The best audio format, ever
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 лют 2021
- Is there an ultimate audio format? Tape? Vinyl? Digital? If you want to learn more, grab a copy of Paul's new book, The Audiophile's Guide. www.psaudio.com/products/the-...
- Наука та технологія
![ОРБАН приехал к ПУТИНУ и "отчитался" о поездке в Киев 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_0ukDovOWq8/mqdefault.jpg)
Short version: Standard CD-Quality is all you need!
I‘m a sound engineer working in music production and different studios. Pop and classic genre. Today most music is recorded in 24 Bit / 88.2 or 96kHz which is already a very high resolution. It‘s nice to have for editing and processing the audio. It all happens in PCM format. For listening on your Hifi-System the good old 16 Bit / 44.1kHz CD-quality is absolutely fine! Even if you have an expensive high-end system with good room treatment - 9 of 10 people won’t even hear a difference to any high-resolution format by doing a blindtest.
Regarding analog: today during the recording, mixing or mastering process analog tools like tape recording, maybe valve equalizers and compressors are still used to taste by some engineers to bring in a wanted sound character - like harmonics, saturation or even some distortion. Mostly in the pop/rock genre, where the engineering is an essential creative part of the music. In classical music and audiophile jazz production, most engineers and producers prefer the clean and natural „not-coloured“ sound of a good digital-chain from the ADC after the microphone-preamp until the final master audio file in the end.
If at any stage something sounds like „garbage“, then it‘s not about PCM or DSD. In a case like that, the problem is definetly somewhere else.
Try to say it in a polite way:
In music production and listening in general there are so many variables and decisions made along the way which determine the final sound of what you hear. So it always sounds a little naive to me when „audiophiles“ or hifi-people looking with their magnifying glass on the one thing they think will make the difference.
Happy listening, stay safe and greetings from germany!
Yes, 100%.
Totally, completely 100% agree. A well recorded and mastered CD can sound stunning. Choice and position of loudspeakers plus listening room acoustics can have an enormous influence on sound quality. Much greater than any perceived differences between PCM and DSD.
When working in session 88.2 is what I use with raw files. When I can upgrade to a R9 CPU then mostly 176.4, when exporting after mastering that massive difference between qualities isn't significant
If you want people to tell the difference in a blind test between standard CD PCM audio (16bit/44.1 kHz) and high res audio, you need an extremely high res recording, tbe higher the res, the easier it will be to tell the difference, on a sound system capable of resolving the full high resolution audio recording, of course.
Something like DSD 1024 or 2048 that will exist one day, recorded with microphones capable of sampling sound at the full speed those formats can handle (45MHz for DSD 1024 or 90MHz for DSD 2048) would drop people's jaws in terms of acoustical differences versus CD audio.
You Said It Brother. Secondly, sadly, The Golden Age of Music is History. While the Technology is getting mind-bogglingly better, The Media, The Arts are on a steep pathetic Decline. DSD - Balderdash.
This guy seems pretty smart he should start his own audio company
😉
@@cpselvam1 ThatsTheJoke.jpg
sound advice!
Ya think lol
Here's a proper joke:
He's not good enough!
Huge respect, Paul!
It`s not all in the recording format it`s in the packaging as well. I think that the vinyl record is the perfect combination of sound quality in a nice package. You can enjoy both the music and the artwork at the same time. The return of the vinyl record in recent years and the success in market is no coincidence.
If you are into music today and you collect records, one of the following applies to you (in no particular order):
• You enjoy collecting old things
• You’re going deaf and you can’t hear all the loss and distortion
• You haven’t yet realised that most newly pressed vinyl is mastered digitally anyway
• You’re throwing money into a pricing bubble that’s going to burst when the hipsters get bored
• You ARE a hipster
• You haven’t heard a CD player since 1990
• You’re after albums that don’t exist, are incomplete, or sound notably bad on CD
• You’ve fallen for the fallacy of “spending thousands on digital yields marginal gains, but spending thousands on vinyl makes a world of difference”, not realising that this is the case only because cheap vinyl playback sounds absolutely fucking terrible
• You hate streaming but didn’t stop to think there might be a slightly less obnoxious and pretentious solution to the problem
And I don’t see what’s so inadequate about the packaging of a CD. It’s more durable, still presents the artwork at a sensible size in full colour and has liner notes. And it’s not a pain in the ass to prepare a disc to be played. Take it out of the case, job done.
Nancy is a city of half a million people, but you have to say it with a French accent. nohn-CEE
In the north-east of France.
Haha
NANCY!
Nancy holds half the population of Montana in it ;)
But I love your mountains and landscapes anyway :)
Ok, mr. Nancy-france
The best audio format is the one that’s music to my ears... ✌️🌹🇦🇺
The best audio format is a live performance. :)
Very true
Good luck packing a real live performance into your pocket for less than $100
Second best?
That’s not an audio format...
Idk sometimes those sound like dog doodoo
The best format is the one that makes you happy.
Yes
And that is DSD :D
PCM is the native format in all modern audio architectures. DSD is not and fail in being processable in DSPs and codecs. Paul having heard bad audio in a studio using PCM has nothing to do with PCM sounding good or bad. PCM 192kHz 24 bits beats DSD.
@@ThinkingBetter DSD is the closest thing to analog audio that it gets. And the higher the sample rate, the more perfectly-analog it gets.
PCM 24bit/192kHz has more resolution than standard DSD (i.e. DSD64 OR 2.8 MHz), but there are ever higher standards than that.
DSD 128 has higher res than PCM 24bit/192kHz, so it beats it, not only in resolution, but also by its nature of sampling method.
