Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: DSD Myth  (Read 16188 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.

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.076 seconds with 39 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF