Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: DSD Myth  (Read 16190 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4095
DSD Myth
« on: July 19, 2015, 11:12:39 PM »
http://www.grimmaudio.com/site/assets/files/1088/dsd_myth.pdf

Related, an interview on the topic with John Siau of Benchmark:
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=74
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.
- Gustav Mahler

Acoustic Recording Techniques
Team Classical
Team Line Audio
Team DPA

Offline DigiGal

  • AES Associate Member
  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Gender: Female
  • Stay healthy and safe!
    • DigiGal Internet Archive Recordings
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2015, 07:22:48 PM »
Very nice, thanks for posting the article links.  :)
Mics: AKG CK91/CK94/CK98/SE300 D-330BT | DPA 4060 4061 4266 | Neumann TLM 103 | Senn ME66/K6/K6RD MKE2 MD421 MD431 | Shure VP88 SM7B SM63L SM58 Anniversary Cables: Gotham GAC-4/1 Quad w/Neutrik EMC | Gotham GAC-2pair w/AKG MK90/3 connectors | DigiGal AES>S/PDIF cable Preamp: SD MixPre-D Recorders: SD MixPre 6 | Marantz PMD 661 Edit: 2011 27" 3.4GHz Quad i7 iMac High Sierra | 2020 13" MBA Quad i7 Catalina | Wave Editor | xACT | Transmission | FCP X 

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4095
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2015, 08:40:31 PM »
NP.  I posted these because they support my belief that DSD is a waste of time and money, unless you are trying to sell SACDs or DSD recorders. ;)  Some people swear by it, but as soon as you edit DSD or listen through a DAC that doesn't decode it directly, you would have been better off using PCM in the first place.
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.
- Gustav Mahler

Acoustic Recording Techniques
Team Classical
Team Line Audio
Team DPA

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2015, 08:49:37 PM »
Interesting read. 

Without realizing it, I've been following best practice number 1 in my workflow and playback.  I've been recording in DSD then mastering and sharing my recordings as PCM files.  I have Pyramix installed on my PC, but I haven't done anything with it simply because I haven't sat down long enough to figure out how to use the software.  This article implies that would have mostly been a waste of time.  Since I haven't gotten Pyramix operational in my workflow, I've just tried as best I can to record the orininal DSD files at the point of capture without needing to do anything in post to listen back.  For example, I try to make sure my levels are well balanced between both channels and that they peak between -6db and 0db so I don't need to rely on doing any level adjusting in post to have reasonable playback levels.  Then I've mostly (exception noted below) left the DSD files intact as recorded and I listen back directly on my PCM-D100. 

One thing I'm curious about is that I've used Korg Audiogate to split the original DSD files into tracks according to the tracking of the PCM master.  So the only thing done to some of my original DSD masters is to chop them up for tracking a show (and of course renaming the smaller files accordingly).  This article makes me curious if doing so puts the files through any PCM conversion.  My inclination is that the answer is 'no' since I don't think Audiogate has any capabilities to do any filtering of the data for editing, EQ, etc.

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2015, 08:58:20 PM »
NP.  I posted these because they support my belief that DSD is a waste of time and money, unless you are trying to sell SACDs or DSD recorders. ;)  Some people swear by it, but as soon as you edit DSD or listen through a DAC that doesn't decode it directly, you would have been better off using PCM in the first place.

I'm curious, have you actually listened to a DSD recording played natively through a DSD recorder?  I can't say that I've done any A vs B testing, but damn the recordings I play back through my D100 that I've recorded in DSD sound sweet and they definitely have an added layer of 'real' than what I get from my other recorders.  But maybe it's the ADC of the recorder rather than the format that's making the difference. 

Anyway, the article doesn't say anything about DSD being a waste.  My read on the article is that it simply says that you need to be careful about how you process a native DSD file.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2015, 09:03:00 PM by tonedeaf »

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4095
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2015, 09:15:14 PM »
Interesting read. 

Without realizing it, I've been following best practice number 1 in my workflow and playback.  I've been recording in DSD then mastering and sharing my recordings as PCM files.  I have Pyramix installed on my PC, but I haven't done anything with it simply because I haven't sat down long enough to figure out how to use the software.  This article implies that would have mostly been a waste of time.  Since I haven't gotten Pyramix operational in my workflow, I've just tried as best I can to record the orininal DSD files at the point of capture without needing to do anything in post to listen back.  For example, I try to make sure my levels are well balanced between both channels and that they peak between -6db and 0db so I don't need to rely on doing any level adjusting in post to have reasonable playback levels.  Then I've mostly (exception noted below) left the DSD files intact as recorded and I listen back directly on my PCM-D100. 