Commercial audio may very well be better served by PCM than by PDM (DSD), but DSD will still have the better sound potential than PCM just because of its most natural way of sampling and recording sound.
@@edfort5704 I’m quite aware that PS audio is promoting such narrative and I find it in conflict with reality. No doubt they make great products and deserve a success but they need to wake up on digital audio matters. This article sums up the issue well: benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/41262017-audio-myth-dsd-provides-a-direct-stream-from-a-d-to-d-a
What format best? The next one LoL.
Audio evolution!!! thanks Paul, always love your chats.
I have some 3” full range drivers from the 60’s and they sound sublime! So good in fact, that I can easily hear “Tape noise” going on in the background of a lot of tracks. It is a consistent, strange sound that adds a cool ambience to the soundstage.
Please tell us about them.
@@porkchopspapi5757 Look up Foster 10F3. made in the 60's. can be found in the "realistic solo 103" speakers on eBay. pair them with a sub and you'll be in heaven. a lot of people don't know about them and you can get em for $50-100 right now.
@@nickparkin8527 thank you
Please tell us less about them.
For the record, that was not a longer answer than I wanted. Perfect. I am an IT guy that loves listening to music. I just recently decided I'm going to spend over $1500 on speakers because I miss the sound I got from floor standing speakers that had drivers bigger than the 3 inch ones you typically see now with BestBuy/Costco home theater speakers. So I started researching hi-fi audio and fell into the audiophile rabbit hole. What is with you audiophiles on youtube? You guys are all so easy to listen to and seem like such warm, nice, and friendly guys. In IT there are cocky jerks that are sort of reluctant to share their knowledge and love to belittle people for not knowing as much as them because it makes them feel superior. I got out of those work environments a long time ago and have learned to sniff out those work environments so I don't end up in them. I have to believe audio guys can be the same way because most of the time that cockiness is actually insecurity of technical knowledge. They are afraid of asking questions or showing they don't know something because they are afraid of another cocky guy laughing at them because they didn't know something that "every audiophile should know" and really embarrass themselves. So when you ask these guys questions that they can't fully explain, they just use audiophile terms and dance around and try their best to spit you out at the end so you feel sort of dumb and don't want to ask another question. Where as guys that actually have an honest comprehension of why one DAC is better than another (or even why you use a DAC), for example, they are excited to explain it to you because they remember when they figured it out and it made perfect sense to them. So when you ask a genuine question because you genuinely missed something or because they forgot to explain something, they are the kindest person and eager to say it a different way. All of the audiophiles on UA-cam seem to be this guy, but not only that, you are just so easy to listen to with the cadence, pace, volume, tone and all of it. Must be something to do with attuned ears. Probably really good mics too. :) The cheapaudioman, audiophiliac, John Darko, and you are all giving me the audiophile bug.
So your answer was perfect. Probably a longer response than you wanted, but I truly appreciate you and how you enjoy sharing your journey to your knowledge.
lol actually I hear some very annoying hum in the background of this video. rhythmic hum like air conditioning or maybe laundry machine 2 floors up
When I was making recordings years ago going from cheap cassette tape to an ADAT-XT was a mind-blowing change. It sounded no different going in than coming out. I haven't tried that with DSD vs. PCM but I suspect it will be much less noticeable. In any case it's down to the skill and choices of the recording engineer much more than the digital format. They're all pretty darn good, so then it's just up to the humans to make something good.
Wax Cylinder.
No that's garbage I've heard it.
I fully agree with you. By the way, the Sony PCM-F1 originally used the Betamax format for recording, but by canceling the drop out corrector it could work with any video format.
The best mastered audio (no matter what format it is) is what I prefer. I've heard crappy mastered vinyl records. I've also heard excellent mastered CDs. Am I the only one who prefer CDs from the '80s and '90s when the format wasn't overrun by the lossless war?
Someday I'd like to hear about production and mastering and all the compression. That's what really influences the realness of the recording.
I know. I've tried listening to modern pop recordings that had a dynamic range of about 1db...and I'm not kidding. It was trash. I know they intentionally make recordings that way so they sound loud on the radio, but jeez...And then you have the issue of each instrument or voice being separately compressed before being compressed again on the record...It is a mess. Apparently done so people can listen to music in noisy environments like cars, vans, and trucks...
Yeah, I don't expect all recordings to be "audiophile", but come on...give us *some* dynamics....
@@rosswarren436 If you listen to someone who actually does deal with the processing/technical facet of radio they want uncompressed source material because it works much better with the processing that they are all but required to do. Usually when I hear a recording that just sounds absolutely broken on radio the actual CD or whatever is already slammed.
@@rosswarren436 @james robinson what songs did you hear that were too compressed?
@@rosswarren436 You do know that many 1960s pop recordings were made with a very minimal dynamic range? e.g. Tamla Motown, which was engineered to sound good in a car with AM radio.
@@asd2640 I forget but it was a female singer...I tried it for about 10 minutes and gave up....Even spot checked some of the other songs and nope, they were all just as bad.
I do thinks it’s super cool , an audio company making recordings to their standards. It makes perfect sense. Man I can think of a few rock albums I wish were recorded with sound quality in mind:)
i heard dsd is very difficult to engineer, mix. so that is done in pcm instead? T/F?
There aren't very many dsd cds available are there? I only have a couple of them and they do sound good.
Wrong
What are the optimum preferred RCA Cables to use for Output from a Directstream DAC please? Thank You.
