Thank you so very much for helping us understand and make an informed decision - always debated between these - typically went for the sample rate of the original recording - know better now
Great explanation Paul all that makes perfect sense just essentially pointless after 256 at this stage. And I agree you start inviting more trouble then the audible benefits you will get.
Your are right that DSD sounds way better than PCM, however, I couldn't make DSD256 sound as good as vinyl when recording. Should I get a linear power supply, as I can imagine the high frequency noise of a switching power supply to interfere with DSD?!
What does it mean when a PCM recording and a DSD recording have identical phase and frequency response? if they pass the "null-test" i'd say they are the same.
That's a valid point, however, DSD and PCM won't have the same frequency response because DSD requires large amounts of noise in very high-frequency bands for dithering purposes, whereas, PCM uses very low level ( typically -120 dB) noise across the entire frequency spectrum for dithering purposes, so the two recordings will never be identical.
So, Paul, I might be putting you on the spot with this question, but here it goes…. The venerable “Direct Stream DAC” up samples all incoming signals to 20 times DSD and outputs it to analog. If anything past 4x DSD has negligible benefits, what’s the benefit of upsampling to 20x DSD? Unless I missed something in the manual, with Direct Stream, one cannot option either to not upscale at all, or upscale to only 128, 256…etc., everything is upscaled to 20x DSD. What’s the sonic benefit?
@@JonAnderhub thanks for your reply Jon. You may well be correct in some aspect, however, swing on by and read the details on the Direct Stream DAC … I pulled my info directly from the webpage. I’m researching my next DAC purchase… hence my question
I use j-river media center to convert PCM to DSD on the fly, I was always told that DSD over PCM is the same thing as native DSD, so I never tried it until recently, but native DSD sounds MUCH better, trouble is you got to have drivers that support ASIO for native DSD as far as I can tell. I used to think native DSD64 sounded way better than converting to 44.1KHz PCM to DSD256, but with the native DSD bitstreaming instead of using DSD over PCM it's really hard to say. Some 44.1Khz 16-bit audio sounds AMAZING converted and bitstreamed natively at DSD256 (11.2MHz)
Thanks Paul for another great video & explanation. So much disingenuous ignorance on the forums with many under the false impression that DSD is the same as PCM or at least no better than 24b/192k. Instrumentation, instrumentation, instrumentation is your friend i always say.
@@ThinkingBetter due to the nature of the differences between DSD & PCM it’s not so easy to do an armchair 1:1 comparison. DXD for instance uses exponentially greater sampling than 20b/96k in order to minimize transcoding losses.
@@DelmarToad DXD is just PCM sampled at 352.8kHz and 24 bits resolution. It was the marketing term for PCM (obfuscating the fact it is PCM) used as master output for SACDs ages ago when 1 bit DACs in CD players could benefit from the direct sigma delta conversion of the data from the CD media. Of course when you allow higher data rates to improve timing precision and resolution, you get closer to the original analog signal in either DSD or PCM. With modern computing power you can easily do your mastering in, let's say, 768kHz 32 bits PCM and easily forget about DSD entirely, as DSD is useless for any actual processing anyway. Also any modern DAC can do sigma delta conversion on PCM, so there is no need there. But, I can see a sense in maintaining the ADC sigma delta samples as DSD format for a digital recording of an analog master that should be preserved digitally with minimum conversion losses. DSD is great for that specific purpose and for track recordings in the studio with the same argument.
@@ThinkingBetter my point was that I think DSD64 requires alot more than just 20b/96k to duplicate without losses. The high sampling rates used in DXD are an indication that much more than 20/96 is needed to faithfully transcode DSD64->PCM. When I casually transcode DSD64 (or DSD128) needledrops to PCM I usually go with 24b/192k minimum so as to minimize losses.
@@LuxAudio389 that's secondary to me. He is so sweet, calm and accommodating. It's like a human form of therapeutic body massages and Xanax, together. Hahaha.
Let’s not forget that the digital mastering process outputs PCM and DSD is a lossy transcoding of PCM introducing ultrasonic noise. The benefit of sigma delta ADC and DAC can still be achieved with a 192kHz 24 bits PCM streaming service already above the limit of human perception.
@@joelowens5211 I tend to agree that too often higher than CD sample rate and also higher than CD bit resolution sounds worse. I’ve had this experience also with some tracks on Amazon Music HD. It occurs to me that some tracks are poorly transcoded and perhaps compressed even you should expect the opposite. A 192kHz 24 bit track can sound incredible but if it originated as CD track 44.1kHz 16 bits, it’s actually a lossy version. I don’t know if it’s done intentionally to get more clicks or just by ignorance involving some computer guy who doesn’t know what he is doing.
@@joelowens5211 I have found this too. Some recordings sound lifeless meaning that I’m constantly wanting to turn the volume up. It can be the same with some 24/96 recordings as well.
While the new Apple M1 and M2 processors have a slight processing speed advantage, that advantage is lost in the need to run additional software and processing for software that is not ARM compatible. Even so, there is no difference in the ability of M1/2 processors over x86 processors to deal with PCM. In Paul's situation it appears they may have used the wrong computer setup initially and need to move to a more powerful server setup to harness the abilities of more powerful processors and more network bandwidth.
@@JonAnderhub the issue there is that M1/2 have very fast encoders. Just they may not be for DSD audio. What they have over x86 is a lot more bandwidth. Especially in memory operations. There is no CPU faster when it comes to that. I’m wondering, optimizations aside. If the bandwidth alone would help. Only way to know is if there is a version of this software written for macOS and M1/2 compatible.
Saying that DSD64 is "64 times faster" than 44.1kHz PCM is just plain BS. DSD does just only ONE bit at a time with that rate -- ie a value of either a '0' or a '1'. Whereas PCM (on CD) delivers any amplitude value between 0 and 65,535 at a rate of 44.1 thousand times each second!
@@Frankonero12 I've clarified above that we're talking about CD's multi-bit sample rate -- ie each 16bit word gives you 0-65,535 possible absolutes! Anyway, whichever way you slice it, the comparison/implication that Paul is making is not apples-to-apples.
So clock speed, sample rate... is just more than you can comprehend? DSD64 samples 64 times faster than Red Book. At no time did he discuss bit depth. So YES, Paul is 100% correct in what he said.
@@Wizardofgosz Let's do this very slowly for you! Red Book samples at 44.1KHz. DSD64 samples at 2.8224MHz, 2,822.4KHz 2,844.2/44.1=64 Does this simple math still confuse you?
@@Wizardofgosz Enough of the pissing contest. I hate this kind of exchange. I know just enough about this technology to know that there is way more that I don't understand than what I do understand. I listen to what sounds best to me. For me, I'll take DSD at any sample rate over PCM at any sample rate. I just think it sounds better. Whether that is placebo or not doesn't matter as long as in my mind it sounds better. If someone else likes PCM better, by all means listen to PCM.
I'm not sure where you are getting your information but that is incorrect. Both "channels" of a stereo file on a redbook CD are at 44.1 kHz and in the case of DVDs typically all channels are at 24 bit 48 kHz, though both DVD and Blu Ray discs support 24 bit 96 kHZ on every channel.
I am sorry that 5 years ago I sold my VPI turntable with grado cartridge. Once you perfect your streamer, I will check it out. I currently have an Oppo CD player on steroids… pandora is ok for background listening. Tidal is best.
Lookin' Like A Queen (Gordon Lightfoot and The HU) ua-cam.com/video/iqAFeVgh-FY/v-deo.html Rooster (Mick Jagger sings the hook) ua-cam.com/video/kL6WCmeY8rM/v-deo.html
Don’t build your own computers. Buy a dell precision workstation. These computers are designed for performance and you will not build one yourself that will out perform them. Building a gaming pc is one thing but building one to a lot of processing is another.
"I am an obsessed audiophile nutjob" - you should get a t-shirt with that on 😀
Perfectly explained, all makes sense as usual Paul, keep rocking!
For years I’ve preferred dsd to pcm. I’ve always assumed my oppo was just better at dsd. So I found this very interesting Paul thanks
Thank you so very much for helping us understand and make an informed decision - always debated between these - typically went for the sample rate of the original recording - know better now
Great explanation Paul all that makes perfect sense just essentially pointless after 256 at this stage. And I agree you start inviting more trouble then the audible benefits you will get.
Your are right that DSD sounds way better than PCM, however, I couldn't make DSD256 sound as good as vinyl when recording. Should I get a linear power supply, as I can imagine the high frequency noise of a switching power supply to interfere with DSD?!
It is very important and useful, thank you so much for this feedback, Paul.
Hagen is in the Ruhr area in Germany. (There may be other cities with that name.)
"I am an obsessed audiophile nutjob". Aren't we all, Paul? Aren't we all....
Paul: Another great explanation for the less knowledgeable. Thanks for all you do.
What does it mean when a PCM recording and a DSD recording have identical phase and frequency response? if they pass the "null-test" i'd say they are the same.
That's a valid point, however, DSD and PCM won't have the same frequency response because DSD requires large amounts of noise in very high-frequency bands for dithering purposes, whereas, PCM uses very low level ( typically -120 dB) noise across the entire frequency spectrum for dithering purposes, so the two recordings will never be identical.
@@JonAnderhub ya think they could null -100db down in the audio bandwidth?
@@magoostus No they will not null because of the differences in the audio file structure, not because of the audio information contained in the file.
@@JonAnderhub What is the dithering for?
So, Paul, I might be putting you on the spot with this question, but here it goes…. The venerable “Direct Stream DAC” up samples all incoming signals to 20 times DSD and outputs it to analog. If anything past 4x DSD has negligible benefits, what’s the benefit of upsampling to 20x DSD?
Unless I missed something in the manual, with Direct Stream, one cannot option either to not upscale at all, or upscale to only 128, 256…etc., everything is upscaled to 20x DSD.
What’s the sonic benefit?
There is some kind of misunderstanding somewhere because there is no such thing as 20x DSD.
6x (512) is the maximum possible.
@@JonAnderhub thanks for your reply Jon.
You may well be correct in some aspect, however, swing on by and read the details on the Direct Stream DAC … I pulled my info directly from the webpage.
I’m researching my next DAC purchase… hence my question
🤗 THANKS PAUL
We are enjoying the 256 …
Til you get new computers that can easily do 512 😁💚💚💚
I use j-river media center to convert PCM to DSD on the fly, I was always told that DSD over PCM is the same thing as native DSD, so I never tried it until recently, but native DSD sounds MUCH better, trouble is you got to have drivers that support ASIO for native DSD as far as I can tell. I used to think native DSD64 sounded way better than converting to 44.1KHz PCM to DSD256, but with the native DSD bitstreaming instead of using DSD over PCM it's really hard to say. Some 44.1Khz 16-bit audio sounds AMAZING converted and bitstreamed natively at DSD256 (11.2MHz)
Thanks Paul for another great video & explanation. So much disingenuous ignorance on the forums with many under the false impression that DSD is the same as PCM or at least no better than 24b/192k. Instrumentation, instrumentation, instrumentation is your friend i always say.
DSD-64 is around as good as 96kHz 20 bits PCM.
@@ThinkingBetter due to the nature of the differences between DSD & PCM it’s not so easy to do an armchair 1:1 comparison. DXD for instance uses exponentially greater sampling than 20b/96k in order to minimize transcoding losses.
@@DelmarToad DXD is just PCM sampled at 352.8kHz and 24 bits resolution. It was the marketing term for PCM (obfuscating the fact it is PCM) used as master output for SACDs ages ago when 1 bit DACs in CD players could benefit from the direct sigma delta conversion of the data from the CD media. Of course when you allow higher data rates to improve timing precision and resolution, you get closer to the original analog signal in either DSD or PCM. With modern computing power you can easily do your mastering in, let's say, 768kHz 32 bits PCM and easily forget about DSD entirely, as DSD is useless for any actual processing anyway. Also any modern DAC can do sigma delta conversion on PCM, so there is no need there. But, I can see a sense in maintaining the ADC sigma delta samples as DSD format for a digital recording of an analog master that should be preserved digitally with minimum conversion losses. DSD is great for that specific purpose and for track recordings in the studio with the same argument.
@@ThinkingBetter my point was that I think DSD64 requires alot more than just 20b/96k to duplicate without losses. The high sampling rates used in DXD are an indication that much more than 20/96 is needed to faithfully transcode DSD64->PCM. When I casually transcode DSD64 (or DSD128) needledrops to PCM I usually go with 24b/192k minimum so as to minimize losses.
Awesome. Love this answer
I wish I had a dad like Paul. ❤️
We all do. Imagine what you'd get to take home for "testing".
@@LuxAudio389 that's secondary to me. He is so sweet, calm and accommodating. It's like a human form of therapeutic body massages and Xanax, together.
Hahaha.
Let’s not forget that the digital mastering process outputs PCM and DSD is a lossy transcoding of PCM introducing ultrasonic noise. The benefit of sigma delta ADC and DAC can still be achieved with a 192kHz 24 bits PCM streaming service already above the limit of human perception.
I have found most 192khz 24 recordings on Qbuz are trash quality. I find the 96/24's most of the time are awesome.
If you do DSD properly there will be no PCM in the chain. The sonic difference between DSD and PCM is like that of PCM and FM Radio.
@@AccuphaseMan How do you “do DSD properly” in a digital studio without actually mixing into a PCM master stream?
@@joelowens5211 I tend to agree that too often higher than CD sample rate and also higher than CD bit resolution sounds worse. I’ve had this experience also with some tracks on Amazon Music HD. It occurs to me that some tracks are poorly transcoded and perhaps compressed even you should expect the opposite. A 192kHz 24 bit track can sound incredible but if it originated as CD track 44.1kHz 16 bits, it’s actually a lossy version. I don’t know if it’s done intentionally to get more clicks or just by ignorance involving some computer guy who doesn’t know what he is doing.
@@joelowens5211 I have found this too. Some recordings sound lifeless meaning that I’m constantly wanting to turn the volume up. It can be the same with some 24/96 recordings as well.
I think the only benefit of going above DSD 256 is the more accurate result when you down sample to 16/44.1khz pcm.
Leans forward and says 4:51 Scary but true. So am I, at least you own your own empires.😢
Is it possible to run Pyramix on a Mac? Asking since the M1-2 series chips seems to work very well with PCM compared to x86 CPU's.
While the new Apple M1 and M2 processors have a slight processing speed advantage, that advantage is lost in the need to run additional software and processing for software that is not ARM compatible.
Even so, there is no difference in the ability of M1/2 processors over x86 processors to deal with PCM.
In Paul's situation it appears they may have used the wrong computer setup initially and need to move to a more powerful server setup to harness the abilities of more powerful processors and more network bandwidth.
@@JonAnderhub the issue there is that M1/2 have very fast encoders. Just they may not be for DSD audio. What they have over x86 is a lot more bandwidth. Especially in memory operations. There is no CPU faster when it comes to that.
I’m wondering, optimizations aside. If the bandwidth alone would help. Only way to know is if there is a version of this software written for macOS and M1/2 compatible.
What is the best play back format for DSD? Two channel, two channel with a sub or. Subs, multi channel (what multi channel format). Thanks Ron
Your preference!
May suggest contacting LTT to do a colab and get a server/pc for processing audio? 🤣🤣
I thought the same thing!
Linus could hook them up with a super server build.
Will DSD128 or/and DSD256 fit on a SACD?
Saying that DSD64 is "64 times faster" than 44.1kHz PCM is just plain BS.
DSD does just only ONE bit at a time with that rate -- ie a value of either a '0' or a '1'.
Whereas PCM (on CD) delivers any amplitude value between 0 and 65,535 at a rate of 44.1 thousand times each second!
Paul said 64 times faster as cd, not pcm.
@@Frankonero12 I've clarified above that we're talking about CD's multi-bit sample rate -- ie each 16bit word gives you 0-65,535 possible absolutes! Anyway, whichever way you slice it, the comparison/implication that Paul is making is not apples-to-apples.
So clock speed, sample rate... is just more than you can comprehend? DSD64 samples 64 times faster than Red Book. At no time did he discuss bit depth. So YES, Paul is 100% correct in what he said.
@@Wizardofgosz Let's do this very slowly for you!
Red Book samples at 44.1KHz.
DSD64 samples at 2.8224MHz, 2,822.4KHz
2,844.2/44.1=64
Does this simple math still confuse you?
@@Wizardofgosz Enough of the pissing contest. I hate this kind of exchange. I know just enough about this technology to know that there is way more that I don't understand than what I do understand. I listen to what sounds best to me. For me, I'll take DSD at any sample rate over PCM at any sample rate. I just think it sounds better. Whether that is placebo or not doesn't matter as long as in my mind it sounds better. If someone else likes PCM better, by all means listen to PCM.
CDs run at 18-20 kHz per channel. The left and right channels are added to together to form 44.1 kHz.
I'm not sure where you are getting your information but that is incorrect.
Both "channels" of a stereo file on a redbook CD are at 44.1 kHz and in the case of DVDs typically all channels are at 24 bit 48 kHz, though both DVD and Blu Ray discs support 24 bit 96 kHZ on every channel.
I am sorry that 5 years ago I sold my VPI turntable with grado cartridge. Once you perfect your streamer, I will check it out. I currently have an Oppo CD player on steroids… pandora is ok for background listening. Tidal is best.
Hagen is in Germany, I believe.
Which sounds better through bose speakers dsd or pcm?
Mp3 likely 😉
I'm waiting for DSD1024
Holdout for DSD40x 2560
Not without some significant improvements in computer hardware tech - storage capacities, processing power etc.
Lookin' Like A Queen (Gordon Lightfoot and The HU)
ua-cam.com/video/iqAFeVgh-FY/v-deo.html
Rooster (Mick Jagger sings the hook)
ua-cam.com/video/kL6WCmeY8rM/v-deo.html
I have hirez PCM and DSD64 versions of Aftermath by the Stones and the DSD64 version is WAY better!
@Paul McGowan There’s a scam going on in this comments section
Don’t build your own computers. Buy a dell precision workstation. These computers are designed for performance and you will not build one yourself that will out perform them. Building a gaming pc is one thing but building one to a lot of processing is another.