It's called a Decimation Filter; the technique of converting high-frequency/single-bit DSD to low-frequency/multi-bit samples, i.e. PCM, is a via Decimation filter.
DSD for audio distribution (SACD) was relevant very long time ago. Nowadays we can just run PCM in higher sample rate and the benefit of DSD in the timing domain of a signal isn't so real anymore.
@1:50 "...and then convert it back to DSD..." Paul, your initial capture was DSD. You convert that DSD capture to PCM (and you acknowledged that you hear no degradation), and you mix and master. But then you said, @1:50, that you convert it back to DSD. Why do so? Since every DAC in existence processes PCM, and you have a PCM file that has sound quality equal to DSD, then why not leave it as PCM?
Marketing? No other reason really. Many DACs will convert DSD to PCM on the fly in oder to do their thing, but PS Audio dacs are primarily DSD devices so there's one reason for you. Honestly, DSD as a delivery medium sucks for many reasons.
@@razisn I am not familiar with PS Audio DACs. But I would assume that the ones that play DSD content will also play PCM content. So the additional conversion back to DSD seems to have no benefit, other than a marketing tool for PS Audio to sell DSD content. In other words, they captured the band in DSD, and converted to PCM, with virtually no sonic quality loss. Now they mix and master with their PCM version. At this point, converting back to DSD serves no purpose, because even your DSD DAC will not benefit over playing the PCM version. It would be helpful if Paul explained why his PCM version, whose sound quality is equal to what he then converts to DSD... it would be helpful if Paul explained why he makes that final conversion back to DSD. I do not think that he will explain it, because the reason is probably purely for marketing. I believe everything that he says about DSD. It is what he does not say that also matters. So his entire process makes sense, other than that last conversion back to DSD. So it must be based on marketing. The irony is that his channel is based on educating his viewers. And yet he takes advantage of what his viewers do not understand. Paul knows his craft. But I do not entirely trust him. That goes for just about anyone. His low-key, relaxed, down-to-Earth persona in his videos is part of his sale's pitch. He is pitching, in nearly every video, in a way that is unbeknownst to many of his viewers. He tells the truth, and nothing but the truth. But he does not tell the whole truth.
It’s time for Paul to write his next book- Digital Audio for Dummies. Video after video about DCD, PCM, sampling, DACS, sample rate, and on and on. I don’t understand any of it. I just want my stereo to sound good if I’m listening to a streaming service. Surely if speaker placement merits a while book, this topic does.
Too many ways to skin the same animal! Well, as an “old analog guy” (his words) he should be saying that at some point these digital techniques are moot, since ultimately digital processing is preceded by and followed by the analog world to obtain results in the analog world, so the microphones, speakers, etc., any analog interface circuitry, room acoustics, etc. are all of paramount importance to the resulting sound quality. A good DAC needs to be interfaced to the analog world, and that’s where the magic happens. People blame DAC’s for their poor quality all the time and in many cases it’s just how they’re implemented in designs, and there’s really nothing wrong with the DAC itself. Sure, some DAC chips are “better” than others, but where do we draw the line in order to avoid unnecessary expense due to over design. Quad DSD is probably overkill by default imho, since the analog world remains the weakest link. DXD is just plain ridiculous. Many of us “old analog guys” are not embracing the digital snake oil of the 21st century due to their philosophical pragmatism, certainly not their ignorance.
@@shipsahoy1793 I’m not sure in what way your comment is responsive to my comment, but I think Paul would agree with everything you say, and has specifically addressed much of it in prior videos. Doesn’t change my initial point that old analogue guys (who are not electrical engineers or CEOs of high end audio companies) could use a digital for dummies book, and I think Paul would be a good person to write it.
@@edd2771 Hi Ed.. It was just my personal reaction to the situation in actuality. I think a good digital guy along with a guy like Paul would need to sit down together and figure out a way to write that book in a way that lends credence to both sides and wouldn’t offend either camp, since both sides have valid concerns indeed.. let’s face it, digital techniques are here to stay and people need to understand how they should be adequately placed in an analog world; (before people get too crazy with stupidity..)😉
Roon will convert files based on your equipment capabilities on the fly during playback. If you want to permanently convert DSD files to PCM, the Apple app store has a conversion program for a price, $29.99.