One thing I'm curious about is that I've used Korg Audiogate to split the original DSD files into tracks according to the tracking of the PCM master.  So the only thing done to some of my original DSD masters is to chop them up for tracking a show (and of course renaming the smaller files accordingly).  This article makes me curious if doing so puts the files through any PCM conversion.  My inclination is that the answer is 'no' since I don't think Audiogate has any capabilities to do any filtering of the data for editing, EQ, etc.

I think you're probably correct that Audiogate isn't doing anything beyond splitting the files.  If it was converting to PCM, your probably see it working a bit on the conversion.  It sounds similar to a program I use to split videos without any rendering called Machete.

Your prices may be as close as you can get to staying pure DSD.  That only works because you're very careful with your capture.  Actually the kind of concert taping done by many here, where you have a continuous recording with just track splits, just might be the best situation for allowing yourself to stay in the DSD realm.  Once you go further than that though, you're into the situations described in these articles where PCM would have been the better choice.

I know we've talked about this before, but I can't locate it now: what if any benefits do you get running your D-100 at DSD as opposed to 24/96 PCM?
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.
- Gustav Mahler

Acoustic Recording Techniques
Team Classical
Team Line Audio
Team DPA

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4095
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2015, 09:33:52 PM »
NP.  I posted these because they support my belief that DSD is a waste of time and money, unless you are trying to sell SACDs or DSD recorders. ;)  Some people swear by it, but as soon as you edit DSD or listen through a DAC that doesn't decode it directly, you would have been better off using PCM in the first place.

I'm curious, have you actually listened to a DSD recording played natively through a DSD recorder?  I can't say that I've done any A vs B testing, but damn the recordings I play back through my D100 that I've recorded in DSD sound sweet and they definitely have an added layer of 'real' than what I get from my other recorders.  But maybe it's the ADC of the recorder rather than the format that's making the difference. 

Anyway, the article doesn't say anything about DSD being a waste.  My read on the article is that it simply says that you need to be careful about how you process a native DSD file.

Looks like we were typing at the same time.  I've listened to native DSD/DFF files, but only transcoded to PCM as I don't have a DSD DAC.  So you're right, I can't really cast to many stones here.  But unlike you, there are people out there extolling the virtues of DSD who don't have the means to decode it directly, and may or may not be aware of that fact.  That's why I was asking what you hear, because I know you own a couple devices that can do native DSD.

Regarding my "waste of time" comment, maybe that was a bit harsh.  But what I don't understand is where the extra hoops DSD editing makes you jump though are worth it.  Again, I think your situation is different than most because it sounds as though your editing is very minimal.
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.
- Gustav Mahler

Acoustic Recording Techniques
Team Classical
Team Line Audio
Team DPA

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2015, 09:59:19 PM »
I did some critical listening to DSD files and compared them to 24/196 conversions just to see if there was something about the PCM conversion that made them sound different.  All playback was back through the D100.  I felt like I could sense a difference in air, but my sense was that this wouldn't survive an true A vs B test because the two were really close.

Then I listened to files that I'd recorded in DSD format against files I recorded directly in 24/196.  My sense was that there was a greater sound difference there than the first situation.  I can't say for sure now, but my sense at the time was the difference here was greater and that I'd be able to pick the 24/196 file out consistently in A vs B testing.  Wouldn't bet the pooch on it though because my two files were different...same music but not recorded simultaneously.

I'm not sure whether all of that means it's worth buying a D100 for the format.  I have it so I use it and I'm happy.  Adding extra time and steps to one's workflow might be an offset that alot of people wouldn't want, especially if you're someone that doesn't like the 'post' process.  I don't mind it at all, so the added time doesn't phase me.

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #8 on: July 23, 2015, 05:18:48 AM »
I have heard very, very few live concert recordings that couldn't be improved with EQ, so I'd definitely be in the camp of processing as a requirement.

Thats the bottom line to this thread for most tapers.

