DSD and Analog: The Great Convergence

[徐中銳]

For the very keen (or perhaps breaking it into several background listenings), here's a 108-minute recording by T.H.E. Show :

Published on Jul 15, 2015

This panel discussion on DSD will focus on the similarities between Single, Double, and Quad DSD and analog recording. Panelists have experience with both analog and DSD formats, and will be talking about their experiences with these two formats. Q&A encouraged.

 

Dr. David W. Robinson, Positive Feedback Online, Moderator

Dr. David Robinson is a university professor who has edited Positive Feedback for the past 25 years. His professional specialties include editing, writing, and publishing in various fields, fine photography, information technology, and leadership training. He has done location recording and audio production work in past years, and handles many of the reference-level review projects for Positive Feedback in his listening room in Portland, Oregon. He is very familiar with all high resolution formats, including reel-to-reel, DSD, SACD, LP, various surround formats, and high-resolution PCM. Positive Feedback was the first audiophile publication to publicly support DSD and SACD, in the fall of 1998, and continues to do so enthusiastically up to the present. Positive Feedback

 

Panelists

Bob Attiyeh, Yarlung Records, Owner and Producer

 

Chad Kassem, SuperHirez.com/Acoustic Sounds, Owner

 

Cookie Marenco, Blue Coast Music Group, Owner and Producer

 

Thom Moore, Five/Four Productions, President, Producer/Editor

 

Jonathan Tinn, Wave Kinetics Records, Owner and CEO

 

Dominique Brulhart, Merging Technologies, Head Software Engineer

 

Producer: Chip Moore, Sr. VP LA/OC Audio Society, Executive Producer

THEShow Newport Seminars

 

[Nikhil]

Thanks for sharing. I have to say that after being on CA there was not a lot in that talk that we have not seen on here before. Some of the folks on here are on the cutting edge of computer audio. Several of the experts on that panel also happen to post on here from time to time.

 

But yes I do believe that for the first time we are at a convergence point where the vinyl crowd is meeting with digital. And the reason for that is DSD.

[matthias]

Thanks for sharing.

 

But yes I do believe that for the first time we are at a convergence point where the vinyl crowd is meeting with digital. And the reason for that is DSD.

 

Yes, but the minimum we need for convergence is DSD256.

 

Matt

[audiventory]

Matt,

 

DSD128 like to PCM 32 bit already.

[mansr]

Matt,

 

DSD128 like to PCM 32 bit already.

 

32-bit PCM at what sample rate?

[audiventory]

32-bit PCM at what sample rate?

 

Almost no difference. I mean noise quantization in audible band.

 

Of course, it depend on implementation of sigma-delta modulator and demodulator.

 

Edited: Sorry. PCM 32 bit (float) better DSD128 http://samplerateconverter.com/content/how-impact-audio-quality-pcm-dsf-conversion-1-bit-dsf-vs-pcm

 

But level noise -177 dB (DSD128) is level of precise pro-apparatus anyway.

[matthias]

Matt,

DSD128 like to PCM 32 bit already.

 

Sorry, but IMO you do not get convergence with PCM.

Low level resolution of PCM is inferior to DSD.

 

Matt

[audiventory]

Mathematically no difference. Applied DAC's low frequency filter both cases.

 

ADC matter is matter noise shaping management quality.

[徐中銳]

Yes, but the minimum we need for convergence is DSD256.

 

Matt

 

Recalling :

I will say that I have no intention of doing DSD512 in the D[irect]S[tream]. DSD256 may happen if I get inspired.

 

It will depend on if I see a clear way to not impact the current sound quality. Tho the hardware passive output filter is designed for DSD128, that's not really a problem. The VCXO clock is 8FS so there's plenty of room there. Not doing twice the work in the IIR upsampling filter is the real trick. So either I do some kind of FIR instead of the IIR or I liberate some serious math resources elsewhere - both of which could easily negatively affect sound quality.