It puzzles me why DSD is getting so much attention being claimed to sound better than PCM. You can record it as output from a sigma delta ADC in a digital studio but as soon as you need to master the tracks into stereo you end up with PCM. And if you run PCM with high sample rates like DXD 352.8kHz you can’t really argue against PCM being inferior because your highest quality actual native music master file indeed is raw PCM and any conversion of it back to DSD will only be lossy and inferior. DSD as distribution media was great in the era of SACD. Nowadays most DACs aren’t able to decode DSD 1 bit natively but run PCM optimized multi bit sigma delta conversion. So why bother with DSD other than for the recording?
@@Cakebattered The marketing of DSD being better than PCM arose out of the SACD being better than the standard red book CD. What it doesn't mean is that DSD is superior to PCM when PCM runs at higher resolution. PCM 352.8kHz (DXD) is more resolving than DSD-64, for example.
In 100+ episodes Paul’s been trying to convince people that analog-DSD-PCM-DSD is better than analog-PCM. Seems nobody convinced 😢 and people are tired of this topic
Yummy, another discussion about DSD, it's been ages since I've seen one of these, super
Great answer Paul
It's called a Decimation Filter; the technique of converting high-frequency/single-bit DSD to low-frequency/multi-bit samples, i.e. PCM, is a via Decimation filter.
DSD IS REALLY STARTING TO APPEAR AS MORE THE DISEASE AND NOT THE CURE
DSD for audio distribution (SACD) was relevant very long time ago. Nowadays we can just run PCM in higher sample rate and the benefit of DSD in the timing domain of a signal isn't so real anymore.
@1:50 "...and then convert it back to DSD..."
Paul, your initial capture was DSD. You convert that DSD capture to PCM (and you acknowledged that you hear no degradation), and you mix and master.
But then you said, @1:50, that you convert it back to DSD. Why do so?
Since every DAC in existence processes PCM, and you have a PCM file that has sound quality equal to DSD, then why not leave it as PCM?
Marketing? No other reason really. Many DACs will convert DSD to PCM on the fly in oder to do their thing, but PS Audio dacs are primarily DSD devices so there's one reason for you. Honestly, DSD as a delivery medium sucks for many reasons.
@@razisn I am not familiar with PS Audio DACs. But I would assume that the ones that play DSD content will also play PCM content. So the additional conversion back to DSD seems to have no benefit, other than a marketing tool for PS Audio to sell DSD content.
In other words, they captured the band in DSD, and converted to PCM, with virtually no sonic quality loss. Now they mix and master with their PCM version.
At this point, converting back to DSD serves no purpose, because even your DSD DAC will not benefit over playing the PCM version.
It would be helpful if Paul explained why his PCM version, whose sound quality is equal to what he then converts to DSD... it would be helpful if Paul explained why he makes that final conversion back to DSD.
I do not think that he will explain it, because the reason is probably purely for marketing.
I believe everything that he says about DSD. It is what he does not say that also matters.
So his entire process makes sense, other than that last conversion back to DSD. So it must be based on marketing.
The irony is that his channel is based on educating his viewers. And yet he takes advantage of what his viewers do not understand.
Paul knows his craft. But I do not entirely trust him. That goes for just about anyone. His low-key, relaxed, down-to-Earth persona in his videos is part of his sale's pitch. He is pitching, in nearly every video, in a way that is unbeknownst to many of his viewers.
He tells the truth, and nothing but the truth. But he does not tell the whole truth.
It’s time for Paul to write his next book- Digital Audio for Dummies. Video after video about DCD, PCM, sampling, DACS, sample rate, and on and on. I don’t understand any of it. I just want my stereo to sound good if I’m listening to a streaming service. Surely if speaker placement merits a while book, this topic does.