But I'd add that, having experienced it, there's something special about getting a recording that's spot on at the source that sounds so pure that it puts you right back in the room.  That's why I have the gear I have...trying to reproduce a completely transparent audio experience.  Even though I EQ a majority of my recordings those that I leave alone are so satisfying/pleasurable to listen back to in native DSD format on my D100.  At a minimum, it makes for a 'nice to have' capability, recognizing the limitations.

Offline carlbeck

  • Trade Count: (14)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2811
  • Gender: Male
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2015, 07:23:13 AM »
I have heard very, very few live concert recordings that couldn't be improved with EQ, so I'd definitely be in the camp of processing as a requirement.

Thats the bottom line to this thread for most tapers.

But I'd add that, having experienced it, there's something special about getting a recording that's spot on at the source that sounds so pure that it puts you right back in the room.  That's why I have the gear I have...trying to reproduce a completely transparent audio experience.  Even though I EQ a majority of my recordings those that I leave alone are so satisfying/pleasurable to listen back to in native DSD format on my D100.  At a minimum, it makes for a 'nice to have' capability, recognizing the limitations.

I'm with Steve, when I ran the Korg MR-1000 I kept all my workflow in DSD, I only did track splits. I'm not much of an EQ guy anyway unless there's glaring defects & felt there was a sound improvement with DSD vs 24 bit. Even now going back to my DSD recordings & playing through my DSD capable DAC I can detect a difference vs rendering to 24 bit.
I know you like, tape for people's approval and stuff, and wave your tapes around like they're your dick...  but even you can't actually think section tapes from philips sound good.  



Mics: Telefunken Elam 260, 61, 62, MBHO KA200, KA500 > Niant PFA's, AKG C34L-MS
Preamps: Grace Lunatec V2, Shure FP24
Decks: Tascam DR-2d, Zoom F8

Old rig: Recording: AKG C34 & AKG CK1X or CK2X > MK46 > 460 > Aeta Mix2000 > Sound Devices 702

Playback: Thorens TD125, Denon DVD-2900> Bel Canto DAC-1 > Audible Illusions 3B > Rogue Atlas >ZU Wax Shotgun> Hyperion 938
ALL TUBES BABY!!!

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • Gender: Male
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2015, 05:18:00 PM »
Ten or twelve years ago, two students who were graduating from a Tonmeister course in Detmold, Germany did a carefully controlled A/B study of DSD vs. high-rate PCM using very high-quality converters, listening through electrostatic headphones as well as good loudspeakers. They found a "null result"--there wasn't statistically significant evidence that their listeners (who were professional musicians, recording engineers and professors in both fields) could distinguish audibly between the two on musical program material.

They wanted to submit their paper for publication in the AES Journal; I was referred to them, and acted as German-to-English translator. I found their work serious and convincing. Also, in my dealings with them I saw no hint of personal bias; it seemed to me that they had set out to investigate the question, rather than to justify any particular conclusion about it.

I don't know whether the paper is on line or not, but can try to find it. In any event, to me it called into serious question any claims for obvious superiority of DSD sound vs. PCM. If you can remember when DSD was first being introduced, people were claiming that it solved all the problems of digital audio--that it was "digital that sounded like the best analog" and so forth. I'm not sure where those people are or what they would say today, though.

--best regards

P.S.: I found the study in German: http://old.hfm-detmold.de/eti/projekte/diplomarbeiten/2004/dsdpcm/ -- It is available in English from the AES as Convention Paper #6086 (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12799): "DVD-Audio versus SACD: Perceptual Discrimination of Digital Audio Coding Formats" by Blech, Dominic; Yang, Min-Chi. The summary is:
Quote
To study perceptual discrimination between two digital audio coding formats, "Direct Stream Digital" and high-resolution (24-bit, 176.4 kHz) PCM, subjective listening comparison tests were conducted with specially recorded sound stimuli in stereo and surround. To guarantee their reliability, validity and objectivity, the double-blind ABX tests followed three main principles: The signal chain should be based on identical audio components as far as possible; these components should be able to convey very high audio frequencies; and the test population should consist of various groups of subjects with different listening expectations and perspectives. The results showed that hardly any of the subjects could make a reproducible distinction between the two encoding systems. Hence it may be concluded that no significant differences are audible.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2015, 09:02:57 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4095
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #11 on: July 26, 2015, 05:59:52 PM »
^ Thanks so much for sharing that.  I think all of us would be interested to read that paper.

Regarding your comment on how DSD was billed as the digital messiah: I would guess that this was about the time that AD/DA converters started making significant steps up in quality, allowing people to better hear the problems with earlier digital recordings, and how much better these new recordings sounded, regardless of the format they may have been released in.
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.
- Gustav Mahler

Acoustic Recording Techniques
Team Classical
Team Line Audio
Team DPA

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2015, 09:03:12 AM »
^ Thanks so much for sharing that.  I think all of us would be interested to read that paper.

Regarding your comment on how DSD was billed as the digital messiah: I would guess that this was about the time that AD/DA converters started making significant steps up in quality, allowing people to better hear the problems with earlier digital recordings, and how much better these new recordings sounded, regardless of the format they may have been released in.

...not only that, but the choice of source material for the study.  Frankly, I think they usually choose the wrong material for these studies.  What they do is pick the best sounding recordings and see if they sound different or better.  That's fine, but they also need to be sampling marginal sounding recordings with lots of artifacts and/or noises happening in the background to see how well all of the 'crap' is translated.  That's what I'm more interested in anyway since it's the 'crap' that makes a live recording sound realistic.

Another thing I'd point out is that these studies are typically being made for DSD as an encoding format to music that's already been recorded.  The people making comments in this thread that seem to be hearing a quality improvement are recording directly from the air through our analog gear and onto DSD.

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4095
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2015, 09:23:48 AM »
^ Thanks so much for sharing that.  I think all of us would be interested to read that paper.

Regarding your comment on how DSD was billed as the digital messiah: I would guess that this was about the time that AD/DA converters started making significant steps up in quality, allowing people to better hear the problems with earlier digital recordings, and how much better these new recordings sounded, regardless of the format they may have been released in.

Another thing I'd point out is that these studies are typically being made for DSD as an encoding format to music that's already been recorded.  The people making comments in this thread that seem to be hearing a quality improvement are recording directly from the air through our analog gear and onto DSD.

I'm not an AES member, so I ran the website through Google Translate and it did a fairly decent job (although I'll let Herr Satz be the true judge of that). 

This study did not do what you're suggesting - they split the signals after the mic pre to feed separate dCS 904 converters - some running DSD, the others 24/176.4 PCM, then into Pyramix.  See section 4.1 - Experimental Setup for the full details.

Their equipment used throughout looks to be state-of-the-art, and their testing methodology extremely thorough.  I look forward to reading the entire thing.

EDIT: Here's a helpful image from that section of the study showing the full chain:
« Last Edit: July 27, 2015, 09:27:07 AM by voltronic »
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.
- Gustav Mahler

Acoustic Recording Techniques
Team Classical
Team Line Audio
Team DPA

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #14 on: July 27, 2015, 10:09:09 AM »
I don't have time this morning to sort through, but the figure posted indicates that the process they used sent the audio files through Pyramix.  The original article you posted in this thread suggests that's the technical equivalent of contaminating the DSD sample.

Offline aaronji

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3853
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2015, 10:34:53 AM »
...not only that, but the choice of source material for the study.  Frankly, I think they usually choose the wrong material for these studies.  What they do is pick the best sounding recordings and see if they sound different or better.  That's fine, but they also need to be sampling marginal sounding recordings with lots of artifacts and/or noises happening in the background to see how well all of the 'crap' is translated.  That's what I'm more interested in anyway since it's the 'crap' that makes a live recording sound realistic.

If it is a marginal sounding recording, with lots of artifacts and noises, it seems to me that it wouldn't matter much how you encode it, assuming any sort of decent convertor.  Wouldn't any artifacts introduced by the conversion be masked by the crap?

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4095
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2015, 10:57:14 AM »
I don't have time this morning to sort through, but the figure posted indicates that the process they used sent the audio files through Pyramix.  The original article you posted in this thread suggests that's the technical equivalent of contaminating the DSD sample.

Pyramix both records and plays back DSD natively, which is probably why they chose it for this study.  Now, if they had done some significant editing or conversion post-tracking, you'd have a good point.  I don't see that mentioned one way or the other.

What I'm more curious about is this statement below.  Google really stumbled on this one, and maybe DSatz would be kind enough to provide a real translation.  I can get the gist from the graphic, that for each microphone feed they recorded 3 channels of DSD and 4 channels of PCM.  I cannot understand why, or what they're getting at with the 4 channels each of 44.1/24.  I hope this doesn't mean they took everything and converted it to 44.1/24.

Quote
Für das Bitmapping wurden aufzeichnungsseitig pro DSD-Kanal 3, pro PCM(176,4kHz/ 24Bit)-Kanal 4 Kanäle mit 44,1kHz/24Bit-Format benötigt. Daraus ergab sich für das Pyramix-System eine Gesamtspurenzahl von 38 Kanälen (die „freie“ Spur des DSD-A/D-Center-Konverters musste „leer“ mitlaufen).

Google says:
Quote
For Bitmapping were recording each per DSD channel 3 per PCM (176,4kHz / 24Bit) channel requires 4 channels with 44.1 kHz / 24-bit format. This resulted in the Pyramix system a total track number of 38 channels (the "free" track of the DSD A / D converter Center had to "empty" run along).
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.
- Gustav Mahler

Acoustic Recording Techniques
Team Classical
Team Line Audio
Team DPA

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4095
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #17 on: July 27, 2015, 11:01:50 AM »
But Merging themselves claim that DSD results in an "enormous jump in quality" over PCM up to 192kHz.  If their own DAW degraded that quality back to no better than 176kHz PCM, why would they claim that?

http://www.merging.com/products/pyramix/dsd-dxd

Probably because they have something to sell . . .

Wow, that does seem rather disingenuous on their part.  Of course, if you just recording DSD natively and do nothing to it, it seems the original quality would be preserved, at least according to the articles I linked.
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.
- Gustav Mahler

Acoustic Recording Techniques
Team Classical
Team Line Audio
Team DPA

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15683
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #18 on: July 27, 2015, 11:49:07 AM »
Just like "beauty", "crap" is in in the ear of the beholder.

The people making comments in this thread that seem to be hearing a quality improvement are recording directly from the air through our analog gear and onto DSD.
^^
Irregardless of debates over proper testing methodologies, DBT's, willing-self-deception and all that, the above is a stronger argument in favor of the implementation of DSD on a particular recorder sounding better than PCM on the same recorder, rather than the superiority of the format itself.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4095
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #19 on: July 27, 2015, 12:08:11 PM »
Just like "beauty", "crap" is in in the ear of the beholder.

The people making comments in this thread that seem to be hearing a quality improvement are recording directly from the air through our analog gear and onto DSD.
^^
Irregardless of debates over proper testing methodologies, DBT's, willing-self-deception and all that, the above is a stronger argument in favor of the implementation of DSD on a particular recorder sounding better than PCM on the same recorder, rather than the superiority of the format itself.

By that are you implying a manufacturer might, for example, spend more time making sure the feature that gets top billing on their marketing is very well-implemented, and be less concerned about the other things?  How shocking!   :P

That seems to go along with the article in my OP that mentions converters that may do well at higher sample rates but perform much worse at lower rates.
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.
- Gustav Mahler

Acoustic Recording Techniques
Team Classical
Team Line Audio
Team DPA

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15683
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #20 on: July 27, 2015, 12:43:40 PM »
^^^
That.

My implication was only this- given a sample size of one machine, there is no way of differentiating between the particulars of the implementation of the various formats within that machine and those between the formats themselves. 

I'm with Jon with regards to the most likely design & implementation path taken by the manufacturer.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • Gender: Male
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #21 on: July 27, 2015, 09:11:17 PM »
voltronic, I think you're probably quoting from the section on the design of the experiment. If so, then the relevant paragraph is probably this one (the posted German text is not entirely identical to the text that I was working from):

Quote
To avoid any influence of a mixer on the sound quality, the stereo music examples were recorded with two microphones and the surround examples with five. All the microphones had extended frequency response to 40 or 50 kHz (Schoeps MK 2S, MK 4 and MK 41 capsules with CMC 6-- xt amplifiers, and Sennheiser MKH 800); one microphone was simply assigned to each playback loudspeaker. The microphones were connected to microphone preamplifiers (Lake People F/35 II) which raised the signals to line level, then these signals were sent to the control room via 50-meter low-capacitance cables (Klotz M1 series). At that point the five analog signals were split via “Y” adapters and converted to digital, with one set of three two-channel dCS 904 units used for DSD and another such set used for 176.4 kHz, 24-bit PCM. The resulting digital signals were then stored on a “Pyramix Virtual Studio System” (Merging Technologies) as “non-audio” files by using the “data bitmapping” system of the converters to generate 24-bit, 44.1 kHz files (i.e. two channels of DSD were stored as six channels on the workstation).