Found a blast from the past the other day in my wardrobe. My old Sony hifi Minidisc player! Great that was, It was certainly better than DAT no rewinding 😆
I have few sitting around; A big MD-deck by Sony, a compect version by Akai and some of those portable players. - Just too bad they need to be recorded 1:1 (real-time) like tape. Unless there's a way I don't know of?... I used to love messing around with it making "mixed MiniDiscs" recording tracks from CDs, back when I was a kid or teen. But I didn't do it for long as it wasn't very usable or convenient. - Thought it could've been an amazing format to replace CD, though. But it just didn't have the convenience of incorporating the physical format, like now we can have a Blu-ray player that also plays DVDs and CDs. Switching to the little MD-cassettes would've messed that up.
Great video!!
That digital audio recorder that Paul owned was the Sony PCM-F1. I'd post a link, but links don't seem to be allowed :(
Ive never heard of PS before, but now i need it
Paul, I have been highly critical and weary of your opinions in the past. Its taken time but I've finally climbed out of my nostalgic hole and seen the light of DSD. Boy oh boy it's way better than any other format. You need a good system to appreciate it but its convinced me to stop persuing CDs and analog formats i.e. Vinyl and Tape.
Of course, the developer of lampizat0r dacs Lukasz Fikus , highly prizes DSD. He is top notch engineer and music lover. His dacs are one of the top 5 in the world easily. Togerther with Cassandra Aries Cerat
@@quant2011 really like reading his work on vintage cd players 👍
@@playbackvintagehifihunter9669 yep. And i love how he destroys these $300k speakers magicians. In similar fashion Tomasz Rogula developer of ZetaZero omni speakers, puts most hifi cables and speaker producers to shame... only Alsyvox, Bayz can keep up technically to his level.
@@quant2011 indeed, I think when hifi reaches a certain level of price, audio quality gain is negligible.
I agree entirely with Paul about DSD and SACDs. There is a combination of warmth and inner detail with transients brilliantly projected
It's because those digital formats have the ultrasonic frequencies above 20khz that CDs don't have. Vinyl also has those frequencies which is why many prefer vinyl to CDs.
What is the best lossless formats? And which lossless format is the smallest format for storage and still keeps lossless and can be manipulated into higher but rate ect?
DSD sounds great,
But, practically no catalog.
In Pop and Rock anyway.
Omg. You are so wrong. Don’t know you’re musical tastes but,in terms of classic music, some wonderful labels
Such as Pentatone,Channel Classics(Jared Sacks has done unbelievable work). Sony and Philips(when it was an independent company but now part of UMG) developed DSD/SACD but Sony truly screwed it up. Sony went on to Blu-ray and now they are touting “Sony Immersive Sound technology whatever. Sony is the worst. Ask Gus Skinas at the SuperAudio center in Colorado. I think Paul and Gus are in the same building.
A big chunk of the Rolling Stones catalog was put out on SACD, but just try to find copies. Even some of their CDs now proudly proclaim DSD Remastered. Quite few Mobile Fidelity digital disks are SACDs and Acoustic Sounds also still puts some out, but not quire so many now since they are concentrating more on vinyl.
@@stephensmith3111 all the stones remasters sound crap
@@frankgyure3154 that is why I said Rock and Pop recordings.
@@frankgyure3154 I just posted that while I agree that DSD is the best (to me) digital sounding format, I am going to start collecting vinyl again. The reason is that while NativeDSD and some others have put out really great sounding classical music, the catalogue is not very deep based on about 4 years of looking. Vinyl shipments have eclipsed CD in the past couple of years, still a very small percentage of the market, but interesting. I can find everything I want on Discogs, so that how I am going to proceed. I will augment this with new DSD releases of classical music as it comes out.
Paul, thank you for sharing your experiences and knowledge with us. One doubt... When I'm listening to a song on UA-cam, how do I identify if that song is an audio file without loss of quality or if it's an audio file with loss of quality? Where can I see the specifications of the audio being played to know if it is, for example: a “WAVE” or “FLAC” format (without loss of quality) or if it is an “MP3” type file (where there was compression and loss Of Quality)? Is there any extension for the Chrome browser that shows real-time specifications of the audio being played? I visited UA-cam's audio file guidelines and it says the following... “[...] Supported file formats: (1) MP3 audio in MP3/WAV container, (2) PCM audio in WAV container, (3 ) AAC audio in MOV container and (4) FLAC audio. Minimum audio bitrate for lossy formats: 64 kbps. Minimum audible duration: 33 seconds, excluding silence and background noise. Maximum duration: none “[...]”. Therefore, UA-cam accepts audio files without loss of quality and audio files with loss of quality.
The "thank God we're finally moving back to vinyl" crowd is going to HATE this... :D
because it isn't true
The Direct to Disc vinyl records are the best that I have. I have lots of reel to reel tapes and I have tried many forms of home music playback.
There's an album on CD that was recorded using JVC Master Disk (or something like that), also a direct to disk process, and you can tell, even on a regular CD.
How does Octave records get around the difficulties of processing and editing directly in DSD? Many commercially available DAWs will convert to PCM to accomplish editing and processing tasks then convert back to DSD for mastering. While I have not exhaustively researched technical solutions pertaining to this problem, I’m only aware of DXD as a PCMish solution that minimizes the conversion and upper frequency noise issues associated with processing for DSD.
Some say that in the studio for mixing, DSD is the best, and that those benefits don’t translate once in the hands of the end user, and that PCM 24 bit is enough. Is this true?
Nancy is mentioned in the movie Kelly's heroes from 1970. :)
Just us old boomers recall that.
@@larryh.4629 I was only 3 years old 1970.
@@perherbert so you were 3 when you watched it for the first time? Or did you Google Nancy France i just figured that was from memory think these kids still put you in the boomer category sorry
DSD is great yes, but also 32 bit 384kH , whats is inportant is the microphone, the soubd of the hall, the cuality of the instruments? Musicians?
So where can we find the wonderful DSD recordings from Octave Records?
There are plenty of Native DSD recordings. The challenge is the copyright protection and therefore the ensuing lack of products that will deliver the actual Native DSD sound to the consumer at home Native DSD is availability through hardware(discs which look look like standard CD’s) and digital downloads purchases. I will repeat ad infitum that SACD/DSD (at least in 90%of modern recordings) is also available in multichannel (5.0 or add a subwoofer). But Paul is touting his 2 channel SACD transport and DAC which deliver Pure Native DSD sound to the consumer. But in designing this products he took away the choice of consumers accessories the multichannel recordings. So why should anyone buy Paul’s limited product. And Paul will never ever talk about this.
theyve only just started. so, there are only 4 albums to date.
www.psaudio.com/product-category/audiophile-masters/
@@googoo-gjoob I hope they're going to come out with full albums from some of the other artists featured on _Audiophile Masters_ .
@@JamesDavidWalley , there are 5 full albums currently available.
I was told by a salesman (dj shop in uk) that a analogue mix will still blend channels at the +3,6,9db over zero but digital mixing stops at zero...umm.I don't personally know?
Paul, the best audio format is the one that makes the individual listener want to stay and listen. It dosen't matter if its analog or digital. Considering most people don't hear much above 15Khz and there isn't much music content below 30Hz I think that nullifies much of digital advantages and I find increased dynamic range to be distracting. I am also skeptical that no matter how many 1 and 0s you have that the recording is perfect. And yes I have heard dad recordings.
What makes digital win nowadays is all about convenience. My vinyl discs are collecting dust cause I subscribe to Amazon HD Music where I can stream FLAC CD or better quality music tracks and pick among 60+ million songs. It takes me near zero time to find a song and play it. Playing a vinyl disc is not only inconvenient but who said I like all the tracks on a particular vinyl disc? I don’t. I usually only like a few tracks per disc and with streaming I can make my own much better playlists that provides the exact favorite tracks I like. My movie collection on VHS and DVD/BluRay is also collecting dust as I’m streaming movies too. Time has changed.
@@ThinkingBetter Excellent the convenience works for you and I have no problem with that. I find my vinyl more engaging and I'll listen longer than I had intended consistently. That work for me. As far as streaming movies is concerned the superior picture and sound quality coming off my bluray disc far outways the convenience. Most streaming services quality sucks. Sorry my opinion even though I might be in the minority. I've never understood how someone can watch a blockbuster movie on a phone.
You hit the nail right on the head, "Gitmo Bob"- "makes you want to stay and listen". I actually have a Pioneer Quad Receiver + 4 speakers and a Panasonic Quad 8 track player, and listened to it just yesterday. It is a "time machine". Luckily, I can hear the sonic flaws of the 8 track (my hearing is still ok), but it listenable and "fun" for a bit.
@@SLCVideoProductions Considering how old your 8 track are it's amazing you still enjoy them. I have a nakamichi rx505 cassette deck and it has a monitor button that allows you to hear the original recording or the tape recording. I could never hear the difference and still enjoy the few cassettes I still own. That's why when Paul says the dsd sounds identical to the original I'm not sure how impressed I am.
@@gitmobob1714 I am not sure the monitor button works exactly the way you describe it- I believe it is a 3 head deck and as such you could monitor what the input signal was and what was just recorded- just a slight difference :) Heck of a deck from what I've read! I have a Nakamachi BX-150 and use it to play old tapes that I recorded around 1980 +/- a few years while at my workbench- still have to deal with some hiss, but like listening to the variety of music!
Do you know the link to the "www.nativedsd.com" stakeholder list?
Paul, Nancy is in the northeast of France, 80-90 miles west of Strasbourg, which I'm sure you've heard of. All the best, Rob in Switzerland (not Sweden or Swaziland)
A Christmas in Strasbourg is on my bucket list. I hear Switzerland is very nice during Christmas too.
Recording + mastering are everything.
Whether PCM or DSD does not matter
What is a good way to listen to DSD files ?
I have a couple of DSS64 and 128 albums (Thriller, Dire Straight, Adele, Breakfast in America), I tried with Audirvana (Mac) or Foobar (PC) to my AMP integrated dsd compatible DAC or headphones plugged to a Schiit Ragnarok, and it all sounds pretty awful. It’s flat flat flat, no deep scene and no bass. There’s no noise but that’s it, it sounds awful and boring. Where the same equipment sounds fantastic with Qobuz, cd, vinyl, R2R. What am I doing wrong here ? 🤔 Is DSD like « log video », neutral flat on purpose for you to do the « sound grading » you want?
If your DAC can decode DSD, make sure Foobar outputs in DSD and not PCM or DOP (DSD over PCM).
Also, try to listen to the same stuff on speakers instead, see if you can tell the difference vs. headphones.
Ha!! I got my start with a Sony PCM-F1 as well. I still have it.
Had to search WHAT DSD MEANS.
Yeah, what is it? What’s he talking about? THIS is why audiophiles get no respect. They talk in code, as if we ALL have spent 30 years and $30k chasing the audio dragon.
John Horvath - He's talking pretty basic here; DSD is just another audio-format that uses a different technique to record and render audio, using higher sampling-rates and so forth. - It's also found on Super Audio CDs, which you might know, and it (DSD) has been developing since probably the '50s. - In the simplest terms, DSD is like a high-definition version of PCM. Or perhaps a little more accurately; DSD is to PCM what 4K video is to 1080p video. Something like that. - Problem is; It (at least SACD) was just never as widely adopted as PCM on Compact Disc, kind of like how LaserDisc didn't take as much as DVD, evn though LaserDisc could edge out DVD in terms of quality. - Well, sadly we're in a world of streaming and compression like that, so most people will never receive the full amount of detail, but for recording and mastering it could still make a difference.
DSD is Direct Stream Digital, but it's good you did your own searching. Good luck finding your favorite song in DSD.
@@michaelangeloh.5383 The problem with DSD is that, unlike PCM, there's no way to apply processing like EQ or compression to a DSD signal without either converting to/from analogue, or to/from PCM.
Paul McGowan vs Michael Fremer ---- What round are we in? Who's going to win? DSD or ANALOG? Are they both right? or simply enjoy the music!
exactly what i was thinking
Great and very informative discussion, but... We all, or most of us, are looking for the best sampling method, the ultimate AD and DA converters, the best overall audio format. Many answers, opinions and on the field experiences.... I would also like to share with you my personal sadness when comparing our efforts and search for the highest possible quality with the everyday life: reality is that great mixes, mastered with top end gear by top end engineers will be listened by 90-95% of people in MP3 format on generally low quality audio devices and smartphones.
I don’t want to be too much critical or pessimist, but I guess that we should aspire for a better education (and in general, an improved musical culture) of the last chain of our hard work: the standard listener. Why do we have to find that high end studio work have to translate in a so bad compressed standard? It took about 25 years to reach the CD quality and a mass distribution of music on that medium.
I personally believe that today it could be reasonably possible to give mass people the opportunity to listen -at least- .wav files on a proper player. Ok, standard listener will use earbuds but who cares?... A decent wave or aiff file should be the minimum quality standard format that most people can afford these days.
I apologize for my sort of off topic, but I often try to live togheter with this non-sense, and its hard to admit such a inconsistency compared with our hard work and efforts to record and reproduce audio at its best.
If one day people will understand the difference between hundreds or thousand of songs, badly reduced in quality like mp3s, and about forty-fifty decent uncompressed ones, it would be a very great result, a starting point to improve hearing skills and a big satisfaction for all the people that work professionally with audio an entire life...
Dear Paul. I did a lot of searching but no answers. So you are my last resort. I've got Qobuz, Tidal and Apple Music on my macbook air. Nice but I do not want the mac doing anything else than put through the music via Thunderbolt adapter HDMI cable to my Anthem AVM70 to do all the translation. I cannot get it work. The Mac keeps giving out (L)PCM so the mac is still unpacking. How do I solve this?
What about "Blu Ray Pure Audio 24 Bit 192 kHz" ? Marc, MONS - BELGIUM.
And in surround sound
Few would argue, I suspect, that DSD is very good.
The question is, can you hear the difference between it and 16/44 PCM but also Hi-Res PCM ?
The answer is yes - if you have a system good enough.
I think the issue is that in the late 1970s when the CD was born, 16/44.1 was barely possible to do at a price point they thought would sell. It wasn't that it was "excellent" but rather that it was "good enough" for the masses, with the added convenience offered by the CD. Now, what percentage of people can hear the difference and does it make a difference in appreciating the music? As you mention, that is the $64,000 question.
@@rosswarren436 my advice is, until you have experienced it then you wouldn't know. You don't need to be rich to have a resolving system. I've only recently adopted SACD with a very good SACD player. Upto this point, I was a Vinyl and CD person back n forth. DSD allows so much dynamic range (with noise shaping) that it can now extends beyond the bandwidth of analog waveforms during the mastering and processing stage. PCM which is processed as blocks (steps), this is where clipping of waveforms happens. During playback is when you can we hear this happening in the form of harshness and siblilance.
@@playbackvintagehifihunter9669 I've got topping e30 dac, which is very cheap, and it will let you hear the difference. Like you said, pcm has a harshness to it.
@@dagnisnierlins188 limited Data stream of PCM, so even if you spend thousands on a supposedly high end dac, you are processing files limited in dynamic range. As you said, even in affordable DAC wil reveal this.
As much as it pains me.. DSD is definitely the best.
I'm still keeping my vinyls though.. 😊
Ultimate audio format, is HitClips of course.
Techmoan fan?
Hitclips sound OK, but not as good as a flexi-disc on a 60's Dansette with a broken stylus 🙉
@@sofa-lofa4241 the wolkswagen van is best.
@@xiro6 Yeh, the Record Runner. I have a VW van, for when I want to play my vinyl collection.
Nancy is a town in France about 4 hours by car from Paris eastern direction
I watched this video an hour ago and i'm still hyper this is amazing why didn't i hear of this, Did some google searchers on how to record in that way, only found some r.m.e. options and some even more expensive, Saw a lot of posts about people that only want to mix in that format, but i don't see that point because, you can't make lemons from lemonade. But overal i don't like the sound cards i just want to send lots of line level out my computer, and record a lots of line level signals back in. The only soundcard that really did that for me was an m-audio delta 1010lt. But overal i hear a lot of opinions from people, but you know how that is nowadays everybody thinks they are the experts..... Well i'm not, what would be the best way to get sound in to a computer and out a computer again. in a way that you can also use good preamps, eq's and mixers and all sorts of other nice sounding equipment. without the preamps that make my soundcard or in de adat device i hooked up to that soundcard. In short how would you describe the perfect soundcard for recording music ?
im 45. the best format depends on use. i need to use cassette tapes because 90's raves were pkayed from vinyl, mastered on dat, and only sold in tape packs containing recordings of every dj from the night. heavy 70's japanese class a amplifiers with good equalizer, solid heavy speakers, with 4ohm long throw 12" car subwoofers switched on speakers b. sounded very good. 10 doors up, across the road. but also other music i like is only on record or cd. i havent explored flac or anything yet. i would need to upgrade to a soundblaster card first in computer for that. i want to build a nice tube amp hybrid with class a transistor amp carrying the load on the real low frequencies. i built a speaker in about 99/2000 from rosewood with a large thick slab of concrete in it. house shaker. im really about trying different music, just how its meant to be played or to the best of ability at time. even if it is a rave remix of mr ozios flat eric by force and styles and mc junior at helter skelter. that was a 250'000 watt arena which hit frequencies below 20hz. even on cd at end of rave years is mickey finn and mc gq at dreamscape. that first ten mins or so is extrodinary. its really horses for courses. it is not the kind of system i would play billy holiday on .... i really enjoy this channel. it feels like an old buddy from way back chatting to you. he is very knowledgable and good at explaining everything if the concept is new.
This was convincing. Nancy is a town in France. I belive its pronounced similar you said merci. Nanci. Beautiful language french
Paul, go and visit Nancy and its Neighbours Strasbourg and Colmar, beautiful area. You will feel at home, the creator of Lady Liberty was born there, Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi ..
The future of. Pro audio is dsp and mixing your own from a master.
Hi Paul, love the vids. Just finished video and thought, it would great if you guys design and sold a DSD recording unit/interface for musicians like me (to PC or Mac).
Just a thought, science is awesome !!!
Have a great one !!!
The speakers back there look like Elac Unifi UB5 2.0's.
I am getting very good performance on magnetic tapes, with my new ADM signal processing technology, if you are interested Paul I can get in connect with you and I can explain how I am getting high performance out of cassette tapes. Yes there are limitations with the format, but is now possible to work around them. I also interested digital formats as well, but is also important not to close off your mind to other formats and ideas.
Sounds fascinating, any more info on ADM that you could point me to?
@@tjsmithson1598 Here is the link: www.linkedin.com/pulse/next-generation-cassette-decks-grant-taylor/ I still working on a few issues with the cassette tape technology, but testing so far is looking promising. There also information there on how I have been using it to improve AM radio as well, it works over a lot of different technologies.
I thought that mixing using DSD meant having to first convert it to PCM to make modifications, then having to change it back to DSD?
I used to store my music as MP3, but I've been switching to FLAC or WAV.
That's why I started watching this video to find out the best.
Then you started talking about analog vs digital.
Moving on to some other video...
Americans and geography. Go together like oil and water!
The best audio format is Audio CD (stereo). But the true fact - should enjoy the track you are listening to…. doesn’t matter the quality of music not less than an original audio cd quality. Personally I like to hold music physically and love the manual actions to take disc from the cover, just give a gentle blow to remove dust from cd and insert …. rather than instructing siri to play song… I take little efforts to listen music and its more sweeter.Avoid screen time while listening to music. Now I need to relax ….going to listen Christopher Cross song …. Sailing
If DSD is so amazing why are we bothering with mp3? Why can't music be sold in DSD?
Knowing Paul and nature of his channel ....the only answer can be....DSD.
It’s a bit of a bummer. In virtually all cases, DSD adds significant processing to the music production chain. DSD absolutely fails to deliver a "direct" path between the A/D and the D/A. Any such claims are marketing spin. DSD offers no advantages over a conventional 24-bit 96 kHz system, and it fails to leverage the massively parallel architecture of modern converters.
@@ThinkingBetter Quite possibly many DSD recordings sound wonderfull mostly due to outstanding recording and mix technique.
@@kdomster9141 Yes, of course.
Philips for the win!
Would there be any benefit to remix from analog and other digital formats into DSD? Or would that just make the issues all the more apparent?
It completely doesn't matter, because PDM and PCM are equivalent once converted to analog. DSD is completely pointless, and produces compromised precision at higher frequencies, though again, it doesn't matter because you can't hear it anyway.
@@microcolonel DSD, or PDM isn't "converted" into analog, it is simply filtered from that high frequency noise you mentioned. PCM is converted because it is nothing remotely close to an analog signal and has to be artificially restructured, filled in and otherwise processed to come out as an analog signal. Whether one can hear a difference is subjective, but is the reason many still prefer a pure analog source. And it isn't because they are delusional or stupid. But then most people don't have systems or the experience of critical listening that drives the audiophile industry to keep on trying, as it does, to drive us all crazy. That's why the analog retentive world, in its ultra minority status, keeps the pursuit of high fidelity alive.
@@Joshualbm the filter is after the converter. The same filter is used on PCM delta sigma modulátor DACs. You lack understanding of the topic.
@@microcolonel Not according to what Paul claims their DAC does. Anyhow, your claim that there is no difference in audio presentation between PCM or PDM converted into analog is probably not based on sitting down and really listening. When you get a level of sonic accuracy with as little processing as DSD can do from the original analog source, it's pretty much as close to the original as can be. Ask yourself why these guys and many in the industry even bother. Is it because they're just wishful thinkers or idiots, or is there something to it? There are guys out there who think MP3s are indistinguishable from higher res reproductions. Go figure.
@@Joshualbm the same signal through the same filters, amplifier, and loudspeaker is the same, no matter how many morons and frauds say otherwise. Paul is mistaken, or is a fraud, but to me it's all the same: he's wrong.
Best media to record music is water so pure, dethklok was able to record a record inside water
Thanks
Thank you for your work.We learn a lot things from you.
When it comes to digital, I really didn't know there was much else besides PCM. I've never head of DSD. I'd love to hear something recorded with DSD!
It sounds exactly the same, everything down to the final circuit producing the signal behaves completely identically. The same DAC can produce both, the resulting signal is the same in every way.
@@microcolonel yes, there is nothing inherently different to the sound of DSD besides the fact that some SACD albums were different remasters. And I do actually have a stack of SACD just for giggles.
So you might have some objective differences like "the snares hit harder leading into the chorus" or "the bass line is softer than the original LP".
But anything about "warmth" and "clean" sounds is hogwash. I would not be surprised if plenty of the SACD releases came from 24 bit 96 Khz PCM masters to begin with, so the DSD "warmth" people claim to hear is a crock of crap
@@microcoloneli thought Wma was the best of all
Nancy is pronounced Nan-cy. it is in the north of France. there is a famous square : Place Stanislas.
Ah, like Nan-seeee... Like a French Nan-seee pants.
non-see
Surely SACD discs are recorded DSD?
DSD was created for SACDS. PCM files are to large so they use them as the main masters in studios. DSD is lossy so not quite as good but better than CD.
@@stafonvoncamron and luckily Freeview Digital TV is PCM.
Last I checked you can’t actually mix, master or in general work with DSD at all. So unless you’re just releasing acoustic music straight from the capture, with essentially zero work done to it, it has to be converted to PCM, at which point converting it back to DSD starts to seem a bit silly, no?
Have I been misinformed, or...?
Or just do master mixing in analog straight to DSD. It's just a thought, I don't know how they're doing it.
@@MrTheDarku Yea, I’m not sure, I just know pretty much anything short of a raw recording is impossible to do in true DSD, you have to either have captured in a different, workable format, or have converted... but I don’t know.
At the end of the day I just know the result is that there is basically no music in the format, and what there is, is mainly some dry acoustic chamber music etc.
You are correct. Lossless digital formats do not have a "sound". 24bit wav 48khz PCM wavs are also perfect.
It Nancy with the A like in cAr :) BTW the Octave recordings sound great but the music isn't t hat hard to record right. There's not much going on. Just like a jazz quartet f.i. will (if well recorded) sound great in any format. I would like to hear an Octave recording of a rock band or another band with a lot of instruments.
Welcome to his channel.
How did recording exist before Octave?! 😂
Paul, I love ya man, have PS stuff myself but come on bud
Best audio source is live.If you ain't a musician then you shouldn't over analyze what you can not produce and enjoy yourself.Brutal but true.
The trouble with dsd is that it's not easy to apply EQ without converting it to PCM first. So why not just record in PCM. I doubt you would hear much difference between a good recording in 192/24 and dsd512. Any difference you do hear would be due to the DAC
You can't hear any difference above SACD, it's been demonstrated in well designed double blind tests. The sources now are perfect, for all practical purposes, what REALLY dominates what you hear, quality wise, is the transducers, IN the room. At that point in the system, everything literally goes to hell in a hand basket, performance wise, even if you have the 'best' system in the world in a 'perfectly' treated room. Even excellent electrostatic, ribbon, or the best dynamic headphones make a mess of things, comparatively, and obviously with those you get none of the experience of feeling the bass in the seat of your pants, etc., like when an organists pedal is opening the wind to 32' pipe.
DSD has the potential to give analog "warmth" and clarity with the convenience of a digital file, not to mention the much larger dynamic range than ever dreamed with vinyl or cassettes. With DSD64 to DSD512 seems we are there. Only issue is making sure the record companies start with a good analog master to create their DSD files and not use a lower digital format.
The proprietary MQA lossy "container" crap needs to go away. Just give us DSD...
I'm 62 and likely can't hear the difference since my hearing tops out at 14KHz....But for younger people, their wives or girlfriends (who generally have better high frequency hearing) and their cats and dogs, they are entering a golden age of possible audio quality.
Sad that many will never get beyond listening to music on crappy cell phone DACs and $10 earbuds...
Why give it warmth and not the original sound.? You are then coloring the sound to taste like adding extra salt to a dish that doesn't need it. Not bashing you my friend it just brings to mind those old fats like me in their 60's and older that seem to think records sound better because they are "warm" and have those pops in them. I'm a musician and I enjoy the music as it was performed, not colored in any way.
You can “color” the sound by just the components. A myriad of choices. You can color the sound by the room acoustics in which you listen to your components. That is an extreme deep fox hole to enter.
Warmth?? PCM 16-bit 44.1kHz can record exactly the same as the original. You want it warm? Mix it in an other way and it sounds warm on PCM16/44 as well.
16 bit means 96db dynamic range. Much more than needed. 44.1kHz give a freq. response of 2-20.000 Hz. Try a tone generator and listen how far your ears can get... For most people there is nothing above 13kHz and higher. If a DSD recording sounds different, then it's because of another mix. Nothing else. Just enjoy the music!
@@KR1275 some people with better ears than mine say 16 bit/44.1 still sounds grainy and "digital" to them. Hence DSD with its 64 or more times better than CD sampling rate has the potential to get rid of that "digital" sound and be more analog-like.
I agree with you. At the end of the day, enjoy the music. But if DSD sticks around and the processing gets cheaper, then no harm or foul...
@@mr.b4444 meaning the warmth of the original sound, something that digital lost along the way....Maybe with DSD it can get it back. Like having our cake and eating it too as they say.
Oh, I don't know, Paul. My Muntz 4-track from the '50's sounds good to my old ears ;-)
“True perfection seems imperfect, yet it is perfectly itself”.