Too many ways to skin the same animal! Well, as an “old analog guy” (his words) he should be saying that at some point these digital techniques are moot, since ultimately digital processing is preceded by and followed by the analog world to obtain results in the analog world, so the microphones, speakers, etc., any analog interface circuitry, room acoustics, etc. are all of paramount importance to the resulting sound quality. A good DAC needs to be interfaced to the analog world, and that’s where the magic happens. People blame DAC’s for their poor quality all the time and in many cases it’s just how they’re implemented in designs, and there’s really nothing wrong with the DAC itself. Sure, some DAC chips are “better” than others, but where do we draw the line in order to avoid unnecessary expense due to over design. Quad DSD is probably overkill by default imho, since the analog world remains the weakest link. DXD is just plain ridiculous. Many of us “old analog guys” are not embracing the digital snake oil of the 21st century due to their philosophical pragmatism, certainly not their ignorance.
@@shipsahoy1793 I’m not sure in what way your comment is responsive to my comment, but I think Paul would agree with everything you say, and has specifically addressed much of it in prior videos. Doesn’t change my initial point that old analogue guys (who are not electrical engineers or CEOs of high end audio companies) could use a digital for dummies book, and I think Paul would be a good person to write it.
@@edd2771 Hi Ed.. It was just my personal reaction to the situation in actuality.
I think a good digital guy along with a guy like Paul would need to sit down together and figure out a way to write that book in a way that lends credence to both sides and wouldn’t offend either camp, since both sides have valid concerns indeed.. let’s face it, digital techniques are here to stay and people need to understand how they should be adequately placed in an analog world; (before people get too crazy with stupidity..)😉
Roon will convert files based on your equipment capabilities on the fly during playback. If you want to permanently convert DSD files to PCM, the Apple app store has a conversion program for a price, $29.99.
It puzzles me why DSD is getting so much attention being claimed to sound better than PCM. You can record it as output from a sigma delta ADC in a digital studio but as soon as you need to master the tracks into stereo you end up with PCM. And if you run PCM with high sample rates like DXD 352.8kHz you can’t really argue against PCM being inferior because your highest quality actual native music master file indeed is raw PCM and any conversion of it back to DSD will only be lossy and inferior. DSD as distribution media was great in the era of SACD. Nowadays most DACs aren’t able to decode DSD 1 bit natively but run PCM optimized multi bit sigma delta conversion. So why bother with DSD other than for the recording?
Precisely
Marketing. DSD is still highly recognized amongst audiophiles.
@@Cakebattered The marketing of DSD being better than PCM arose out of the SACD being better than the standard red book CD. What it doesn't mean is that DSD is superior to PCM when PCM runs at higher resolution. PCM 352.8kHz (DXD) is more resolving than DSD-64, for example.
PCM IMPLEMENTED IN ITS BEST POSSIBLE FORMAT IS STILL THE BEST POSSIBLE FOR DIGITAL.
@@davidcross890 *_RIGHT_*
In 100+ episodes Paul’s been trying to convince people that analog-DSD-PCM-DSD is better than analog-PCM. Seems nobody convinced 😢 and people are tired of this topic
What topics would you like him to cover?
PCM IMPLEMENTED IN ITS BEST POSSIBLE FORMAT IS STILL THE BEST POSSIBLE FOR DIGITAL.
True, PCM has no stair steps. It is a marketing gimmick
0:04 Paul hits puberty
Alternatively you can use two Tascam DA3000s one for pitch the other catches at given sample rate. I have 1 Tascam for mastering and I use it %100.
i like lossy formats.
tape cassette and a cracked cd are my favourites
So if DSD256 sound almost identical to DXD (24/352.8) why not record in DXD or even better in 32 bit 352.8 kHz and forget about DSD?
How to convert DSD to PCM
Shove it in the Washing Machine and it will come out perfectly converted !!!🤣🤣🤣
hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah cough splutter
so... is the lowpass filter a linear-phase process or a minimum-phase process?
🙌