--best regards
« Last Edit: July 27, 2015, 09:13:41 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4095
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #22 on: July 27, 2015, 09:44:41 PM »
voltronic, I think you're probably quoting from the section on the design of the experiment. If so, then the relevant paragraph is probably this one (the posted German text is not entirely identical to the text that I was working from):

Quote
To avoid any influence of a mixer on the sound quality, the stereo music examples were recorded with two microphones and the surround examples with five. All the microphones had extended frequency response to 40 or 50 kHz (Schoeps MK 2S, MK 4 and MK 41 capsules with CMC 6-- xt amplifiers, and Sennheiser MKH 800); one microphone was simply assigned to each playback loudspeaker. The microphones were connected to microphone preamplifiers (Lake People F/35 II) which raised the signals to line level, then these signals were sent to the control room via 50-meter low-capacitance cables (Klotz M1 series). At that point the five analog signals were split via “Y” adapters and converted to digital, with one set of three two-channel dCS 904 units used for DSD and another such set used for 176.4 kHz, 24-bit PCM. The resulting digital signals were then stored on a “Pyramix Virtual Studio System” (Merging Technologies) as “non-audio” files by using the “data bitmapping” system of the converters to generate 24-bit, 44.1 kHz files (i.e. two channels of DSD were stored as six channels on the workstation).

--best regards

Many thanks for that, DSatz.  It's the last sentence that I'm most curious about.  How does this "non-audio data bit mapping" work in Pyramix?  This is the first I've heard of such a feature.  My concern here is how the original data stream is reconstructed, be it the high-rate PCM or DSD used in this study.
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.
- Gustav Mahler

Acoustic Recording Techniques
Team Classical
Team Line Audio
Team DPA

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • Gender: Male
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #23 on: August 28, 2015, 12:46:46 PM »
Sorry, I haven't had time to go back and re-read (and re-absorb) the original report. If I recall correctly--and perhaps I don't--the computer-based A/B switching apparatus didn't have a channel suitable for DSD input, so some means of multiplexing the bitstream was devised, with the signals then being reassembled on the other side. I'm really sorry since I know that raises as many questions as it settles, plus as I said, I should re-read the thing and not go by memory. But I am very pressed for time these days so realistically, I probably won't get to it any time soon.

FWIW when I did the translation, I was emailing back and forth with the two authors of the study a fair amount, and nothing caused me to doubt the integrity of their experiment or their interpretation of the results. I learned some useful stuff from them on the interpretation of experimental data, too. Their article was on its way to being published in the Journal of the AES when unfortunately, a technicality caused it to be removed from consideration: Since this was essentially a master's thesis, it was required to be published in Germany, but the JAES requires that their articles be previously unpublished. (Shaka, when the walls fell.)

--Just this morning I got a mass mailing from Benchmark with a link to this blog article in it:  http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/news/41262017-audio-myth-dsd-provides-a-direct-stream-from-a-d-to-d-a. On a quick first read, I think that it's accurate; occasionally I find what looks like commercial bias in this author's postings, but what he's saying here seems apt. What he doesn't say is that the expiration of certain key patents from the early days of the CD format, and the ease with which people could "rip" tracks from CDs, were significant motivating factors; the attempted (and not very successful) introduction of DSD was the behavior of a company trying to preserve its revenue stream by means of planned obsolescence--whether or not that was in the interest of the public or the rest of the recording business.

--best regards
« Last Edit: August 29, 2015, 11:00:42 AM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline voltronic

  • Trade Count: (40)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4095
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #24 on: August 28, 2015, 05:03:06 PM »
^ ^ Thanks for that Benchmark article, it's a much more thorough examination them others I've seen.  While he certainly is opinionated, here it does seem to be simple facts bring presented.  I've never seen these sort of conclusions challenged by Sony or other DSD proponents.
I am hitting my head against the walls, but the walls are giving way.
- Gustav Mahler

Acoustic Recording Techniques
Team Classical
Team Line Audio
Team DPA

Offline Chilly Brioschi

  • The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15417
  • Gender: Male
  • Waiting for the next cladogenetic event, or Godot
    • Oceana North America
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #25 on: August 29, 2015, 04:16:30 PM »
^ ^ Thanks for that Benchmark article, it's a much more thorough examination them others I've seen.  While he certainly is opinionated, here it does seem to be simple facts bring presented.  I've never seen these sort of conclusions challenged by Sony or other DSD proponents.

Straight to the point and not excessively technical, I liked the Benchmark article as well.

In short, current DSD standards are equivalent to 96kHz/20bit PCM
Quite a revelation!
« Last Edit: August 29, 2015, 04:22:03 PM by Tango'd Up »
"Peace is for everyone"
        - Norah Jones

"Music is the drug that won't kill you"
         - Fran Lebowitz

Offline SBW

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2015, 09:31:37 PM »
Sooo, I have a question about this DSD vs PCM stuff for ARCHIVING.  That means no mixing, equalization or touching the the raw bits after they hit the hard drive.  Playback is just goes back out the DSD or PCM D/A converter in whatever format it was recorded. 

Which of these is more accurate for reproducing the exact analog signal that went into the A/D converter? 
 

Offline SBW

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #27 on: October 01, 2015, 03:20:34 AM »
Quote
The most accurate possible output would be the direct decimator output from an ADC with that feature, which will be a few MHz at a few bits per sample.  But I don't know that too many recorders offer that feature.

Ahhh ok so, when you mean "at a few bits per sample", is that what the "fs" was in the diagrams on that Grimm Audio article that started this thread?

Offline aaronji

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3853
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #28 on: October 01, 2015, 06:00:51 AM »
^ Fs is usually sampling frequency.  As used in this article, if I am not mistaken, it is how many multiples of 44.1 kHz (CD rate). 

Quote from: Grimm Article
By the way, the 2.8 Mhz sample rate is 64 times the CD sample rate of 44.1 kHz, which is written as ‘64 fs’.

Offline SBW

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #29 on: October 01, 2015, 08:14:28 AM »
Ooops, guess I should have read that article more closely  :facepalm:

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (15)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 15683
  • Gender: Male
  • "Better to love music than respect it" ~Stravinsky
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #30 on: October 01, 2015, 09:14:09 AM »
Given equally adequate implementations, both fully and faithfully reproduce an analog signal which fits within their bandwidth.

IMO, DSatz nailed it-
Quote
the attempted (and not very successful) introduction of DSD was the behavior of a company trying to preserve its revenue stream by means of planned obsolescence--whether or not that was in the interest of the public or the rest of the recording business.
musical volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values > voltages > vibrations> virtual teleportation time-machine experience
Better recording made easy - >>Improved PAS table<< | Made excellent- >>click here to download the Oddball Microphone Technique illustrated PDF booklet<< (note: This is a 1st draft, now several years old and in need of revision!  Stay tuned)

Offline SBW

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #31 on: October 01, 2015, 06:42:41 PM »
So from what I gather, it sounds like the old situation where the root of all the arguing is "in practice" vs "in theory".

In *practice* both PCM and DSD are the same so DSD is a total waste of time because it's a pain in the ass to work with.

However, in *theory*, DSD should be more accurate because all ADC's start with a delta sigma modulator anyways, then they convert PCM.  PCM is just an unnecessary step.  Does that make sense?

 
« Last Edit: October 01, 2015, 06:46:29 PM by SBW »

Offline SBW

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #32 on: October 01, 2015, 09:14:58 PM »
Ah, ok so DSD is worse in practice *and* in theory.  Which I see now was the whole point of your post.

Offline F.O.Bean

  • Team Schoeps Tapir that
  • Trade Count: (126)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 40690
  • Gender: Male
  • Taperus Maximus
    • MediaFire Recordings
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #33 on: October 09, 2015, 03:38:45 AM »
NP.  I posted these because they support my belief that DSD is a waste of time and money, unless you are trying to sell SACDs or DSD recorders. ;)  Some people swear by it, but as soon as you edit DSD or listen through a DAC that doesn't decode it directly, you would have been better off using PCM in the first place.

I'm curious, have you actually listened to a DSD recording played natively through a DSD recorder?  I can't say that I've done any A vs B testing, but damn the recordings I play back through my D100 that I've recorded in DSD sound sweet and they definitely have an added layer of 'real' than what I get from my other recorders.  But maybe it's the ADC of the recorder rather than the format that's making the difference. 

Anyway, the article doesn't say anything about DSD being a waste.  My read on the article is that it simply says that you need to be careful about how you process a native DSD file.

Looks like we were typing at the same time.  I've listened to native DSD/DFF files, but only transcoded to PCM as I don't have a DSD DAC.  So you're right, I can't really cast to many stones here.  But unlike you, there are people out there extolling the virtues of DSD who don't have the means to decode it directly, and may or may not be aware of that fact.  That's why I was asking what you hear, because I know you own a couple devices that can do native DSD.

Regarding my "waste of time" comment, maybe that was a bit harsh.  But what I don't understand is where the extra hoops DSD editing makes you jump though are worth it.  Again, I think your situation is different than most because it sounds as though your editing is very minimal.

Actually, Steve's DSD@2.8mHz files, are SMALLER than my recordings at 24/96 ;)
Schoeps MK 4V & MK 41V ->
Schoeps 250|0 KCY's (x2) ->
Naiant +60v|Low Noise PFA's (x2) ->
DarkTrain Right Angle Stubby XLR's (x3) ->
Sound Devices MixPre-6 & MixPre-3

http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/diskobean
http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/Bean420
http://bt.etree.org/mytorrents.php
http://www.mediafire.com/folder/j9eu80jpuaubz/Recordings

Offline F.O.Bean

  • Team Schoeps Tapir that
  • Trade Count: (126)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 40690
  • Gender: Male
  • Taperus Maximus
    • MediaFire Recordings
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #34 on: October 12, 2015, 09:28:23 PM »
Great Benchmark article DSatz! It really opened my eyes to how converters work. With them doing the 1-bit parallel in the newer chips and everything was really cool!
Schoeps MK 4V & MK 41V ->
Schoeps 250|0 KCY's (x2) ->
Naiant +60v|Low Noise PFA's (x2) ->
DarkTrain Right Angle Stubby XLR's (x3) ->
Sound Devices MixPre-6 & MixPre-3

http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/diskobean
http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/Bean420
http://bt.etree.org/mytorrents.php
http://www.mediafire.com/folder/j9eu80jpuaubz/Recordings

Offline jb63

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (31)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 957
  • Gender: Male
  • if not now when?
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #35 on: October 21, 2015, 06:52:42 PM »
I both love and hate this thread.
I have maybe 500 korg mr1 field recordings made as dsdiff files and some of them are under the perfect circumstances and stand out to bear re-listening hundreds of times over. Others are just so-so.
On the right system I swear that they sound better than the comparable pcm recordings I made, but everything I'm reading here says no.

Worst part is the archive space and editing process. But the best part is the MR1 was still my favorite deck.

I guess I'll just have let my ears stop caring as much. Because they are all pretty nice recordings and I doubt knowing the facts will make me switch the settings to 24/96 pcm when I tape next, but that Dsatz quote about obsolescence is so spot o. It makes me want to.
once again, lost in all the noise

beenjammin

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: DSD Myth
« Reply #36 on: October 24, 2015, 04:24:35 PM »
I haven't heard DSD or DXD and so remain skeptical in the true sense of the term and have found the earlier cited articles informing and persuasive.

My question: what about pulse response?

In an article on the benefits of DXD, M. Vest claims DSD provides "perfect pulse transparency," stating further that, "[t]wo factors define the pulse response — the roll-off frequency of the sampling filter (anti-alias filter) and the slope of the filter roll-off. A high roll-off frequency gives a high amplitude pulse because of more high frequency content being present. A slow roll-off slope will produce less pre and post ringing of the pulse and thus a more precise time point for the pulse."

(This article may found here: http://www.lindberg.no/english/collection/004.pdf)

Any thoughts on this claim? I'd also like to know more about pulse response and, if possible, hear it. I guess (read: I have no idea!) this would mean running a PCM/DSD test on various sound sources with different attack transients and comparing how they each render.

Any sources where I might read up on this? Might this be the last holdout position for a possible advantage to DSD or DXD over PCM? (I know DXD is PCM, but apparently it has advantages here). 

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.125 seconds with 62 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF