I mostly agree with Paul's technical explanations, except for his DSD vs. PCM statements. The DSD discussion goes always around sample rate, but bit depth is completely out of focus, simply omitted while talking the topic. Pure DSD is a 1 Bit format, not editable, due the mathematical fact. For mixing and mastering, the 1-bit signal must be converted to PCM. To disguise this fact, the DSD addicts prefer the acronym DXD, which is high sample rate (352.8kHz) PCM (what Paul has disclosed in an earlier video). Paul is correct in describing modern AD/DA converter architecture. But he omits the fact, that these Delta-Sigma converters are since years multi bit converters, usually four up the eight bits. Today, we are seeing a combination (synthesis) of pure DSD and PCM concepts. The high sample rate digital (RAW) data can be converted by decimation into different distribution formats. The whole DSD vs. PCM discussion is, seen with the eyes of a digital audio engineer, primarily some sort of subjective preference with a touch of religious believing. I agree with Mater Suspiriorum, the key today is the mixing and mostly the mastering process.
I believe that there is too much confusion with all of the different types of digital technology being added or mixed in to the equation and when we speak about all of this it becomes like scrambled eggs in my head. Too much knowledge can be a bad thing sometimes. The topic of digital formats is getting way out of hand regarding all of the nomenclature that’s involved and it gets worse by the week IMHO.
@@stimpy1226 Confusing - indeed, digital audio technology is very complex. Most people in the high-end industry (as far as sales and marketing is concerned), have a very poor knowledgebase in digital audio or sometimes a complete lack of understanding. Therefore, a lot of false and controversy information is communicated - since the introduction of CD in 1982. Thus, all these bold statements “this is great, that is rubbish, sounds fantastic, sounds awful”- black and white. In addition, marketing tries to simplify the topic, to made it understandable for customers and push sales for the brand. And they fail often miserably. All this does not help to get a clear picture. On the other hand, if the key basics and key elements of digital audio technology would be explained within a two-hour seminar from an independent body, capable to convey the topic for non techies, much of the confusion would be gone. Paul does a good job in this respect. As said, I only fully disagree with his DSD vs. PCM statement.
@@fritzfabig4963 I like what you had to say. I know I did not mention that I have a masters degree in system science which is a combination of both hardware and software but I haven’t used it in over 40 years. I worked as a logic design engineer with the first 8 foot microprocessor chips. I consider myself a decent engineer during the four years that I practiced. When information keeps changing on a weekly basis with the new acronyms being introduced on a weekly basis and integrated all together it makes my head spin. I like your idea of a two hour tutorial and start from the ground up.
@@stimpy1226 I've been using DSD and PCM since around 2000, through a multi channel Sony SACD/DVD player that had 6 analog outputs and a Audigy 2 platinum Ex on the PC. I've used many DAC and ADCs since then and really, these aren't new terms. Try using the concept of it being played, converted and then output as seperate processes with their own terminology and technology and for me it becomes a little easier at least then you can keep certain ones seperate if you understand the chain of how the music is presented.
@@liquidone2908 They may not be new terms but they are all getting compressed into the process every time I try to understand what Paul is trying to express. The very fact that you’ve been up-to-date with this since 2000 is a better indicator of why you can follow what’s going on. I am not the only one who has issues with so many new acronyms working together. One of the things that amazes me is that show many people seem to be experts with this technology but as soon as Paul starts to post equations on a whiteboard or in Paul’s posts I quickly realized that all of these people who pontificate having no idea of what electrical engineering is about.
For me this is where the who debate gets lost. Due to poor mastering decisions, too many people think digital is bad. They listen to a CD with a DR of 6 and decide all Redbook CD's must sound terrible. It's not the case. The whole "unique sound of Vinyl" is a bit of a myth too. There are plenty of needledrops on UA-cam, and those digital recordings give you the analog experience as playing the record does. DSD and PCM are simply recording what is there, albeit with different sample rates. Still, tapes won't last forever. They simply can't. Relying on tape - which is itself a mechanical process - cannot possibly be the future. How are we going to store them? We're not! We'll go digital! Hell, the reality is, we've already gone digital. I buy both CD and Vinyl. I do SACD as well. The Vinyl I enjoy the most are for albums that have been butchered in the mastering process on CD. A badly mastered DSD recording pressed onto SACD will still sound bad. But guess what? A bad master on Vinyl will sound bad as well. We simply must give equal credit to the producers and mixing engineers. They hold the key to all this. They ultimately decide what we hear. Yet all the talk is about tech.
"The whole "unique sound of Vinyl" is a bit of a myth too. There are plenty of needledrops on UA-cam, and those digital recordings give you the analog experience as playing the record does." Please provide this link to a youtube that transfers the audio to me strictly analog. One that does not use digital at any point in the trasnfer process.
@Douglas Blake Right, it's not about technology limitations in the digital format when music doesn't sound perfect nowadays. DSD is not actually an option for digital mastering as it doesn't support any processing thus only for the recording of the tracks, DSD can be the recording format but as soon as you want to turn those tracks into stereo, PCM is needed and you end up with a stereo PCM master. Some people will then call it "DXD" to hide that fact and sell it as DSD to obfuscate that the actual master was PCM.
@@glenncurry3041 Sorry Glenn, but you managed to misunderstand what I wrote. Besides. if the digital sounds the same, you'd not notice any difference. The Mofi incident has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, audiophiles can't tell the difference in blind tests. Insisting in all analog, when it makes no difference, is basically more of a cult than a preference. IMO.
For archiving, however, the only way to maintain an accurate digital file is to have multiple copies, and to keep recopying the file. This is true for all media, whether it be ink on parchment or bits in the cloud-the only way to ensure that the future has access to some product of human art is to keep recopying it. Digital degrades extremely quickly; analogue tape less so; vinyl much less so. All the digital music we have now will be lost unless it remains popular or there is some organization (private or public) that decides that it is worth investing money to keep it in existence. Buy a vinyl record and your great, great grandkids will be able to listen to it in some form.
It is always good to understand the technical aspects, which for some is an enjoyment unto itself; however, those who wish to not know and just enjoy the music without the hassle...let them alone, as well as those who make arguments and stirring up trouble a career --just let them to their own devices...life is so much less of a hassle without looking for trouble...as trouble easily enough finds you anyhow! (ignorance is a taskmaster of just making one frustrated; while the process can be "fun" if you choose to allow the hobby to be just that!), but never lose the pure childish joy of exploring and logically and realistically enjoy the pure love of the hobby! To get into hateful arguments that at the end of your life won't mean anything at all, except to have made wasteful arguments that accomplished what?
I agree 100%. It is interesting to learn about these technologies but to my ear, I can't hear any differences between DSD and PCM no matter how they are captured or processed. They both sound wonderful. What so many critics can't understand is that these differences cannot be used as a means of determining what's "right or wrong" - it's all about preference, whether anyone can hear any differences or not. I love this hobby but hate the dysfunctionality of it.
Hooray!! Finally, Paul you've made the point that the vast majority of PCM convertors actually start off with a sigma/delta stream that then gets converted to PCM if that is what is required. Also the fact that music/sound is captured in many different ways - magnetic particles being moved about, tiny bumps on a disc, densities of 1's and 0's bits, binary codes. The only one of these that is absolutely 100% digital is the binary code one one better known as PCM. This is the only digital music format that exists that can truly be called DIGITAL, the others can be referred to as analogue in the context of them not being digital but the fact is ALL music captures are analogues of the sound they are trying to capture however good or bad (subjective) they may be. So forget the analogue/digital tedious confusing, partisan debate and concentrate on the actual process going on here! Yes I agree 'DSD' actually Pulse density modulation/sigma/delta modulation is the very best way of capturing music we have right now but as is constantly pointed out is very impractical when it comes to being manipulated for many projects hence why it's such a niche market.
Good explanation about modern DAC. All modern DAC use Sigma-Delta technology, which is the basis of DSD. That this DAC export to PCM is simply because is difficult to mix and process audio in native DSD. All music is mixed and process by sound engineers before being printed on any media.
I would urge anyone to try a true NOS DAC fed by a software upsampler like HQPlayer. Game changing digital not possible in a conventional upsampling DAC.
PCM for at least the present moment is the most used format and yes you are right we are headed to a higher plane of digital technology in the future of Audio. Vinyl records will not go quietly into the night for the analog diehards. They will go kicking and screaming and they will still have this physical format for the rest of their lives that they can still rely on.
Some older DAC work better in high sample rate rather than 44.1/16 and upsample may helped a bit. Modern DAC won’t get any advantage over that, since most of them have some kind of delta-sigma upsample and conversion inside the DAC chip already.
I met an upsampler (Assemblage D2D-1) that not only upsamples 16 bit to 24 and 44.1kHz to 96kHz, but also cleans and optimizes the digital signal from the CD drive. The sound is better. I don't know how it is today, but I've seen older CD decks improved by replacing the integrated generator with a precision quartz generator..
I love all my vinyl. I play it on a pretty nice Rega P3/2M Bronze/Schiit Mani 2 setup. Gorgeous! But I got a Rel T7/X to go with my Maggie .7s, and hmmm. I’m taking a break from vinyl because the low-end rumble is overwhelming. CDs are my alternative, with streaming filling in the #3 background slot. Hmmm, what can be done? How’s DSD gonna move #3 up in the ranks?
Paul, you would make a great used car salesman! The way you take just a little piece of information and twist them into something different and then sell it with a look of sincerity is incredible. Like implying that because a Delta Sigma converter creates a pulse suddenly PCM is created from DSD. You of course neglected the rest of the conversion process. You also neglect how huge amounts of noise must be added to DSD (PDM) to reduce distortion caused by the inaccuracy of quantization of the audio signal to a single bit and how that noise has to be filtered out and readded every time a DSD file is created. You like to play on the fact that DSD has a considerably higher sample rate and imply that it is a better resolution when in fact, DSD 64 is in reality only only1/32768 of a 16-bit resolution PCM file. I get it. You have invested a whole lot of money into the whole "audiophile" snake oil process and you need to make money on it. Unfortunately, when you take that to a public forum like youtube or the internet, you have to expect people who know better to speak up and say that isn't right.
Sigma delta conversion is why DSD can sound awesome but PCM can also use sigma delta DACs. PCM is as good as you make it to with higher sample rate and big resolution. This DSD obsession is not justified nowadays and in actuality any modern digital mastering process will ALWAYS result in a PCM output.
Absolutely. The vast majority of recording projects need a PCM finished capture for mixing, mastering and for folks wanting play back using differing forms of DSP in the home. However it's important to understand folk recording into PURE DSD, no mixing just simple edits and then selling you this to play back with no DSP intended. A very niche market and hardly mainstream but it exists and should be recognised for what it is trying to achieve.
@@igorkrajnc5915 I think Paul is saying that you can't reproduce what was never recorded. If you have half a dozen eggs, you can't make a dozen out of it.
DSD may be superior but where, other than Octave Records, can you hear it? Don't all the CDs and streaming services just play PCM. Personally I don't have a lot of interest in new music, I like the old stuff, which best I can tell was all recorded on tape and transferred to PCM onto CD. DSD recordings onto SACDs are as rare as rocking-horse pooh so why persist with DSD when next to nobody else is doing it? I would love it if DSD recordings of the old stuff where readily available but best I can tell they are not.
@Douglas Blake I'm not sure where you got your information but it is wrong. The digital information on a Red Book audio CD is 16-bit 44.1 kHz PCM. A simple google search will verify this information.
@@geddylee501 That is not true. Of those 2300 albums fully 98% are either DSD conversions from PCM or DSD copies of analog tape. There are very few native DSD albums in existence.
What's the advantage of DSD exactly? Less CPU overhead? You can encode any sample rate at any bit rate with PCM, right? So what's the advantage other than data compression?
I strongly disagree that DSD is inherently a better format than PCM. I suspect it's entirely down to the AtoD converter. A pure multi bit converter, one that directly spits out PCM, is inherently more difficult to engineer perfectly. It's simply a more complex circuit and requires more precise component tolerances. (The same is true for DACs, this is why most R2R dacs are so much more expensive that Delta Sigma DACs) This is why you at Octave can convert to PCM for your mastering process without degrading the quality, that wouldn't be the case if there was a problem with the PCM format itself. ADCs that capture in DSD and immediately convert to PCM need to do that conversion in realtime and are likely not using a process that is optimized for quality, but rather for speed.
Hi Paul, The questioner talks about conversion of 44.1/16bit to DSD512 then back to PCM; why on earth would anyone want to do that? Conversion of any PCM rate to DSD would appear to be an advantage if the DAC being used is a sigma/delta based one as the conversion is simpler for the DAC. Your own DAC's do this don't they? - that is convert all incoming signal to DSD?
What's the point..when you by a record (or a SACD) there is no standard for reporting on exactly HOW the medium was mastered. And in most case the record company does NOT want you to know how it was mastered. They used to have those AAD, ADD and DD on CD's, but that's not even done anymore.
Nothing you can do to any recording will make a copy better than the original. In most cases, particularly with analog, there will be degradation. If it is all digital, if the copy has to be an exact bit-for-bit duplicate.
Growing up with fm static trying to record your cassettes from radio because you couldn't afford to buy the albums or singles makes UA-cam a great sound platform..It's all about perspectives. When you are not comparing it directly to the latest sound and just enjoying your favourite artists its just fine. ..better that fine. Some yt sounds amazing and alot sounds great.
@@sbbinahee Unfortunately, a lot of digital audio is prepared lousy and sounds like sh*t too ..Personally, I get sick of listening to lifeless sounding crap that people perceive as quality. The difference between analog and digital is that the things that are annoying are different, but they both still have issues. So, before some of you try to debate this, just pick your poison and move on. I only care about the results, not the method, and I’ve experienced good and bad in all methods. ✌️ My $0.02.
If the music moves you it moves you or it doesn't. Tbh formats come and go but the music should move you regardless of the format. Great quality is wonderful but I'd rather have a vast library of good sounding music than a handful of specific hd recordings that sound great... because THEY are in the minority.
That day can be today. Stick with what you have and just listen and love your music. People who tinker do so because they want to, not because they have to.
The tinkering thing has been around since I was involved in hifi. Many of the things that I tried weren’t worth the effort (but it was a good learning experience).
@@titntin5178 I've never found anything that sounds more analogue than my Acoustic Precision Eikos cd player in years, I'll stick with it and ignore dsd
Will still work ? This is not even guaranteed, for example in the absence of mains power supply (nowadays almost managed digitally) ... 😂 Please note that I'm a curious specimen, being both vinyl and digital fan ! Long life to both formats !
Upsampling pcm CAN HELP improve audio , given the hardware and software is right and up to par.
Correct...
I mostly agree with Paul's technical explanations, except for his DSD vs. PCM statements. The DSD discussion goes always around sample rate, but bit depth is completely out of focus, simply omitted while talking the topic. Pure DSD is a 1 Bit format, not editable, due the mathematical fact. For mixing and mastering, the 1-bit signal must be converted to PCM. To disguise this fact, the DSD addicts prefer the acronym DXD, which is high sample rate (352.8kHz) PCM (what Paul has disclosed in an earlier video).
Paul is correct in describing modern AD/DA converter architecture. But he omits the fact, that these Delta-Sigma converters are since years multi bit converters, usually four up the eight bits. Today, we are seeing a combination (synthesis) of pure DSD and PCM concepts. The high sample rate digital (RAW) data can be converted by decimation into different distribution formats. The whole DSD vs. PCM discussion is, seen with the eyes of a digital audio engineer, primarily some sort of subjective preference with a touch of religious believing.
I agree with Mater Suspiriorum, the key today is the mixing and mostly the mastering process.
I believe that there is too much confusion with all of the different types of digital technology being added or mixed in to the equation and when we speak about all of this it becomes like scrambled eggs in my head. Too much knowledge can be a bad thing sometimes. The topic of digital formats is getting way out of hand regarding all of the nomenclature that’s involved and it gets worse by the week IMHO.
@@stimpy1226 Confusing - indeed, digital audio technology is very complex. Most people in the high-end industry (as far as sales and marketing is concerned), have a very poor knowledgebase in digital audio or sometimes a complete lack of understanding. Therefore, a lot of false and controversy information is communicated - since the introduction of CD in 1982. Thus, all these bold statements “this is great, that is rubbish, sounds fantastic, sounds awful”- black and white. In addition, marketing tries to simplify the topic, to made it understandable for customers and push sales for the brand. And they fail often miserably. All this does not help to get a clear picture.
On the other hand, if the key basics and key elements of digital audio technology would be explained within a two-hour seminar from an independent body, capable to convey the topic for non techies, much of the confusion would be gone.
Paul does a good job in this respect. As said, I only fully disagree with his DSD vs. PCM statement.
@@fritzfabig4963 I like what you had to say. I know I did not mention that I have a masters degree in system science which is a combination of both hardware and software but I haven’t used it in over 40 years. I worked as a logic design engineer with the first 8 foot microprocessor chips. I consider myself a decent engineer during the four years that I practiced. When information keeps changing on a weekly basis with the new acronyms being introduced on a weekly basis and integrated all together it makes my head spin. I like your idea of a two hour tutorial and start from the ground up.
@@stimpy1226 I've been using DSD and PCM since around 2000, through a multi channel Sony SACD/DVD player that had 6 analog outputs and a Audigy 2 platinum Ex on the PC. I've used many DAC and ADCs since then and really, these aren't new terms. Try using the concept of it being played, converted and then output as seperate processes with their own terminology and technology and for me it becomes a little easier at least then you can keep certain ones seperate if you understand the chain of how the music is presented.
@@liquidone2908 They may not be new terms but they are all getting compressed into the process every time I try to understand what Paul is trying to express. The very fact that you’ve been up-to-date with this since 2000 is a better indicator of why you can follow what’s going on. I am not the only one who has issues with so many new acronyms working together. One of the things that amazes me is that show many people seem to be experts with this technology but as soon as Paul starts to post equations on a whiteboard or in Paul’s posts I quickly realized that all of these people who pontificate having no idea of what electrical engineering is about.
For me this is where the who debate gets lost. Due to poor mastering decisions, too many people think digital is bad. They listen to a CD with a DR of 6 and decide all Redbook CD's must sound terrible. It's not the case. The whole "unique sound of Vinyl" is a bit of a myth too. There are plenty of needledrops on UA-cam, and those digital recordings give you the analog experience as playing the record does. DSD and PCM are simply recording what is there, albeit with different sample rates.
Still, tapes won't last forever. They simply can't. Relying on tape - which is itself a mechanical process - cannot possibly be the future. How are we going to store them? We're not! We'll go digital! Hell, the reality is, we've already gone digital.
I buy both CD and Vinyl. I do SACD as well. The Vinyl I enjoy the most are for albums that have been butchered in the mastering process on CD. A badly mastered DSD recording pressed onto SACD will still sound bad. But guess what? A bad master on Vinyl will sound bad as well.
We simply must give equal credit to the producers and mixing engineers. They hold the key to all this. They ultimately decide what we hear. Yet all the talk is about tech.
"The whole "unique sound of Vinyl" is a bit of a myth too. There are plenty of needledrops on UA-cam, and those digital recordings give you the analog experience as playing the record does."
Please provide this link to a youtube that transfers the audio to me strictly analog. One that does not use digital at any point in the trasnfer process.
@Douglas Blake Right, it's not about technology limitations in the digital format when music doesn't sound perfect nowadays. DSD is not actually an option for digital mastering as it doesn't support any processing thus only for the recording of the tracks, DSD can be the recording format but as soon as you want to turn those tracks into stereo, PCM is needed and you end up with a stereo PCM master. Some people will then call it "DXD" to hide that fact and sell it as DSD to obfuscate that the actual master was PCM.
@@glenncurry3041 Obviously all audio coming from any device playing music from the internet or from a local file will always be entirely digital 100%.
@@glenncurry3041 Sorry Glenn, but you managed to misunderstand what I wrote. Besides. if the digital sounds the same, you'd not notice any difference. The Mofi incident has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, audiophiles can't tell the difference in blind tests. Insisting in all analog, when it makes no difference, is basically more of a cult than a preference. IMO.
For archiving, however, the only way to maintain an accurate digital file is to have multiple copies, and to keep recopying the file. This is true for all media, whether it be ink on parchment or bits in the cloud-the only way to ensure that the future has access to some product of human art is to keep recopying it. Digital degrades extremely quickly; analogue tape less so; vinyl much less so. All the digital music we have now will be lost unless it remains popular or there is some organization (private or public) that decides that it is worth investing money to keep it in existence. Buy a vinyl record and your great, great grandkids will be able to listen to it in some form.
The Chord Hugo M-Scaler really smoothed out the music vs. just using the TT2 DAC.
It is always good to understand the technical aspects, which for some is an enjoyment unto itself; however, those who wish to not know and just enjoy the music without the hassle...let them alone, as well as those who make arguments and stirring up trouble a career --just let them to their own devices...life is so much less of a hassle without looking for trouble...as trouble easily enough finds you anyhow! (ignorance is a taskmaster of just making one frustrated; while the process can be "fun" if you choose to allow the hobby to be just that!), but never lose the pure childish joy of exploring and logically and realistically enjoy the pure love of the hobby!
To get into hateful arguments that at the end of your life won't mean anything at all, except to have made wasteful arguments that accomplished what?
I agree 100%. It is interesting to learn about these technologies but to my ear, I can't hear any differences between DSD and PCM no matter how they are captured or processed. They both sound wonderful. What so many critics can't understand is that these differences cannot be used as a means of determining what's "right or wrong" - it's all about preference, whether anyone can hear any differences or not.
I love this hobby but hate the dysfunctionality of it.
Thanks for your explanation Paul. ✌
Hooray!!
Finally, Paul you've made the point that the vast majority of PCM convertors actually start off with a sigma/delta stream that then gets converted to PCM if that is what is required.
Also the fact that music/sound is captured in many different ways - magnetic particles being moved about, tiny bumps on a disc, densities of 1's and 0's bits, binary codes. The only one of these that is absolutely 100% digital is the binary code one one better known as PCM. This is the only digital music format that exists that can truly be called DIGITAL, the others can be referred to as analogue in the context of them not being digital but the fact is ALL music captures are analogues of the sound they are trying to capture however good or bad (subjective) they may be.
So forget the analogue/digital tedious confusing, partisan debate and concentrate on the actual process going on here!
Yes I agree 'DSD' actually Pulse density modulation/sigma/delta modulation is the very best way of capturing music we have right now but as is constantly pointed out is very impractical when it comes to being manipulated for many projects hence why it's such a niche market.
Good explanation about modern DAC. All modern DAC use Sigma-Delta technology, which is the basis of DSD. That this DAC export to PCM is simply because is difficult to mix and process audio in native DSD. All music is mixed and process by sound engineers before being printed on any media.
🤗A SIMPLE NO,PAUL 👍 GOOD ANSWER AND EXPLANATION 😎💚💚💚
Been giving serious thought to pouring chemicals in my eyes so I go blind so I can hear my music better. This might even land me a spot on Dr. Phil.
Great thoughts paul, thanks!
Yes, that's why I'm buying a Luxman D-10x. I can't wait😍
I would urge anyone to try a true NOS DAC fed by a software upsampler like HQPlayer. Game changing digital not possible in a conventional upsampling DAC.
PCM for at least the present moment is the most used format and yes you are right we are headed to a higher plane of digital technology in the future of Audio. Vinyl records will not go quietly into the night for the analog diehards. They will go kicking and screaming and they will still have this physical format for the rest of their lives that they can still rely on.
Some older DAC work better in high sample rate rather than 44.1/16 and upsample may helped a bit. Modern DAC won’t get any advantage over that, since most of them have some kind of delta-sigma upsample and conversion inside the DAC chip already.
Digital isn’t bad. Compression is bad.
I met an upsampler (Assemblage D2D-1) that not only upsamples 16 bit to 24 and 44.1kHz to 96kHz, but also cleans and optimizes the digital signal from the CD drive. The sound is better. I don't know how it is today, but I've seen older CD decks improved by replacing the integrated generator with a precision quartz generator..
I love all my vinyl. I play it on a pretty nice Rega P3/2M Bronze/Schiit Mani 2 setup. Gorgeous! But I got a Rel T7/X to go with my Maggie .7s, and hmmm. I’m taking a break from vinyl because the low-end rumble is overwhelming. CDs are my alternative, with streaming filling in the #3 background slot. Hmmm, what can be done? How’s DSD gonna move #3 up in the ranks?
Paul, you would make a great used car salesman!
The way you take just a little piece of information and twist them into something different and then sell it with a look of sincerity is incredible.
Like implying that because a Delta Sigma converter creates a pulse suddenly PCM is created from DSD.
You of course neglected the rest of the conversion process.
You also neglect how huge amounts of noise must be added to DSD (PDM) to reduce distortion caused by the inaccuracy of quantization of the audio signal to a single bit and how that noise has to be filtered out and readded every time a DSD file is created.
You like to play on the fact that DSD has a considerably higher sample rate and imply that it is a better resolution when in fact, DSD 64 is in reality only only1/32768 of a 16-bit resolution PCM file.
I get it.
You have invested a whole lot of money into the whole "audiophile" snake oil process and you need to make money on it.
Unfortunately, when you take that to a public forum like youtube or the internet, you have to expect people who know better to speak up and say that isn't right.
thank you Paul.
Based on Paul's explanation. I believe he'll dislile the Cayin N7 dap, which converts PCM to DSD by default.
Sigma delta conversion is why DSD can sound awesome but PCM can also use sigma delta DACs. PCM is as good as you make it to with higher sample rate and big resolution. This DSD obsession is not justified nowadays and in actuality any modern digital mastering process will ALWAYS result in a PCM output.
Absolutely. The vast majority of recording projects need a PCM finished capture for mixing, mastering and for folks wanting play back using differing forms of DSP in the home. However it's important to understand folk recording into PURE DSD, no mixing just simple edits and then selling you this to play back with no DSP intended. A very niche market and hardly mainstream but it exists and should be recognised for what it is trying to achieve.
@@angelwars3176 Agree 100%
What about converting my PCM files to DSD and then to analog? JRiver allows to do that. Can You elaborate?
He directly addresses this in the video.
My DAC converts all PCM files to 128 or 256 dsd. Not in all cases , but most files sounds more detailed , deep and dsd like , so Paul is wrong.
@@igorkrajnc5915 I think Paul is saying that you can't reproduce what was never recorded. If you have half a dozen eggs, you can't make a dozen out of it.
@@igorkrajnc5915 Which DAC do you own please ? I wonder whether it's available in the UK?
@@andrewbrazier9664 i own APL DSD AR dac. Yes , there is a dealer in UK:
DSD may be superior but where, other than Octave Records, can you hear it?
Don't all the CDs and streaming services just play PCM.
Personally I don't have a lot of interest in new music, I like the old stuff, which best I can tell was all recorded on tape and transferred to PCM onto CD. DSD recordings onto SACDs are as rare as rocking-horse pooh so why persist with DSD when next to nobody else is doing it?
I would love it if DSD recordings of the old stuff where readily available but best I can tell they are not.
NativeDSD have 2300 albums, that's not very many hmm
@Douglas Blake I'm not sure where you got your information but it is wrong.
The digital information on a Red Book audio CD is 16-bit 44.1 kHz PCM.
A simple google search will verify this information.
@@geddylee501 That is not true.
Of those 2300 albums fully 98% are either DSD conversions from PCM or DSD copies of analog tape.
There are very few native DSD albums in existence.
@@geddylee501 And how many of those 2300 albums are not just some niche hipster stuff?
@@RJ-vy4yd mostly classical lol
I love how he just mixed up the Maxell ad with the Memorex slogan.
I'm pretty sure it's pronounced to Brisb-n
What's the advantage of DSD exactly? Less CPU overhead? You can encode any sample rate at any bit rate with PCM, right? So what's the advantage other than data compression?
I strongly disagree that DSD is inherently a better format than PCM. I suspect it's entirely down to the AtoD converter. A pure multi bit converter, one that directly spits out PCM, is inherently more difficult to engineer perfectly. It's simply a more complex circuit and requires more precise component tolerances. (The same is true for DACs, this is why most R2R dacs are so much more expensive that Delta Sigma DACs) This is why you at Octave can convert to PCM for your mastering process without degrading the quality, that wouldn't be the case if there was a problem with the PCM format itself. ADCs that capture in DSD and immediately convert to PCM need to do that conversion in realtime and are likely not using a process that is optimized for quality, but rather for speed.
Hi Paul,
The questioner talks about conversion of 44.1/16bit to DSD512 then back to PCM;
why on earth would anyone want to do that?
Conversion of any PCM rate to DSD would appear to be an advantage if the DAC being used is a sigma/delta based one as the conversion is simpler for the DAC. Your own DAC's do this don't they? - that is convert all incoming signal to DSD?
Only vinyl.
Where do you lose data when transferring to 192 kHz 24bit?
What do you mean by "lose data"? 192-24 compared to what?
Won't it help with say up sampling and then mixing multiple streams then down sampling?
Ah, Brisbane catches another one out 😂
It was Memorex, not Maxell.
And they were a better quality tape as I remember lol
BASF, TDK ahhhhh remember the days 👍
Digital was sold to us as a stable platform. Now every DAC sounds different. Why?
They are working of going beyond upsampling. Soon you will need to study a 200 page manual before you listen to music
Lol yes
What's the point..when you by a record (or a SACD) there is no standard for reporting on exactly HOW the medium was mastered. And in most case the record company does NOT want you to know how it was mastered. They used to have those AAD, ADD and DD on CD's, but that's not even done anymore.
Nothing you can do to any recording will make a copy better than the original.
In most cases, particularly with analog, there will be degradation.
If it is all digital, if the copy has to be an exact bit-for-bit duplicate.
You cannot create a three egg omelette out of 2 eggs. Simple.
Will listening to UA-cam music destroy my hearing first or my brain first. 🤔
@@davidfromamerica1871 It's probably why Paul doesn't post any music on his UA-cam channel.
Growing up with fm static trying to record your cassettes from radio because you couldn't afford to buy the albums or singles makes UA-cam a great sound platform..It's all about perspectives. When you are not comparing it directly to the latest sound and just enjoying your favourite artists its just fine. ..better that fine. Some yt sounds amazing and alot sounds great.
@@sbbinahee Unfortunately,
a lot of digital audio is prepared lousy and sounds like sh*t too ..Personally, I get sick of listening to lifeless sounding crap that people perceive as quality. The difference between analog and digital is that the things that are annoying are different, but they both still have issues. So, before some of you try to debate this, just pick your poison and move on. I only care about the results, not the method, and I’ve experienced good and bad in all methods. ✌️ My $0.02.
If the music moves you it moves you or it doesn't. Tbh formats come and go but the music should move you regardless of the format. Great quality is wonderful but I'd rather have a vast library of good sounding music than a handful of specific hd recordings that sound great... because THEY are in the minority.
One day we will hopefully see the end of constant tinkering and just be able to enjoy our music like in the olden days lol
That day can be today. Stick with what you have and just listen and love your music.
People who tinker do so because they want to, not because they have to.
The tinkering thing has been around since I was involved in hifi. Many of the things that I tried weren’t worth the effort (but it was a good learning experience).
@@titntin5178 I've never found anything that sounds more analogue than my Acoustic Precision Eikos cd player in years, I'll stick with it and ignore dsd
There is no tinkering. At least, not any more than there's ever been.
@@geddylee501 That's a good point.
yeah wouldn't upsample improvement have huge implications outside just music? llike Nobel prize winning level implications
*
The pits and lands are the physical representations of 1's and 0's that are read by a laser and interpreted by hardware into binary.
digital no thanks PAUL I will stick to records and tape
ok boomer
My vinyl will still work after the EMP happens. Your DSD will not.
Your vinyl has a limited number of playbacks and the audio is degraded more each time you play it back by the stylus wearing down the grooves.
Ah, great reason to listen to shit quality music for all this time until (if ever) that happens.
Will still work ? This is not even guaranteed, for example in the absence of mains power supply (nowadays almost managed digitally) ... 😂 Please note that I'm a curious specimen, being both vinyl and digital fan ! Long life to both formats !
Are you playing them on a hand cranked phonograph?
@@G3rain1 LOL But if you've heard 78s properly played they sound a lot better than one would otherwise suspect.