This is the best explanation I've heard yet. You have a gift for making complex issues clear without oversimplifying. Thanks for the effort you put into this.
I've spent most of my audio engineering life (when making comparisons) trying to decide if various differences are better, worse or err, just different. It can be very subjective. As you state clearly here with digital, what and how digital data is handled as well as the quality of processing involved really does account for differences heard. The quality of recording/replay equipment I own does allow me to resolve these sound differences. This might sound funny, I found in storage an old but immaculate Phillips 256 times over-sampling 1bit CD player. It became a talking point in the studio as it sounded incredible - better than our vastly more expensive Red Book mastering CD burner with its dual BURR BROWN DAC converters, which is still occasionally used. I've found creating the highest possible digital master (DSD or PCM) will create far better Down sampled copies. Works the same in the digital filming world. Film in high end raw @ 4K, 6K or 8K and down sample to 1080p for superior image quality.
@@seamussheehy8380 Yes, we had two old models ... The CD-840 was the one that impressed. I note I made a mistake. Its a 1bit 256x over sampling player ... The other Philips was a CD-960 which is 16bit. That sounded excellent to, but it was the less substantial CD-840 that grabbed our attention.
Mr. Beekhuyzen, I really enjoy your videos. They are very informative, and I particularly appreciate you always ending with "enjoy the music." It's simple, but such a good reminder that we're all in this hobby for a reason, and not to lose sight of it or get in fights about different ideas. Thank you!
There are too many good things I could say about this video. Thank you for all your work, Hans. You have made the rabbit hole that much easier to navigate.
What did you order? I have an interest in dsd. I heard a sacd player many years ago and it sounded like nothing i had ever heard. Through researching i found that sacd is dsd64. That got me excited as now we have dsd at higher sampling rates but the files available for dsd are ao eclectic my enthusiasm has decreased massively. Still curious, what external dac did you order for dsd playback?
Thank you Meer Beekhuyzen for your utilitarian ability of making very complex subject matter somewhat understandable to an Redbook CD file player! I think most, if not all your "mini" seminars are the exception rather than the rule here on UA-cam (regardless of subject content!) Be well and many thanks!Marco B.Brooklyn, NY
Excelente explicación. Muy profesional y asequible para los que no somos cientificos en el tema pero apreciamos el audio con calidad. Este canal es mi favorito en el tema del audio musical. Muchas gracias.
wwwoooowwwww,,,i mean what???? slowly slowly,, you puted in 15 minutes more information than other persson in 15 videos, i really aprecciate, thanks for your time
All of these relevant video links... I have stuff to do! At least it looks like you'll save me time digging for more info in the long run, though. Great video, very informative! Thanks!
Interesting video - well said and explained. However I do disagree that higher sampling rates can improve sound quality (especially if the source or original rate was 44.1/48kHz). Using a well constructed modern filter which is able to fit any artefacts into the 2-4kHz bandgap - or alternately as you said, downsampling to 44.1/48 kHz is key.
When converting from SACD to Flac what is the best conversion type to use? I see options ranging from Integer Multistage to 64Bit Extreme Precision Direct. Thank you
Not sure; but my thoughts is that DSD is based off the CD sample rate; i.e. DSD64 is 64x44.1kHz. With that in mind, when converting to PCM I would choose a multiple of 44.1kHz; i.e. 24bit/88.2kHz
In some download sites, the choice is not DSD vs FLAC. The choice is often FLAC, AIFF, and a few others. Assuming disk space is not an issue, would AIFF be better than FLAC since there is less work for the playback computer?
a humble question to add is, if you had a SACD or mastering source .ISO disc file, and if you convert to DSD, and then using the same source to FLAC without any compression, which will sound better? running the properly DAC which could run natively both format. :)
That is a question that is impossible to answer. If the source file is recorded in DSD, conversion to PCM will give a (very) small loss in quality. If the file is recorded in PCM and then converted to DSD, there equally will be a (very) small loss. It then depends on the DAC. Some will do PCM better, others DSD. A DAC that does PCM AND DSD equally good, is unknown to me. Illustrated: the Chord DAVE can be switched between optimised for DSD or optimised for PCM.
@@TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel thanks for take your time for the explanation. I'm aware of that. if you had a studio quality ISO file, for sure, DSD will comply with top quality. in my humble opinion.
Technical details are well explained, much less if a difference is audible or meaningful, which are what really matters, the second much more over the first. For that I would not dismiss compression so easily.
I enjoyed this but I am completely lost about the "nasties" that occur in the 3kHz spectrum as a result of filtering above 20khz. As far as I can tell, you haven't offered any explanation as to why that is. If you could elaborate I'd really appreciate it.
Or in other words, why is the filter affecting 3K, when it's set to 20K? If this is true, it would explain a lot. Before all I got from audiophiles was that we needed the extra bandwidth past 20k, but no reason given.. Very frustrating!
It's what filters always do: time smearing> This is what MQA solves to a degree. And it is not AT 3kHz it is the area around 3 kHz where our ears are most sensitive and where the time smearing is most noticeable.
Great explanation. There are other youtube videos that dont like dsd and flac is enough for them. So i tried it... got a better dac that plays dsd natively. There is a difference and no one could tell me other wise. The dsd and sacd sounded better to me, while 24bit flac sound fine. If i didnot hear any difference, i would be happier to listen to flac. Listen and trust your ears is the best advise for people going in to the hobby.
Nyquist was a mathematician, not and electronics engineer. The nyquist theorem assumes an infinitely sharp cutoff filter. Something that does not exist. Therein lies the problems.
My files are in FLAC but when I play them, the DAC says DSD 2.8 Mhz. Does my receiver convert the FLAC into DSD on the fly? Or is the file being played using FLAC implementation but the DAC only says DSD because it was converted into DoP?
FLAC. Since most DSD recordings, with the exception of some archived analog master tapes, are made from DXD (i.e. 24-bit 352.8 kHz PCM) there is no rational reason to use DSD 😊
This is not fully correct. The DSD signal remains in DSD, only on edits a very short section is automatically converted to DXD, the edit is calculated and the section is converted back to DSD. Apart from that: for affordable DAC's the signal can be easier to covert to analog since the very high sampling rate requires almost no reconstruction filter.
The theorem was not really about sampling with numerical values (digital) but sampling with pulses ( dirac delta). Storing the pulses with numerical values is not the core of the theory. An overlooked part of the theory is the reconstruction part. It is often said that all you need is to sample at twice the sampling rate of the highest signal frequency and you are fine. Just add a HF filter at the input to limit the frequency. One problem is that signal that start and stop have a wideband spectrum compared to the steady state signal that the theory deals with. The reconstruction of the signal assumes a sinc filter or a brickwall filter at the output. It is a part of the mathematics that the reconstructed signal is an addition of endless sinc pulses. This is never done in practice and various type of HF output filters are used. Sometimes none, an approach by Audio Note. No wonder digital does sound non natural to many ears.
You're so right. BTW the Chord WTA filtering constructs the analog signal with sync pulses which explains the sound quality. But even then only products like the M-Scaler come close to what I consider to be close to optimal.
over 40 people that down voted, do not have a clue about the effort involved in creating this video, nor do they appreciate the content. TY Hans!
🙏🏽
what a shame
As for the down voters...... I was once told that you cannot teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
This is the best explanation I've heard yet. You have a gift for making complex issues clear without oversimplifying. Thanks for the effort you put into this.
Not over-simplified and not over-sampled! :D
Sorry, I could not resist the bad pun but also could not agree with you more!
I’m attaining you class regularly because you easily solved audio questions/myths in simple but accurate informative ways
🙏🏽
I've spent most of my audio engineering life (when making comparisons) trying to decide if various differences are better, worse or err, just different.
It can be very subjective.
As you state clearly here with digital, what and how digital data is handled as well as the quality of processing involved really does account for differences heard.
The quality of recording/replay equipment I own does allow me to resolve these sound differences.
This might sound funny, I found in storage an old but immaculate Phillips 256 times over-sampling 1bit CD player. It became a talking point in the studio as it sounded incredible - better than our vastly more expensive Red Book mastering CD burner with its dual BURR BROWN DAC converters, which is still occasionally used.
I've found creating the highest possible digital master (DSD or PCM) will create far better Down sampled copies. Works the same in the digital filming world. Film in high end raw @ 4K, 6K or 8K and down sample to 1080p for superior image quality.
Hi Chris, Which Phillips model was that CD player?.
@@seamussheehy8380
Yes, we had two old models ... The CD-840 was the one that impressed. I note I made a mistake. Its a 1bit 256x over sampling player ... The other Philips was a CD-960 which is 16bit. That sounded excellent to, but it was the less substantial CD-840 that grabbed our attention.
@@roygalaasen
When you consider the age Its pretty amazing really.
@@ProjectOverseer Thanks Chris.
@@seamussheehy8380
Glad I could clarify.
Mr. Beekhuyzen, I really enjoy your videos. They are very informative, and I particularly appreciate you always ending with "enjoy the music." It's simple, but such a good reminder that we're all in this hobby for a reason, and not to lose sight of it or get in fights about different ideas. Thank you!
My pleasure
There are too many good things I could say about this video. Thank you for all your work, Hans. You have made the rabbit hole that much easier to navigate.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Excellent & informative! One of the best succinct explanations on this topic by anyone yet. Thank you!
i prefer to convert youtube music videos to mp3 and listen to them on my dollar store ear buds lol
Thank you for taking the time to make this video
My pleasure
This video has cleared up a few points for me. This week I ordered a DSD DAC .Plus with other advice I have got it should sound.. smokin :)
What did you order? I have an interest in dsd. I heard a sacd player many years ago and it sounded like nothing i had ever heard. Through researching i found that sacd is dsd64. That got me excited as now we have dsd at higher sampling rates but the files available for dsd are ao eclectic my enthusiasm has decreased massively. Still curious, what external dac did you order for dsd playback?
Thank you for this marvelous lecture and lesson. I like, "trust your ears."
Thank you so, so much for adding English subtitles so as to understand technical terms with your native accent.
👍🏼
What an excellent video. Thank you for your clean, professional presentation.
You're very welcome!
Thank you Meer Beekhuyzen for your utilitarian ability of making very complex subject matter somewhat understandable to an Redbook CD file player! I think most, if not all your "mini" seminars are the exception rather than the rule here on UA-cam (regardless of subject content!) Be well and many thanks!Marco B.Brooklyn, NY
Excelente explicación. Muy profesional y asequible para los que no somos cientificos en el tema pero apreciamos el audio con calidad. Este canal es mi favorito en el tema del audio musical. Muchas gracias.
🙏
Hans, you are the Man!
wwwoooowwwww,,,i mean what???? slowly slowly,, you puted in 15 minutes more information than other persson in 15 videos, i really aprecciate, thanks for your time
Wow, thanks
Good explanation. Stay safe and stay healthy.
Thank you, I will.
All of these relevant video links... I have stuff to do! At least it looks like you'll save me time digging for more info in the long run, though. Great video, very informative! Thanks!
Great to hear!
This is an amazing explanation I get it now :) thank you I have literally watched this five times
*Simply* great....
Excellent material and presentation.
Thanks for watching
@@TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel my first video as I start my day!! Going to buy Aldine more SACD’s and work on my player :-)
Very well explained. Thank you.
🙏
EXCELLENT explanations, Hans. All the best, Rob
Very informative
Fantastic video.
Thank you
Thanks for the "no BS" approach.
🙏
Thanks for your detailed wisdom good sir.
My pleasure
An utmost excellent video. Superb explanation.
Totally subscribed and liked!
Bedankt Hans! 👍
Wonderfull explanation that I think will helping a lot of Audiophile People. Thanks so much !
my pleasure
Excellent video. As usual :-) BR, Per
Interesting video - well said and explained. However I do disagree that higher sampling rates can improve sound quality (especially if the source or original rate was 44.1/48kHz).
Using a well constructed modern filter which is able to fit any artefacts into the 2-4kHz bandgap - or alternately as you said, downsampling to 44.1/48 kHz is key.
Let’s agree to disagree 😊
PS ... Love your detailed observations, Hans 👍
Thx man👍🏻
Trust your ears...Great advice that many overlook
👍🏼
Sound advice.
🙏🏻
very well explained Sr !
Thanks and welcome
Thank you!
Thanks for the amazing information and video.
Glad it was helpful!
So which sounds better? DSD64 or 24-Bit 192kHz? Qobuz offers both
That depends largely on your DAC. Some DACs do DSD better, other PCM.
@@TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel my DAC / DAP is a Hiby R3 Pro Saber
very informative. thank you.
When converting from SACD to Flac what is the best conversion type to use? I see options ranging from Integer Multistage to 64Bit Extreme Precision Direct. Thank you
Frankly I don’t know.
Not sure; but my thoughts is that DSD is based off the CD sample rate; i.e. DSD64 is 64x44.1kHz. With that in mind, when converting to PCM I would choose a multiple of 44.1kHz; i.e. 24bit/88.2kHz
@@rui1863 thanks but that was not my question.
In some download sites, the choice is not DSD vs FLAC. The choice is often FLAC, AIFF, and a few others. Assuming disk space is not an issue, would AIFF be better than FLAC since there is less work for the playback computer?
As i said in the video, AIFF and FLAC contain the same information, it's all about the quality of the player if one sounds better over the other.
@@TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel Thank you. So a high quality streamer would not be impacted by the extra work of uncompressing FLAC. This makes sense.
a humble question to add is, if you had a SACD or mastering source .ISO disc file, and if you convert to DSD, and then using the same source to FLAC without any compression, which will sound better? running the properly DAC which could run natively both format. :)
That is a question that is impossible to answer. If the source file is recorded in DSD, conversion to PCM will give a (very) small loss in quality. If the file is recorded in PCM and then converted to DSD, there equally will be a (very) small loss. It then depends on the DAC. Some will do PCM better, others DSD. A DAC that does PCM AND DSD equally good, is unknown to me. Illustrated: the Chord DAVE can be switched between optimised for DSD or optimised for PCM.
@@TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel thanks for take your time for the explanation. I'm aware of that. if you had a studio quality ISO file, for sure, DSD will comply with top quality. in my humble opinion.
Technical details are well explained, much less if a difference is audible or meaningful, which are what really matters, the second much more over the first. For that I would not dismiss compression so easily.
What sounds the best depends largely on the equipment used. Some equipment handles DSD better, other do PCM better.
Have you had a chance to try the Chord Mscaler? I am interested to hear you thoughts on it and the effects it has on the final sound.
did you ever do any analysis on/with BURR BROWN DACs ?
I am only interested in ready to use equipment and not in components.
@@TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel can you answer the actual question that I asked?
did you ever do any analysis on/with BURR BROWN DACs ?
I enjoyed this but I am completely lost about the "nasties" that occur in the 3kHz spectrum as a result of filtering above 20khz. As far as I can tell, you haven't offered any explanation as to why that is. If you could elaborate I'd really appreciate it.
The nasties are caused by time smearing, in general due to digital filtering.
What are these 'nasties' at 3k at cd sample rate?
Or in other words, why is the filter affecting 3K, when it's set to 20K?
If this is true, it would explain a lot. Before all I got from audiophiles was that we needed the extra bandwidth past 20k, but no reason given.. Very frustrating!
It's what filters always do: time smearing> This is what MQA solves to a degree. And it is not AT 3kHz it is the area around 3 kHz where our ears are most sensitive and where the time smearing is most noticeable.
So how many Albums can you get in DSD and how many in FLAC ????,
Good question
Great explanation. There are other youtube videos that dont like dsd and flac is enough for them. So i tried it... got a better dac that plays dsd natively. There is a difference and no one could tell me other wise. The dsd and sacd sounded better to me, while 24bit flac sound fine. If i didnot hear any difference, i would be happier to listen to flac.
Listen and trust your ears is the best advise for people going in to the hobby.
It all depends on your hardware.
Nyquist was a mathematician, not and electronics engineer. The nyquist theorem assumes an infinitely sharp cutoff filter. Something that does not exist. Therein lies the problems.
Well said
My files are in FLAC but when I play them, the DAC says DSD 2.8 Mhz. Does my receiver convert the FLAC into DSD on the fly? Or is the file being played using FLAC implementation but the DAC only says DSD because it was converted into DoP?
I really can't say. If our receiver does offer PCM to DSD conversion, that is the most likely situation.
A beautifully concise video that thoroughly debunks the snake oil in the audiophile community.
I just had no idea of the complexity of the issue.
Nothing in audio is easy.
should i bother getting dsd if i'm listening to music from my phone, not player?
I don’t know much about phones
so what does dsd do/ is used for?
does the sampling rate effect the dsd?
DSD uses 64 times higher sampling rate compared to CD but it only uses 1 bit in stead of 16. It's just another way of coding audio.
@@TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel and can you use dsd bia bluetooth or is it only for wired headphones?
Woah Thank you for this educational video.
What are your thoughts of software such as HQplayer upsampling 44.1 to say DSD 512?
I have no thoughts on products I haven't reviewed. Sorry.
Hans the type of homie that your turn off your Adblock for 👍
Great video..It's funny it takes me a few minutes to adjust to his accent
I am still not used to it 😁
Superbe 👍♥️
🙏🏽
I've listened to Hotel California in FLAC and the same file in DSD and the DSD sounded a little better and more 3 dimensional.
That means primarily that your DAC is better in reproducing DSD better than PCM. At least, with the track you used.
FLAC. Since most DSD recordings, with the exception of some archived analog master tapes, are made from DXD (i.e. 24-bit 352.8 kHz PCM) there is no rational reason to use DSD 😊
This is not fully correct. The DSD signal remains in DSD, only on edits a very short section is automatically converted to DXD, the edit is calculated and the section is converted back to DSD. Apart from that: for affordable DAC's the signal can be easier to covert to analog since the very high sampling rate requires almost no reconstruction filter.
It’s all about the ,,,DAC’’’
It’s all about DAC’s processing
The theorem was not really about sampling with numerical values (digital) but sampling with pulses ( dirac delta). Storing the pulses with numerical values is not the core of the theory. An overlooked part of the theory is the reconstruction part. It is often said that all you need is to sample at twice the sampling rate of the highest signal frequency and you are fine. Just add a HF filter at the input to limit the frequency. One problem is that signal that start and stop have a wideband spectrum compared to the steady state signal that the theory deals with. The reconstruction of the signal assumes a sinc filter or a brickwall filter at the output. It is a part of the mathematics that the reconstructed signal is an addition of endless sinc pulses. This is never done in practice and various type of HF output filters are used. Sometimes none, an approach by Audio Note. No wonder digital does sound non natural to many ears.
You're so right. BTW the Chord WTA filtering constructs the analog signal with sync pulses which explains the sound quality. But even then only products like the M-Scaler come close to what I consider to be close to optimal.
@@TheHansBeekhuyzenChannel I have never heard the M scaler but very curious to hear. Maybe one day this can be done cost effectively.
Maybe, just maybe, one day the audiophile community will stop blaming the format but instead blame the real culprit, the filters, the DAC.
👍🏼
Hans I need a good computer to run my Brooklyn DAC and sotm 200 ultra thxs
He lost me at "investigating the flaws in these theorems journalistically, not scientifically." At that point, it's just opinion.
That’s correct. I never claimed it to be else.
I doubt DSD has any significance in the world
It’s a niche product, that’s for sure.