Personal, rather than mass market, « convergence » may well depend upon the engineer one already depends upon. I study KI

[matthias]

Recalling :

Personal' date=' rather than [i']mass market[/i], « convergence » may well depend upon the engineer one already depends upon. I study KI

 

The Show Newport 2015 DSD Panel

 

"Thom Moore, the President of 5/4 Productions talked about that company's formation after Telarc Records was purchased by Concord Music Group and the Telarc recording staff created their own company. The Telarc recording staff started working with single rate DSD (DSD64) on a Sonoma DSD Workstation from Sony. After forming 5/4 they acquired a Pyramix system from Merging Technologies and made the first quad rate DSD (DSD256) recording in the world. Moore said 5/4 evaluated double rate DSD (DSD 128) but elected to "skip over it" and go right to quad rate recording after comparing the two formats. He told the audience "Quad DSD is just amazing".

 

Today, Thom Moore, Michael Bishop and Rob Friedrich record a variety of artists and orchestras around the world. They record exclusively in DSD and use their expertise and proprietary systems to create other formats from the DSD recordings. Moore said that 5/4 can make a better sounding 24 bit, 96 kHz music file from the DSD master than if the recording was made in 24/96 in the first place."

 

Quite interesting

 

Matt

[徐中銳]

The Show Newport 2015 DSD Panel

 

The last paragraph being :

Moore also noted that 5/4 uses both DSD and Analog Recording systems and techniques. Some sessions can be recorded, balanced and mixed Live to DSD. Other sessions are recorded using Analog systems and are "printed to DSD" as the final step in the recording process. Moore views use and knowledge of Analog recording as an essential ingredient in their work.

 

And Ted Smith furthermore wrote :

Short answer is that the DS is unlikely to support higher than DSD128.

 

Tho we could in theory downsample higher rate material that's not what people expect and it would hurt the sound quality for everyone else. The DS was designed for double rate DSD thru and thru. From a theoretical point of view there's a sweet spot in the sample rates. Slightly simplified: As you go higher in sample rate you get a better S/N ratio from the added resolution, but you also get more noise from the added jitter. There's a crossover some where between DSD128 and DSD256 where the extra speed no longer gets more S/N than the added jitter takes away.

 

Most A/Ds and D/As out there that aren't discrete are using single chips that support higher sample rates, but tho the sound may be different between DSD512, DSD256 and DSD128 they aren't delivering lower S/N ratios at these higher rates. Pro converters from Merging tech, etc. get better sound from higher sample rates, but that isn't necessarily because of those sample rates being inherently better.

 

I'm loath to add a feature just for nicer marketing that detracts from the sound quality compared to not having that feature available.

But it's down to our own choices, recalling :

For the last one year i have been tuning my digital audio. I eventually settled with PS audio DS Stream and PS transport. I got expensive power cords, valhalla inter connects and nordost HDMI cable. Digital has come very far from a year ago. I get very warm sweet rich sound. Next i downloaded several Hi res files. I was very excited as my digital was finally catching up to my 5+ year old vinyl rig. But then i was chatting with my buddy and he happened to mention a Dynavector XX-2 being excellent cartridge for my record player. It was a $1000 upgrade. After patiently waiting for a used one, finally procured one from audiogon.

 

It was a sad day when i installed my new cartridge. All my hard work, time and money spent on getting the best digital for the price went down the toilet. The vinyl completely crushed it. This is a 5 year old vinyl with a used cartridge. My digital is new all the way with the latest PS OS that i downloaded a week ago.

Similarly, the NA-11S1 that I've wanted won't necessarily suit everyone...

[徐中銳]

« A voyage through the studio, the control room, introducing beautiful new music, recording 8 different ensembles (acoustic, jazz & classical). All in Native DSD, of course... » :

 

Of bmoura's Thread in Music Downloads & Streaming

[beerandmusic]

thanks for sharing!

It's nice to know that there are many others that they believe dsd is better....and i am not an audiophile or an engineer.

I will have to re-read Mr. Moffat's creed to recall what his 1% means? Is he suggesting only 1 in 100 audiophiles likes DSD?

 

I better sell some more of my expensive records (grin)

[esldude]

thanks for sharing!

It's nice to know that there are many others that they believe dsd is better....and i am not an audiophile or an engineer.

I will have to re-read Mr. Moffat's creed to recall what his 1% means? Is he suggesting only 1 in 100 audiophiles likes DSD?

 

I better sell some more of my expensive records (grin)

I think Mr Moffat's post is pretty clear. He makes a stripped to the bone efficient product. He goes to lengths to put as much performance as possible for a given price. So some niceties get skipped to optimize performance per dollar. Despite all the hoopla DSD is beyond tiny in market share. To keep costs low vs performance given the market size of DSD including it does not fit in with his ideas nor those of his customers. His experience with his DSD offering reinforced that.

 

So if you find DSD essential that is okay. You simply aren't his customer. He is fine with that having explicitly said so. You on the other hand seem to be having some on going issue with it. As if you insist on his gear and want to insist it does DSD.

 

Maybe look at Benchmark gear. They don't like DSD, think it's inferior to good PCM, make a superb product yet have decided to include DSD for customer convenience.

 

Or maybe take that Teac out of the box. See what some DSD sounds like for yourself.

[beerandmusic]

I think Mr Moffat's post is pretty clear. He makes a stripped to the bone efficient product. He goes to lengths to put as much performance as possible for a given price. So some niceties get skipped to optimize performance per dollar. Despite all the hoopla DSD is beyond tiny in market share. To keep costs low vs performance given the market size of DSD including it does not fit in with his ideas nor those of his customers. His experience with his DSD offering reinforced that.

 

So if you find DSD essential that is okay. You simply aren't his customer. He is fine with that having explicitly said so. You on the other hand seem to be having some on going issue with it.

 

i was curious what he meant by 1%...i would have to go back and read..maybe he didn't mention the 1% in the creed, and i just saw it on another website. I thought he said that DSD is only 1% market share, or 1% like dsd or something about 1% and DSD. it seems to me that more dacs are sold that support DSD than dont, and it seems more people think dsd sounds better than don't. If i read it right, he seemed to base the 1% on the reason why he doesn't do dsd. I don't want to beat a deadhorse....i just find it strange that the audiophile world finds it so debatable as to which is better, and wonder if it is more along profit margins than anything...but again i am only a part time guy, far from audiophile.

[earnmyturns]

i was curious what he meant by 1%...

He meant < 1% of available recordings. Most libraries are dominated by Redbook PCM rips, and even HDtracks sells mostly PCM. He believes that Schiit multibit DACs with their proprietary exact filters avoid the issues of delta-sigma with approximate filtering that encouraged NOS and DSD designs. I don't have the measurement equipment or skills to substantiate the latter claim, but I love how Schiit multibit DACs sound.

[beerandmusic]

He meant < 1% of available recordings. Most libraries are dominated by Redbook PCM rips, and even HDtracks sells mostly PCM. He believes that Schiit multibit DACs with their proprietary exact filters avoid the issues of delta-sigma with approximate filtering that encouraged NOS and DSD designs. I don't have the measurement equipment or skills to substantiate the latter claim, but I love how Schiit multibit DACs sound.

 

oh ok, thanks for that info....i have a very bad tendency to skim messages... i agree with that for sure. probably less than .0001% for that fact. I have never been one to tie my interests to what is popular...i have always marched to the beat of my own drum. my quest had nothing to do with popularity, only quality of music.

 

One thing i will say is that these guys seem to say DSD is better than PCM a lot more convincingly than Mr. Moffat says PCM is better than DSD. Anyway, it may have taking me 1000 messages and 4 polls to come to some conclusions that i am finally comfortable with...tied to my own experiences as well of course.

[徐中銳]

Reiterating the direction I'll be taking :

I recall the following insight from an interview by Andrew Everard :

Ishiwata is also an advocate of upconverting existing CD-quality files to the DSD format in the computer' date=' and then playing them back through a DSD DAC such as the NA-11S1.

 

Why so? Ishiwata says his enthusiasm for DSD ‘has nothing to do with the original recording format or quality – it’s simply due to the fact that the majority of today’s D-to-A converter chips are utilising Delta/Sigma technology.

 

‘DSD can by-pass certain processing within those D-to-A converter chips, so you …. get a less processed signal with DSD compared to PCM, which of course will influence the sound quality.’

 

[img']https://andreweverarddotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/marantz_na-11s1_digital_connectors.jpg[/img]

 

Playing such files through the NA-11S1 isn’t just a matter of firing up iTunes: dedicated software is needed on the computer to play the tracks. On PCs, Ishiwata recommends JRiver, while for Macs he’d go for Audirvarna, and he also suggests trying Korg’s AudioGate for playing DSD files.