Film vs Digital
Turntable vs CD
Digital is trending.
But Analog is immortal.
78 rpm shellac records, digitally restored (decracked) in glorious PCM 24/192 and played back via Non-OS R2R-DAC imho. 🤔
Can I get it on Spotify?...
When it comes to recording the music, there is no point in debating the pros and cons of tape. The imperfections are desirable in some situations. Once the music has been captured with the imperfect sounds the artist intended to create, then make a digital copy of it and call it done.
8 tracks 👍
DSD is my preferred digital format but the lack of available material has persuaded me to go back to vinyl after more than 40 years. I really do like DSD, when I can get it. Even 96/24 and higher rate FLAC is quite limited in the type of music I listen most to, classical. There is much more available in vinyl for this genre.
You sure? a lot of classical is on CD, no?
@@malthus101 I agree that there is a lot of wonderful classical music available on CD. Certainly CD sound quality has improved over the past 40 years. That said, I still much prefer a good DSD release over a Redbook CD. Over the past year, I have focused on the acquisition of good vinyl. There are a number of companies like Speakers Corner and Analogue Productions that are putting out some very high quality re-releases of classical music recorded many years ago. That is my current preferred format.
High-quality vinyl, with an ultrasonic cleaning and good stereo system, is magical.
It is if you don't mind losing about 100db of dynamic range, and that's the least of it. You stamped out pancake guys really need to come into the 21st century. I had direct to discs on very good tables with excellent moving coil cartridges, etc. and compared to SACD or above, they sound pathetic. Ultrasonic cleaning, LOL. You don't have to clean anything with a digital recording, and the highs don't get wiped off in the first 20 passes, etc. In fact they never degrade, ever.
I heard there is one better, but only a few recording to listen to: DBX DISC. Any comment?
DBX was always a step up for just plain old tape, but once DSD came on the scene nothing ever came close.
Well, I own about 100 Super Audio CDs. I'm not very impressed. Some sound great, like Carole King's Tapestry, Meat Loaf's Bat Out of Hell, and T.Rex's Electric Warrior. However, the majority of my SACDs sound too soft and veiled. Sure, DSD might be great for recording in the studio, but something seems to be getting lost in translation when mastering for Super Audio.
That’s probably not the fault of the format, but rather the misuse of it with less than stellar mastering.
Not saying the songs themselves are the best but the quality of the audio recordings just sound best from the 80s. Maybe it’s just me but 80s music just sounds so clean.
Where can I listen to this DSD? With music that I like...
There's a decent amount of DSD stuff on the web, a lot of it not natively-recorded, but coverted from Vinyl, though still incredible-sounding.
You won't have the luxury of finding a lot of music thay you may want specifically though, as DSD is not mainstream.
Also, you must make sure your DAC can decode DSD, but even if it can only do DOP (DSD over PCM) you can still hear amazing differences.
@@edfort5704 Converted from Vinyl ? Not an expert here but there would be no sonic benefit to that. DSD can only sound as good as the original and if that happens to be an LP it inherits its sonic limitations.
@@mr.b4444 Yes, but it still sounds better than any other digital music out there right now, a la CD PCM (16 bit 44.1kHz)
Currently I use and appreciate DSP to fix room issues. No choice but to convert to PCM so probably not worth the hassle. There's a good amount of catalog in 24/96+ in Qobuz/Tidal. My plan is to invest to a good NOS R2R DAC and do the oversampling on the Roon server in another room.
I agree with Paul that for all practical purposes the .dsd format is the best one can use. As far as analog goes probably the best was the Ampex 300 Series. I don't even know if you could get one of those old dinosaurs working to factory specs today. As far as Digital the best would be the .raw format. But that would not be a practical format for home or even most studio use.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampex
Paul converts his DSD to PCM for playability so where is the gain?
How is your hearing aid
Man how did you get all this knowledge
I can easily sacrifice dynamic headroom for smoothness
My brother and i are also from Nancy. We are both Nancy boys.
PCM and DSD are completely equivalent, and even garbage 16-bit resistor ladder DACs are close to the limit of human hearing. Noise shaping dithering and either resistor ladders at 96kHz, or delta-sigma modulators at 48kHz, completely fill to the edge of known human auditory performance. DSD is mostly wank: it's not broken, it's just needlessly complicated to use PDM rather than PCM. The other dirty secret? PDM/DSD recordings are produced with PCM DSP.
Furthermore, even "octuple rate" DSD only has equivalent amplitude precision to 9-bit PCM at 48kHz, and only gets 16 bits of instantaneous precision (equivalent to CD) at 375Hz. In practice this doesn't matter because the human ear is not really that sensitive to amplitude, and gets less sensitive to it at higher frequencies, but it highlights another reason why PDM is a compromise like any other.
I love a good format wars. :)
What war?? Nowadays no one cares about formats. 99% is satisfied with MP3. A good MP3 file (192kHz and above) sounds great. The people who say they hear difference are faking (let's call them 'audiophiles').
@@KR1275 You come off as either clueless or an outright bs-er. Just so you know.
Anyone out there can just try a good DSD recording to put your bs at rest and they don't even need anything more than entry-level audio gear.
@@edfort5704 Sure.
The correct answer is, of course, MiniDisc.
UA-cam is missing emoticons. Do it! We have a pandelic.
DCC
The best audio format is live music(even that is changed by any amplification). The best audio format would be more people to be able to play musical instruments in their own home. You can’t beat the real thing. The sound of a string instrument,a wind instrument only a few feet away from you(yadayafa room acoustics) but that is the best format. Unfortunately,we have forgotten that.