engineer's understanding, is that 99+% of dac chips convert to dsd-like processes internally. So when fed PCM, they have to do lots of processing internally.

If fed DSD, it can bypass some (much? all?) of the chips internal processing. The trend seems to be to do as much of the processing in a computer to ease the burden on the dac. Be it upsampling PCM to the native input rate of the dac chip or to convert to DSD, in both cases reducing the processing load on the chip.

To some, the original question should be posed "Why not just convert all PCM to high rate DSD?"   Many report excellent results doing this w/ HQPlayer (and other) software.

See, I told you this wasn't from an engineer's understanding!!

------

I wonder if those who express a preference for DSD have a more extensive analog background than their PCM counterparts?

------

To my ears the Sony HAP-Z1 sounds fine - I don't hear music being mangled by being converted to 1X DSD prior to output.

My $0.0002.

-Mike

[Ric Schultz]

From what I have read the Sony Happy One oversamples to double speed DSD.  However, all DSD upsampling is not equal.  Sony's latest software is much better sounding than earlier versions.  This is why people love HQ player.....suppose to sound way better than Jriver doing upsampling.