 

 

Am waiting for New Zealand's release of 11.2 MHz DSD＆384 kHz 32 bit PCM (¥140,000) HD-AMP1

[esldude]

« A voyage through the studio' date=' the control room, introducing beautiful new music, recording 8 different ensembles (acoustic, jazz & classical). All in Native DSD, of course... » :

 

Of bmoura's Thread in Music Downloads & Streaming

Thank you for the link. Very nice video.

[earnmyturns]

One thing i will say is that these guys seem to say DSD is better than PCM a lot more convincingly than Mr. Moffat says PCM is better than DSD.

Mr. Moffat has been building multibit, exact filter DACs longer than just about anybody. When he builds a DAC that works with PCM as well or better than most DSD-accepting DACs at a fraction of the price, I pay attention. After all, most music being played via DSD started as PCM rips that are converted to DSD, so it can't be that there's some DSD magic on all that music that is not reachable from PCM directly given a suitable DAC design. A post earlier on this thread provides a very apropos quote not from Mr. Moffat:

 

"Ishiwata says his enthusiasm for DSD ‘has nothing to do with the original recording format or quality – it’s simply due to the fact that the majority of today’s D-to-A converter chips are utilising Delta/Sigma technology. ‘DSD can by-pass certain processing within those D-to-A converter chips, so you …. get a less processed signal with DSD compared to PCM, which of course will influence the sound quality.’"

 

If the root cause are D-S off-the-shelf chips, why not get rid of the root cause with with R2R chips and carefully designed digital filters? That's is what Mr. Moffat has perfected over his long career.

[徐中銳]

If the root cause are D-S off-the-shelf chips, why not get rid of the root cause with with R2R chips and carefully designed digital filters? That's is what Mr. Moffat has perfected over his long career.

 

Indeed, why engineers pursue differing solutions is a great question. I haven't studied your Moffat, what he may have « perfected over his long career. » Please tell us, as you're in-the-know, the special DA chips (or equivalent alternatives) he's deploying.

 

And supplementing your quoting of Ishiwata, he recently said :

« As you are well aware' date=' DA converters (IC Chips) have changed so much from the time of introduction… Today, you can have very high specification DAC to fulfill all High Resolution Audio formats!! However, do they sound good??? That’s the pertinent question…

 

Personally, I love old non-CMOS DAC like old Philips types (BiMOS) but unfortunately you won’t get those anymore and they are not compatible with new High Resolution Formats…

 

If we can keep everything in Analog, then of course we would stick with Analog but, as you know, that’s not possible…

 

DSD is indeed very popular but not many people know why… In my opinion, it’s related to your first question about DAC IC! Every DAC commercially available nowadays are using delta-sigma conversion for PCM… In other words, you are not getting same DA conversions we used to have with PCM!! Therefore, if you feed DSD signal to such DAC, then you bypass the delta-sigma stage!! Of course it sounds better!!! As you were remarking, Less is More applies here!!! [/b']»

[earnmyturns]

Indeed' date=' why engineers pursue differing solutions is a great question. I haven't studied your [b']Moffat[/b], what he may have « perfected over his long career. » Please tell us, as you're in-the-know, the special DA chips (or equivalent alternatives) he's deploying.

If I were into snark in the style of the above quote, I'd remind its author of that wonderful invention the Web search engine that answers many of our most pressing questions: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=moffat%20dac

 

The first 4 links answer all your questions and more.

[徐中銳]

I'm fine with research. However, I've better priorities. The burden-of-exposition is on you. And you've failed, disgracing yourself by your interpretations and unwillingness to best detail your own adulation for what you « love... »

 

If I were into snark in the style of the above quote, I'd remind its author of that wonderful invention the Web search engine that answers many of our most pressing questions: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=moffat%20dac

 

The first 4 links answer all your questions and more.

[earnmyturns]

I'm fine with research. However' date=' I've better priorities. [u']The burden-of-exposition is on you.[/u] And you've failed, disgracing yourself by your interpretations and unwillingness to best detail your own adulation for what you « love... »

Some of us are humble enough to do their research before asking questions. But I guess that's too much personal responsibility for your self-inflated ego.

[徐中銳]

You're only proving your inability to read, nor write.

 

Some of us are humble enough to do their research before asking questions. But I guess that's too much personal responsibility for your self-inflated ego.

 

I'm fine with research. However' date=' I've better priorities. [u']The burden-of-exposition is on you.[/u] And you've failed, disgracing yourself by your interpretations and unwillingness to best detail your own adulation for what you « love... »