I'll have to take your word for it :) in any case, the quality of the recording itself is paramount. I can really enjoy both formats if that is the case
DSD and PCM are two ways (domains) to digitally encode the same information. Neither of the two can be better or worse than the other in terms of information resolution. Given the DAC chips current architecture, is easier (energetically cheaper) to convert DSD in analogue as one conversion (encoding) step is bypassed. Hence the perceived improvement in "not so resolving" chains. However, buffering of DSD for dejitter control not being possible without adding complexity and losing the inherent advantages of the format will render the transmission of DSD as such over error/delay prone channels impossible.
The problem with DSD is you can’t mix with it. It is an archival format and isn’t usable in any digital audio workstation. So even if you capture in DSD you always have to convert it to PCM to mix and master, which probably defeats the purpose of capturing in DSD. Ideally you would capture, mix and master at PCM 64bit float or 24bit/796khz and then output that master to DSD for final archiving and playback. That’s probably the best way to have your cake and eat it too.
@@michaelrovner4165 I’m pretty sure that system has to convert DSD into PCM before mixing. No computer program can mix in 1 bit format, which is what DSD is.
Thanks for educational videos Paul. Just started listening to FLAC audio music and for the near future I don't need a system upgrade. This was my second step to improving my humble system audio performance after decoupling my old speakers and my sub from the floor a couple of months ago. Now I experience broader soundstage and distinct imaging. I plan to enjoy this newly discovered nirvana for a while
What would be the diff between an analog record (tape) converted to DSD vs that same analog to PCM? That much difference as it was recorded in DSD directly or not that much of a difference?
I don't think he knows; as clued by some words he stated. You would have to record both simultaneously (equipment for both). And look up how to 'subtract'/find the difference through whichever (audio file supported) program you're using. Audacity doesn't support WV/WavePack. Or look up videos/audios with such examples present.
DSD is considered high resolution. I think a hi-res version of PCM(e.g. 96khz/32bit) will sound equally good like DSD... Also it's said people can tell the difference between best-made mp3s and FLAC. I think they can do the differentiating only when the comparison is side-by-side. If people hear the best mp3 files alone blindly, they wont be able to tell it's mp3 or lossless FLAC.. .mp3 files can sound very good if they are made with careful remastering and proper tuning of the mp3 encoder
The problem is these (PCM, PWM, PDM etc) become complex - this includes things like high bit rate 1-bit DSD (DSD512) DAC shifting noise far up the frequency range away from the audio, also the complexity increases on the modulator order when encoding sound. PWM style DAC ladders require very high precision and stable resistance to create the correct steps of voltages in the lowest bits of a 24bit signal for example. Personally I find DSD nice because all you need is simple reconstruction filter to construct the switches back to an analogue signal compared to PCM->PWM ladder DAC. A separate and even more complex subject is transcoding between PCM PWM to DSD for example. BTW all native MacOS sound uses PWM output as all part of the operating system kernel. Only if you create your own output path (Ie raw USB dad stream that contains the DSD bitstream) and bypass all the inbuilt OS layers that will you have a pure DSD from a DSD source for example.
my question is does DSD come out of a computer as "what." i wanted to pick up a cambridge audio dacmagic 200m to listen to MQA and DSD if i ever wanted to. right now i have to force my windows computer to output audio through usb into my dacmagic 100 as 24/192. how do i force it to DSD? do i even need to? not sure how the drivers work for the newer dac. its so annoying to have all of the indicator lights on the front of the dac for track quality only to have to force it into one mode for everything.
Paul, with respect this is becoming very, very confusing for people so please can you elaborate? My understanding is you don’t actually capture the initial incoming analogue audio signal in PCM as most A/D convertors used these days capture PDM in the front end before it is converted ‘in the box’ to PCM so what’s happening is you’re ‘siphoning off’ the PDM as 1bit PDM (DSD). As it is in itself an analogue capture (even though it is 1’s and 0’s bits) it is closest to the incoming analogue audio signal and incredibly accurate, so it makes sense that it will sound ‘better’ than the PCM it otherwise gets converted into as a secondary process. It does still make arguable sense to convert PCM files into DSD on playback regardless of how it was recorded if the DAC being used is Sigma Delta based as these DAC’s will have more ‘ease’ in accepting a DSD stream for conversion.
DSD can be sampled at a much higher rate - 1 bit at 64 times CD sample rates. To me this is the optimum way to capture music / sound waveforms as it has the ability to capture the very fast transients. I don’t see your analogy of a sneak peak of 1 bit as being near the same as DSD running at 2.8 MHz. The key to DSD is the fast sampling rate - not the one bit. CD’s are essentially raw lossless music (in WAV format) and FLAC is the same exact music but losslessly compressed so easier to store. MP3’s you may know are lossy compression meaning they throw away music using a algorithm. ALAC is Apples’ version of FLAC. Can you hear the difference? Don’t know but I would not pay for more than CD quality unless you want too
@@justinpenn9250 You need to understand PCM vs PDM. DSD does not sample, it's a different process i can't be bothered to explain again. Look at nativedsd.com and read the faq's/blog sections - you'll come out understanding what DSD actually is.
I kind of think Paul just likes delta sigma ADCs. He certainly likes that flavor of DAC. Perhaps because he has a DSP software development team, he can make a better "black box" to go to PCM than is commercially available.
Paul’s answer begs another question. Can we actually tell if an album/track bought online was recorded in DSD or if it’s a 16bit-44.1kHz converted and upsampled?
@@angelwars3176 Back when we would buy the actual CD or (a)vinyl, (the term "a vinyl" still makes me laugh) the liner notes would often have that kind of information. Remember DDD, ADD, AAD etc on CDs? I suppose an element of trust would alter one's level of anxiety somewhat for better or worse.
Will, please review the Blue Coast collection recordings. They were captured in DSD and available on Qobuz 24/192. This proves Paul's findings independently. These recordings are stunning. Absolutely stunning.
Hmm in your video about upsampling you said that upsampling from PCM to DSD is better, because it is easier for the DAC to convert DSD to analogue than it is to convert PCM to analogue, resulting in better sound. In this video you seem to say it is either equal or worse. I'm confused. A little help? :)
This simplifies matters. I have an R2R ladder DAC which cannot convert PCM to DSD. I use it for music files and internet radio. Since I listen to DSD only on 5 channel SACD I am restricted to an older universal disc player that has 5 RCA outputs for the five channels which I connect to five monoblock amplifiers and five speakers because for copyright reasons there are no DACs that decode 5 channel SACD.
It's not correct to say that DSD "captures" music. All it captures is the rate of change of air pressure, by increasing or decreasing the bitstream density. It's kind of "steering" the wave, but not actually capturing it. Whereas PCM does accurately "capture" the absolute amplitude level at each sample. With DSD the playback also suffers from the exponential rise in noise floor starting even before 20kHz! Furthermore, DSD is totally unsuitable for any subsequent mixing and signal processing -- which has to be done in PCM.
Love the idea behind DSD, but isn't it very difficult to edit in the studio in that format? (That's what I read a few weeks ago at least). Do you have to convert it to PCM, do the editing you want, then reconvert it back to DSD? Does this round trip degrade the quality a bit? Thanks.
That depends on whether the whole track is converted to High-Res PCM for editing purposes or if it is just a little snippet of the track, say less than a few seconds. Doing it the latter way, which hardly anyone does for multiple reasons, you won't notice the difference. Getting it right in the first place with proper miking, maybe mixing in the analog domain, etc. is of course a prerequisite because otherwise you would have to make adjustments afterwards to way too long parts of the track and the conversion to PCM and back might/will be noticeable. There are of course also ways to edit DSD directly, but the limited resources, not to mention the lack of knowledge/skills to do so properly are the limiting factors. Despite the fact, that DSD cannot be greatly manipulated before the editing and artifacts become obvious... Recordings using proper miking, good gear+cables, perfect analog mixing and than a conversion to (hopefully at least double-rate) DSD with a few minor edits afterwards are very hard to beat. The only recording technique I could think of that, in my humble opinion, surpasses the before mentioned method, is a direct-to-disc one. Just my 2c...
@@markmywords9649 I would assume as better computers with even more raw power that are affordable or maybe running in parallel become available, files could be edited in DSD (one day). Thanks for the good information. Other than direct to disc or recording using two mics in a church (like Chesky Records does sometimes) and then NOT doing any post processing offers the best quality the format could deliver, yet we all know that mastering engineers and producers love to tweak things. Fortunately as you say, maybe that would be only one part of one track of a vocal or single instrument (if done multi-track), and then a short part too, such that doing the editing in PCM then converting it back to DSD would not result in any appreciable loss in quality. DSD seems poised to become the format of the future, offering the best of both analog (due to its high sampling rate) and digital. Time (and our ears) will tell.
@@rosswarren436 octave records uses the Sonoma mastering system, which is capable of some basic editing of DSD. The guy who developed Sonoma helped make most of the SACDs and he is working with octave records
I’ll tell you exactly what DSD is. It’s the equivalent of BetaMax. It’s an also ran format that won’t gain widespread adoption that’s doomed to disappear from the marketplace. Wait and see. . .
Here's the thing, Beta failed as a consumer format. But it did not go away. In fact, Sony evolved it into Betacam, and that was the goto format for TV news until digital video formats came along...with Digital Beta being a key replacement.
A great mix and mastering job in CD sounds better than a mediocre production in DSD. I'm still in awe at how much they got right with CD right from the start 40 something years ago. Nowadays you take a €400 CD player and it sounds wonderful.
@@nunofernandes4501 You say "a great mix on this sounds better than a mediocre mix on the other". Wouldn't it be more correct to say whether a great mix on this is better/worse or equal, than a great mix on the other? Apples with apples. Not with oranges.
@@Yiannis2112 you didn't understand. I mean that great sounding recordings and masterings will sound great from CD onwards whereas a crappy recording will sound bad even on SACD or DSD. So, to make it clear, the most important is the recording and mastering, not the format or the medium because the humble CD is already capable of great sound.
Paul, if converting DSD to PCM yields almost no difference. Yet, if you recorded directly to PCM, it would be worse than the former (above) PCM encoded file, then it appears to be that your analog to digital (PCM) hardware is lacking somehow. When you convert DSD to PCM, the hardware is irrelevant. It is strictly software that converts file #1 into file #2. And if file #2 sounds roughly 99% as good as the original file #1, then DSD and PCM are nearly identical in terms of their sound quality. Since the only time your PCM encoded files sound noticeably worse, is when you record directly to PCM, then the box you are using for that direct PCM recording is an issue. Please provide the name of your box and software that does the direct analog to PCM creation. Please also provide the name of the box and software that you use to convert DSD formatted files to PCM formatted files. Somewhere in the above equipment list and software list there is an inferior item that is the root cause of your direct PCM files sounding worse than your direct DSD files. Thank you.
it seems to me he is saying the opposite of your 1st sentence. i hear him saying if the original capture is pcm, then you convert that to dsd, there will be almost no difference. file 'A' captured in PCM then converted to DSD. file 'B' captured in DSD converted to PCM. comparing 'A' to 'B', 'B' will sound better. thats what i take from this vid. no?
@@googoo-gjoob no. He said captured in dsd converted to pcm almost as good. So what’s the point of dsd at all? Just capture everything in dsd and convert to pcm for the public as it’s way more compatible
That's really good. What I would like to see is MQA Vs FLAC, because if something has impressed me in the past 3 years is the quality of MQA even at 24/96
@@pangbangdang3672 makes perfect of sense. However I am still very impressed of how the same albums I have in CD sound considerably better in MQA even though it is a compressed format, hence my interest.
@@NeonluxDJWorks If you watch Goldens sounds critique video you will find out why. It literally alters the sound and frequencies. This is why most audiophiles doesn't like it. It's more like flac combined with eq.
Paul is right. The first time I played in DSD I was blown away. In the meantime, I have improved my system, reducing noise in the source-chain immens, so PCM Hi Res sounds better, but compared to DSD to me, my ears and on my system PCM sounds nice, but not amazing like DSD. Folks, please support DSD. Wouldn't it be nice hearing the main acts recorded in DSD!
I haven't heard of DSD. Could you help me find something recorded in DSD that's free just to hear Amazing. I think, I just might like Amazing. Unlike fun, I had fun once and hated it .
converting any format or compression is useless. u cant upgrade a song by converting.. the bitrate sample rate frequency all will be the EXACT same if u convert to dsd... what u r hearing is power of suggestion. no real difference for converting music or even video.
What about DSD made from original analog high quality format, like magnetic bands??? I used to buy some SACD of Japanese singer from 70’s 80’s (Momoe Yamaguchi), and I really happy with that. I feel it better than standard CDs and better than records…
But upsampling from 16 to 24 doesnt give u any benefit. It is just adding zeros. So what you hear is just a placebo. Even if you got 2 the same songs (from source, not upsampled) you wouldnt notie diffrence between 24 bit and 16 bit. Evene better it is very possible you wouldnt notice diffrence between 8bit and 16 bit. It is all about dynamic range and 16 bit files got 96 db of dynamic range which is more than enough. You can notice diffence in sample rate, for example 44.1khz in compare to 96khz. For me the only possible adventage from using 24bit flacs is that these files may not be dithered
@@Red-kc9ee I've read adjusting volume of 16-bit file with set to 16-bit output's software volume control or spdif output is better be avoided and 24-bit ouput setting is recommended.
@@Red-kc9ee thats what Im saying actually. Upsampling the sample rate of the 24-bit flac file could make an audible difference rather than the 16-bit version regardless of the sample rate. Im upsampling 44.1khz/48khz 24-bit flac files straight up to 384khz and theres an obvious change in the overall timbre. So...no, I dont think its a placebo effect. The changes is very noticeable. Also when I upsample mp3/aac files, theres no difference. I only hear significant changes in 24 bit flac files.
@@loonation2185 Im saying that placebo effect is when you increase bit depth from 16 bit audio file to 24 bit. Because it is adding zeros. And i dont see any point in upsampling to 384khz. What kind of resampler do you use? Because resamplers are usually messing audio quality. It all only makes sense whe you are using Hi Res from source, not upsampling. I am producing music and there are huge benefits in using 24 bit and 96khz for example. But when you use CD quality file and upsample that your resampler has to ,,guess" what should be in place for those samples. The only benefit is that many dacs works better in higher res
Facinating.so to sum up the origonal source will dictate the quality no matter what wizardry goes on on studio. Guess you can't put 10khz simbol resinent on a recording if it wasn't their in the first place.I get it. Paul u are as they say over the Pond...Awsume.
OK, if capturing in PCM at a sub-optimal rate is unsatisfying, how about capturing PCM at 768 khz? Much closer to an apples to apples comparison, when discussing DSD vs PCM. I understand many folks think 192 khz is massive overkill, and 384 khz is insane, but 768 khz PCM is now affordable for anyone who truly values the quality of the "initial capture". Yes, file size is massive, but that's where FLAC can really help.
DSD might sound better, but it's irrelevant to me since I have yet to find a single piece of music I want to own on DSD. Listen to what you got, people.
this is the issue i know many who still record in 16bit 44.1 even today and that's a big shame sure getting into recording Native DSD might be expansive but if studios don't make the jump then Audio quality will stagnate... people are so focused on getting top of the line graphic cards and 4k /8k TV's for visuals and then sit with onboard (motherboard) soundcard / Soundbars coz company's say "that's all you need" sure to get sound that is all people need but its also a flat out lie because a soundbar will never even compete in terms of sound quality compared to dedicated speakers. Money talks as long as Native DSD recording is expansive and devices that play DSD is fairly expansive it will never "bloom" and therefore will never become a new norm
Has it just been explained, or does my question indicate to audiophiles the world over that I have no idea what I am talking about - but - if one can have lossless compression, why ever bother with anything that is not compressed? And I mean 'ever'! OK, I'm teasing but I would really like to know. My best wishes to PS Audio. I love the videos and the chatty ways of putting things across. I just get lost sometimes. It's not my fault - honest. I'm a philosopher, and philosophers love to get lost.
"why ever bother with anything that is not compressed?" Because both the compression and decompression take time and incur complexity and cost. The vast majority of data transport in electronic systems (not just audio) is uncompressed for these very reasons.
So wouldn’t WAV be the best PCM “format” besides DSD? I’m finding that when I am mixing and mastering for consumer audio, car stereos, earbuds etc. that converting WAV to MP3 is more than enough.
WAV and FLAC are equivalent in terms of the information - FLAC is lossless. You can always get the original WAV back from FLAC flawlessly. However, FLAC takes up much less space than raw WAV. So FLAC is purely better in the case of just listening. FLAC = WAV > Lossy (MP3/AAC/AIFF/OGG/WMA/etc) There is actually some variation between the lossy formats, but I don't think it's worth getting into. Modern storage is so plentiful that there's no reason to not just get FLAC.
@@angelwars3176 yes but you don't need the PCM container should be able to just have it straight to FLAC with a bit of programming I would have thought bypassing the PCM
ADC technology is not a subject covered that has received as much scrutiny as DAC. Paul is suggesting DSD excellence in the ADC domain and that certainly is something to stay tuned to and to observe. Rob Watts is not a fan of DSD format as DAC source for reasons he described several times, but ADC is a different ballgame.
So I like to keep it simple and make it plain. What I hear Paul saying is that a song recorded in " Native" DSD is going to sound better than a record recorded in PCM. Moreover converting from PCM to DSD does nothing good and maybe even does harm. Thus buying A SACD DSD of Miles Davis " One Day my Prince Will Come" Gets you nothing extra sonically. Which is a conclusion I have come to all ready.. This assumes no remastering or re-mixing.
It seems like anything that was recorded on tape or DSD, then properly converted to PCM sounds much better than music recorded natively in PCM. I have lots of old CDs of music recorded prior to natively recording in digital (early 80s) that sounds good (or at least until they were "remastered").
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is why we have null tests in the recording studio world. A null test will verify that flac is not "the same sounding" to wav and the digital meters together with your ears will confirm this on a null test. Wav is a source file and nothing can sound better than the source. Flac doesn't sound better and it sure as heck doesn't sound the exact same as wav period. This isn't a theory or delusion. There isn't a perfect null, which your ears and meters confirm. Hopefully we can somehow do the same null test with DSD vs PCM and that will be challenging or impossible, but it will put all these questions to rest.
Hi Paul. So since you started by saying FLAC is compressed PCM and then discussed DSD vs PCM, can I assume that a FLAC compressed file sounds the same as the PCM original? I know it should but is that your experience? Thanks a lot!
My limited experience leads me to conclude that the mastering process is much more important that file format used for playback: I can't tell much difference between PCM and DSD... A well mastered music will sound amazing in either format...
Yeah no... If you have a medium to high priced stereo, you can hear the difference as clear as night and day. DSD is always more detailed, transparent and full range. Record the performance as DSD, then playback and convert to "live analog" for mixing and mastering, while recording back to another DSD recorder(or bunch of DSD recorders).
@@christophero1969 I do have what I consider as mid-fi as my setup is probably somewhere in the $20K range. Yet I can’t seem to tell the differences between DSD and PCM. I can easily tell between Vinyl and digital for sure with the exact / identical recording. Maybe my ears are failing me.
*I'm hoping someone would be willing to answer a quick question for me...* (This may seem a _no-brainer,_ btw.) If you have two *flac* files of the same piece of music _from the same source,¹_ but one is 2GB and the other is 833MB in size, is the larger file generally expected to sound better? *If the answer is yes* ─ Then if there is such a substantial difference (833MB vs 2GB), would that also indicate an equally substantial improvement in quality? *If the answer to the first question is **_"No"_* ─ Oh…okay. 😐 Thanks! 🙋🏼♂️ ··•∶✺∶•·· ¹ ─ Presumably from the same source, anyway.
FLAC has several levels of compression and the least amount, where it is in its lossless mode (about half the size of the original file) will sound the best.
I think the question was about *why* is it better. We know that flac is better than mp3 because there's no information lost. But what makes DSD better than flac that's already lossless?
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio i'd love to see your channel discuss the different ways PCM and PDM converts analog signal into digital. I know Ted already did an explanation on DSD but i'd love to see Paul give it a go too
You'd think that's true but it's not. First off, and here's where it's difficult to grasp, making an original recording in DSD sounds remarkably different than the same in PCM. It's likely to do with the A/D converters, but still, it's a fact. Most people, including us, go DSD ->analog-> DSD. In the future we will likely go DSD ->Zephir filter to PCM -> DSD. The Zephir filter is remarkable offering no loss from DSD to PCM. Remarkable.
This topic has been discussed many times and yet it keeps cropping it’s ugly head up again and again. I would like to suggest that you write a white paper in plain english that put it down on paper with quality CAD graphics so that you can refer people who pose these type of questions in the future to this document so they can get a proper explanation. This way there there will be a reference document written by you can refer them to. I think you’ll be able to put this type of question to the side much more quickly by taking this approach. Just saying.
@@angelwars3176 And while Paul does that, perhaps he could also please show us the spectral plots of the exponential rise in DSD's noise floor -- starting even before 20kHz :)
As soon as Paul says "for whatever reason, I haven't worked it out" you know we're not in Kansas anymore. If you want to make a bold statement such as "If I capture it in DSD...THAT sounds better than capturing it in PCM" you have to be able to back that up, not rely on nebulous, specious "trust me folks!" one liners. "Majorly better", forsooth. What concerns me most about Octave Records - and I say this as someone who actually spent some of my cat's inheritance on their DSD releases - is that they seem to focus on the format and not the mastering (I'll leave the actual content out of it). I couldn't care less about the format, my system can play them all, it's the sound quality through the mastering that makes music sound great or sound mediocre. A DSD captured crap album remains a crap album, a PCM captured great album remains a great album.
Thanks, and I would have to reply that while we do focus on the technical aspects of what makes for a great recording, at the proverbial end of the day it's the quality of the final product that, like you, concerns us most. How did you enjoy the recording you purchased already?
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio I'm sorry to say it wasn't for me at all. It was Don Grusin's Out of Thin Air. I don't want to comment on the music itself - that's too subjective, and whilst I didn't enjoy it, I understand others might. What I didn't like, at all, was the sound. There was no space in the recording, it felt like the microphone was either pressed up against the piano, or actually inside it - it was an album that I really couldn't listen to for more than a few minutes without having to pause and take a breath and shake my head to clear it. I presume as it was the first release maybe the mastering wasn't indicative of how subsequent recordings sound? And as I said in my initial comment, mastering and an inherent understanding of the music is absolutely key for me.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio You're welcome! Maybe I need a PS Audio system in my house to appreciate it (hint hint!). Seriously though, I am glad you've taken it as constructive, honest feedback, not just product bashing for the sake of it - I know how much effort goes into producing such recordings.
@@richardt3371 Indeed! I agree that the miking was a bit more intimate than I would have personally done, but overall on most systems I listen to it on it's one of the better "in the room" piano recordings I know of. But, you're not the first person to mention it's a little like the microphones are in the piano. Live and learn. The feedback is much appreciated.
Omg these people first off flac is usually a recording of the master tape.. usually its the original recording as the artist intended zero compression thus why its usually much bigger then an mp3 compression so to sayflac is a compression scheme is wrong mp3 compresses to much smaller size.dsd you can argue again takes original master recording zero compression and tries to filter out impurities thats a debate for another time.either way its a digital recording flac or dsd thus why amp converters dsd or flac is converted to analog which some of us prefer.this debate about flac etc sounds no different then mp3 is wrong ive blind tested dozens of flac vs mp3 and have a 100% correct rate but these people swear its all a gimmick by music companies among others.
It constantly amazes me how audiophiles obsess over trivia. The quality of the original recording and engineering is a limiting factor. A poor recording will forever sound poor, regardless of the distribution format. Loudspeakers and room acoustics have a huge effect on audio quality and this is the area that should receive most attension. Moving a pot plant in the listening room will likely have more audible effect than different playback formats.
DSD just sound so much bettter and easier on the ears than FLAC or and other PCM format. Flac just sounds too harsh and hurt my ears. I even like the sound of WAV files over FLAC files. I convert all my FLAC, WAV or even 320 Mp3s files to DSD 256 files and they just sound better and for me closer to analog. It's like listening to an album without the pops and dust you hear on vinyl. My only issue is the files are huge.
Hmm. No - you'd have to prove such a statement with blind listening and to my knowledge no one has ever done that - and I don't think anyone ever will. I particularly don't understand how you are upsampling music, particularly mp3, and claiming a better sound?
@@StephenBrennanGuitar Well, if you definatley think that no one would ever be able to prove it sounds better to you, than there isn't anything I can say to convince you. I just know, for me, the best format I've heard for digital music is DSD.
@@StephenBrennanGuitar But even a blind test would produce variuous results depending on the listeners. There are too many variables in how and what people listen for to be accurate. But all I'm just saying is for me, DSD format sound the best for what I want to hear in diigtal music. For others it may not.
@@YnotNomis but now you're saying you may not be able to identify the 'better' in a simple a/b test. (I appreciate there are certain time and event variables) And I appreciate you say 'for you' - i do appreciate that - but ultimately if you cannot identify it then what you're stating doesn't mean anything and has no application or value for anyone. Hd video has visibly more resolution than sd video - all the time. Everyone can see it. Wav files have more 'resolution' than 128kbps mp3 - almost always aurally noticeable. However 320mp3 makes the distinction harder aurally, flac removes it more or less. The inability of people to identify between high bit rates doesn't invalidate dsd - it just contextualises it more. It also contextualises the bit rates that are indistinguishable from it.
FLAC does not mean it'll sound good. You can convert MP3 to FLAC. lol.... FLAC is the FLASH of audio IMHO and it should DIE. I know I will get a lot of hate for saying it. lol....
It's is not a "format" but rather is merely a "container" where the analog wave file as captured is compressed loselessly using a mathematical algorithm so it doesn't take up as much space on your hard drive or require the streaming of as much data. When properly "decoded" it should sound the exact same as the original file, no better and no worse. Apple has their similar ALAC which stands for Apple Lossless Audio Codec that pretty much does the same thing.
@@bema_seat You are completely wrong on this. FLAC stores the info and metadata including artwork. I have thousands of FLAC files ripped from my CDs containing all the data.
As I understand it I think of lossless compression this way: Let's say you have a string of values like 275397024 followed by 777777. Instead of writing 777777 you write (7(7)) Granted with the flags it's not a great savings in this case but it demonstrates my understanding right or wrong and it adds up over the course of a file. I'm sure someone here knows how it works much better than I do.
Paul, I really love the videos you put out. They're very educational, memorable, and enjoyable.
Thank you for your hard work! :)
Cheers!
Thank you very much very for explaining the difference between the two.I’m always learning something from you.🎼🤚
I'll have to take your word for it :) in any case, the quality of the recording itself is paramount. I can really enjoy both formats if that is the case
Thats exactly the answer for audiophiles i think
You can test it yourself if you find natively recorded DSD, which are hard to come by
I still hope every studio starts putting out sacd again.
agreed, but.......want in one hand
@@googoo-gjoob Why? DSD64 is twenty years old.
@@angelwars3176 , there arent enough people who know how, want to do it, will pay to buy it.
very limited supply...even less demand.
DSD and PCM are two ways (domains) to digitally encode the same information. Neither of the two can be better or worse than the other in terms of information resolution. Given the DAC chips current architecture, is easier (energetically cheaper) to convert DSD in analogue as one conversion (encoding) step is bypassed. Hence the perceived improvement in "not so resolving" chains. However, buffering of DSD for dejitter control not being possible without adding complexity and losing the inherent advantages of the format will render the transmission of DSD as such over error/delay prone channels impossible.
D§D there's more energy because the wavelength is tighter.
The problem with DSD is you can’t mix with it. It is an archival format and isn’t usable in any digital audio workstation. So even if you capture in DSD you always have to convert it to PCM to mix and master, which probably defeats the purpose of capturing in DSD. Ideally you would capture, mix and master at PCM 64bit float or 24bit/796khz and then output that master to DSD for final archiving and playback. That’s probably the best way to have your cake and eat it too.
Or mix and master in analog, then use dsd for distribution and storage
The Sonoma System they have can mix in DSD
@@michaelrovner4165 I’m pretty sure that system has to convert DSD into PCM before mixing. No computer program can mix in 1 bit format, which is what DSD is.
When the $300 headphone stand is sitting there, without a headphone.
Thanks for educational videos Paul. Just started listening to FLAC audio music and for the near future I don't need a system upgrade. This was my second step to improving my humble system audio performance after decoupling my old speakers and my sub from the floor a couple of months ago. Now I experience broader soundstage and distinct imaging. I plan to enjoy this newly discovered nirvana for a while
What would be the diff between an analog record (tape) converted to DSD vs that same analog to PCM? That much difference as it was recorded in DSD directly or not that much of a difference?
I don't think he knows; as clued by some words he stated. You would have to record both simultaneously (equipment for both). And look up how to 'subtract'/find the difference through whichever (audio file supported) program you're using. Audacity doesn't support WV/WavePack. Or look up videos/audios with such examples present.
Great video.
PS Audio DSD Streaming Service?
DSD is considered high resolution. I think a hi-res version of PCM(e.g. 96khz/32bit) will sound equally good like DSD...
Also it's said people can tell the difference between best-made mp3s and FLAC. I think they can do the differentiating only when the comparison is side-by-side. If people hear the best mp3 files alone blindly, they wont be able to tell it's mp3 or lossless FLAC..
.mp3 files can sound very good if they are made with careful remastering and proper tuning of the mp3 encoder
mp3 is neither bad nor good, it’s a compression tool, as you said if the mastering process is done correctly, it can sound really good
The problem is these (PCM, PWM, PDM etc) become complex - this includes things like high bit rate 1-bit DSD (DSD512) DAC shifting noise far up the frequency range away from the audio, also the complexity increases on the modulator order when encoding sound. PWM style DAC ladders require very high precision and stable resistance to create the correct steps of voltages in the lowest bits of a 24bit signal for example. Personally I find DSD nice because all you need is simple reconstruction filter to construct the switches back to an analogue signal compared to PCM->PWM ladder DAC.
A separate and even more complex subject is transcoding between PCM PWM to DSD for example.
BTW all native MacOS sound uses PWM output as all part of the operating system kernel. Only if you create your own output path (Ie raw USB dad stream that contains the DSD bitstream) and bypass all the inbuilt OS layers that will you have a pure DSD from a DSD source for example.
Paul, have you visited Ken Fritz? Your thoughts on his project.
Can you stay in “the box” for mixing and mastering or is any processing done in the analogue domain ?
my question is does DSD come out of a computer as "what." i wanted to pick up a cambridge audio dacmagic 200m to listen to MQA and DSD if i ever wanted to. right now i have to force my windows computer to output audio through usb into my dacmagic 100 as 24/192. how do i force it to DSD? do i even need to? not sure how the drivers work for the newer dac. its so annoying to have all of the indicator lights on the front of the dac for track quality only to have to force it into one mode for everything.
Paul, with respect this is becoming very, very confusing for people so please can you elaborate?
My understanding is you don’t actually capture the initial incoming analogue audio signal in PCM as most A/D convertors used these days capture PDM in the front end before it is converted ‘in the box’ to PCM so what’s happening is you’re ‘siphoning off’ the PDM as 1bit PDM (DSD). As it is in itself an analogue capture (even though it is 1’s and 0’s bits) it is closest to the incoming analogue audio signal and incredibly accurate, so it makes sense that it will sound ‘better’ than the PCM it otherwise gets converted into as a secondary process.
It does still make arguable sense to convert PCM files into DSD on playback regardless of how it was recorded if the DAC being used is Sigma Delta based as these DAC’s will have more ‘ease’ in accepting a DSD stream for conversion.
DSD can be sampled at a much higher rate - 1 bit at 64 times CD sample rates. To me this is the optimum way to capture music / sound waveforms as it has the ability to capture the very fast transients.
I don’t see your analogy of a sneak peak of 1 bit as being near the same as DSD running at 2.8 MHz. The key to DSD is the fast sampling rate - not the one bit.
CD’s are essentially raw lossless music (in WAV format) and FLAC is the same exact music but losslessly compressed so easier to store. MP3’s you may know are lossy compression meaning they throw away music using a algorithm. ALAC is Apples’ version of FLAC.
Can you hear the difference? Don’t know but I would not pay for more than CD quality unless you want too
@@justinpenn9250 You need to understand PCM vs PDM. DSD does not sample, it's a different process i can't be bothered to explain again. Look at nativedsd.com and read the faq's/blog sections - you'll come out understanding what DSD actually is.
I kind of think Paul just likes delta sigma ADCs. He certainly likes that flavor of DAC. Perhaps because he has a DSP software development team, he can make a better "black box" to go to PCM than is commercially available.
you are a great sales man no doubt
hahahahahaha true
Paul’s answer begs another question. Can we actually tell if an album/track bought online was recorded in DSD or if it’s a 16bit-44.1kHz converted and upsampled?
No you have to find out...
@@angelwars3176 Back when we would buy the actual CD or (a)vinyl, (the term "a vinyl" still makes me laugh) the liner notes would often have that kind of information.
Remember DDD, ADD, AAD etc on CDs? I suppose an element of trust would alter one's level of anxiety somewhat for better or worse.
In native DSD website they indicate the recorded sample rate and format.
No, and the most hires shit is nothing else than adjusted bass and treble so audiophiles can hear a difference :-)
Will, please review the Blue Coast collection recordings. They were captured in DSD and available on Qobuz 24/192. This proves Paul's findings independently. These recordings are stunning. Absolutely stunning.
Hmm in your video about upsampling you said that upsampling from PCM to DSD is better, because it is easier for the DAC to convert DSD to analogue than it is to convert PCM to analogue, resulting in better sound. In this video you seem to say it is either equal or worse. I'm confused. A little help? :)
Yeah. CD quality all day long for me sooo FLAC is more than enough
This simplifies matters. I have an R2R ladder DAC which cannot convert PCM to DSD. I use it for music files and internet radio. Since I listen to DSD only on 5 channel SACD I am restricted to an older universal disc player that has 5 RCA outputs for the five channels which I connect to five monoblock amplifiers and five speakers because for copyright reasons there are no DACs that decode 5 channel SACD.
My 1976 Maxell cassette tapes are still holding up well. Screw you digital guys! :)
It's not correct to say that DSD "captures" music. All it captures is the rate of change of air pressure, by increasing or decreasing the bitstream density. It's kind of "steering" the wave, but not actually capturing it. Whereas PCM does accurately "capture" the absolute amplitude level at each sample. With DSD the playback also suffers from the exponential rise in noise floor starting even before 20kHz! Furthermore, DSD is totally unsuitable for any subsequent mixing and signal processing -- which has to be done in PCM.
Love the idea behind DSD, but isn't it very difficult to edit in the studio in that format? (That's what I read a few weeks ago at least). Do you have to convert it to PCM, do the editing you want, then reconvert it back to DSD? Does this round trip degrade the quality a bit? Thanks.
That depends on whether the whole track is converted to High-Res PCM for editing purposes or if it is just a little snippet of the track, say less than a few seconds. Doing it the latter way, which hardly anyone does for multiple reasons, you won't notice the difference. Getting it right in the first place with proper miking, maybe mixing in the analog domain, etc. is of course a prerequisite because otherwise you would have to make adjustments afterwards to way too long parts of the track and the conversion to PCM and back might/will be noticeable.
There are of course also ways to edit DSD directly, but the limited resources, not to mention the lack of knowledge/skills to do so properly are the limiting factors. Despite the fact, that DSD cannot be greatly manipulated before the editing and artifacts become obvious...
Recordings using proper miking, good gear+cables, perfect analog mixing and than a conversion to (hopefully at least double-rate) DSD with a few minor edits afterwards are very hard to beat. The only recording technique I could think of that, in my humble opinion, surpasses the before mentioned method, is a direct-to-disc one.
Just my 2c...
@@markmywords9649 I would assume as better computers with even more raw power that are affordable or maybe running in parallel become available, files could be edited in DSD (one day).
Thanks for the good information. Other than direct to disc or recording using two mics in a church (like Chesky Records does sometimes) and then NOT doing any post processing offers the best quality the format could deliver, yet we all know that mastering engineers and producers love to tweak things.
Fortunately as you say, maybe that would be only one part of one track of a vocal or single instrument (if done multi-track), and then a short part too, such that doing the editing in PCM then converting it back to DSD would not result in any appreciable loss in quality.
DSD seems poised to become the format of the future, offering the best of both analog (due to its high sampling rate) and digital.
Time (and our ears) will tell.
@@rosswarren436 octave records uses the Sonoma mastering system, which is capable of some basic editing of DSD. The guy who developed Sonoma helped make most of the SACDs and he is working with octave records
@@graxjpg interesting. This stuff is good and should only get better over time.
@@rosswarren436 that’s my opinion too! I feel like we have only scratched the surface of what the implications of DSD will be in the future
Now I'm really confused.
mics and placement at the original recording matters more
I’ll tell you exactly what DSD is. It’s the equivalent of BetaMax. It’s an also ran format that won’t gain widespread adoption that’s doomed to disappear from the marketplace. Wait and see. . .
Here's the thing, Beta failed as a consumer format. But it did not go away. In fact, Sony evolved it into Betacam, and that was the goto format for TV news until digital video formats came along...with Digital Beta being a key replacement.
A great mix and mastering job in CD sounds better than a mediocre production in DSD. I'm still in awe at how much they got right with CD right from the start 40 something years ago. Nowadays you take a €400 CD player and it sounds wonderful.
"CD" isn't a format. CDs generally hold 44.1 KHz/16-bit PCM.
@@TheGamerUnknown yes, I know CD is a medium but everyone here knows that when you say CD you mean PCM 44,1/16 but it's easier to say or write, right?
@@nunofernandes4501 You say "a great mix on this sounds better than a mediocre mix on the other". Wouldn't it be more correct to say whether a great mix on this is better/worse or equal, than a great mix on the other? Apples with apples. Not with oranges.
@@Yiannis2112 you didn't understand. I mean that great sounding recordings and masterings will sound great from CD onwards whereas a crappy recording will sound bad even on SACD or DSD. So, to make it clear, the most important is the recording and mastering, not the format or the medium because the humble CD is already capable of great sound.
@@nunofernandes4501 I didn't understand you say, but what you posted was apples and oranges.
Paul, if converting DSD to PCM yields almost no difference.
Yet, if you recorded directly to PCM, it would be worse than the former (above) PCM encoded file, then it appears to be that your analog to digital (PCM) hardware is lacking somehow.
When you convert DSD to PCM, the hardware is irrelevant. It is strictly software that converts file #1 into file #2.
And if file #2 sounds roughly 99% as good as the original file #1, then DSD and PCM are nearly identical in terms of their sound quality.
Since the only time your PCM encoded files sound noticeably worse, is when you record directly to PCM, then the box you are using for that direct PCM recording is an issue.
Please provide the name of your box and software that does the direct analog to PCM creation.
Please also provide the name of the box and software that you use to convert DSD formatted files to PCM formatted files.
Somewhere in the above equipment list and software list there is an inferior item that is the root cause of your direct PCM files sounding worse than your direct DSD files.
Thank you.
it seems to me he is saying the opposite of your 1st sentence.
i hear him saying if the original capture is pcm, then you convert that to dsd, there will be almost no difference.
file 'A' captured in PCM then converted to DSD.
file 'B' captured in DSD converted to PCM.
comparing 'A' to 'B', 'B' will sound better.
thats what i take from this vid. no?
@@googoo-gjoob no. He said captured in dsd converted to pcm almost as good. So what’s the point of dsd at all? Just capture everything in dsd and convert to pcm for the public as it’s way more compatible
@@vitorfernandes651 bro thats exactly what he said xDD
That's really good. What I would like to see is MQA Vs FLAC, because if something has impressed me in the past 3 years is the quality of MQA even at 24/96
From my experience Ps audio doesn't really like mqa. It isn't lossless. Watch golden sounds video on mqa
@@pangbangdang3672 makes perfect of sense. However I am still very impressed of how the same albums I have in CD sound considerably better in MQA even though it is a compressed format, hence my interest.
@@NeonluxDJWorks If you watch Goldens sounds critique video you will find out why. It literally alters the sound and frequencies. This is why most audiophiles doesn't like it. It's more like flac combined with eq.
@@pangbangdang3672 beat me to it 😂
if you like Tidal...... you should _LOVE_ Qobuz.
i had them both for a year. i found e v e r y a/b i performed, i preferred Qobuz. ive canceled Tidal.
Well this should not be a surprise to anyone i mean if the recording and mastering is bad it wont matter what format you use. its all about the source
Paul is right. The first time I played in DSD I was blown away. In the meantime, I have improved my system, reducing noise in the source-chain immens, so PCM Hi Res sounds better, but compared to DSD to me, my ears and on my system PCM sounds nice, but not amazing like DSD. Folks, please support DSD. Wouldn't it be nice hearing the main acts recorded in DSD!
I haven't heard of DSD. Could you help me find something recorded in DSD that's free just to hear Amazing. I think, I just might like Amazing. Unlike fun, I had fun once and hated it .
I convert PCM to DSD using Roon, it sounds very different. It sounds superior in my opinion
converting any format or compression is useless. u cant upgrade a song by converting.. the bitrate sample rate frequency all will be the EXACT same if u convert to dsd... what u r hearing is power of suggestion. no real difference for converting music or even video.
What about DSD made from original analog high quality format, like magnetic bands???
I used to buy some SACD of Japanese singer from 70’s 80’s (Momoe Yamaguchi), and I really happy with that.
I feel it better than standard CDs and better than records…
In my experience, when i use upsampling, I always find 24-bit flac files to be superior to 16-bit flac, sounds more equal to its dsd counterpart.
But upsampling from 16 to 24 doesnt give u any benefit. It is just adding zeros. So what you hear is just a placebo. Even if you got 2 the same songs (from source, not upsampled) you wouldnt notie diffrence between 24 bit and 16 bit. Evene better it is very possible you wouldnt notice diffrence between 8bit and 16 bit. It is all about dynamic range and 16 bit files got 96 db of dynamic range which is more than enough. You can notice diffence in sample rate, for example 44.1khz in compare to 96khz. For me the only possible adventage from using 24bit flacs is that these files may not be dithered
@@Red-kc9ee I've read adjusting volume of 16-bit file with set to 16-bit output's software volume control or spdif output is better be avoided and 24-bit ouput setting is recommended.
@@Red-kc9ee thats what Im saying actually. Upsampling the sample rate of the 24-bit flac file could make an audible difference rather than the 16-bit version regardless of the sample rate. Im upsampling 44.1khz/48khz 24-bit flac files straight up to 384khz and theres an obvious change in the overall timbre. So...no, I dont think its a placebo effect. The changes is very noticeable. Also when I upsample mp3/aac files, theres no difference. I only hear significant changes in 24 bit flac files.
@@Y0HJorCh Yeah it is true. Thats why i am using analog volume control
@@loonation2185 Im saying that placebo effect is when you increase bit depth from 16 bit audio file to 24 bit. Because it is adding zeros. And i dont see any point in upsampling to 384khz. What kind of resampler do you use? Because resamplers are usually messing audio quality. It all only makes sense whe you are using Hi Res from source, not upsampling. I am producing music and there are huge benefits in using 24 bit and 96khz for example. But when you use CD quality file and upsample that your resampler has to ,,guess" what should be in place for those samples. The only benefit is that many dacs works better in higher res
I think DSD is the nearest thing to analogy but the added advantage no hiss
Agreed!
Anology or analogue?
Facinating.so to sum up the origonal source will dictate the quality no matter what wizardry goes on on studio. Guess you can't put 10khz simbol resinent on a recording if it wasn't their in the first place.I get it. Paul u are as they say over the Pond...Awsume.
OK, if capturing in PCM at a sub-optimal rate is unsatisfying, how about capturing PCM at 768 khz? Much closer to an apples to apples comparison, when discussing DSD vs PCM. I understand many folks think 192 khz is massive overkill, and 384 khz is insane, but 768 khz PCM is now affordable for anyone who truly values the quality of the "initial capture". Yes, file size is massive, but that's where FLAC can really help.
DSD might sound better, but it's irrelevant to me since I have yet to find a single piece of music I want to own on DSD. Listen to what you got, people.
spoken like a true non audiophile :P
Ain't you old man Flinn's boy
this is the issue i know many who still record in 16bit 44.1 even today and that's a big shame sure getting into recording Native DSD might be expansive but if studios don't make the jump then Audio quality will stagnate...
people are so focused on getting top of the line graphic cards and 4k /8k TV's for visuals and then sit with onboard (motherboard) soundcard / Soundbars coz company's say "that's all you need" sure to get sound that is all people need but its also a flat out lie because a soundbar will never even compete in terms of sound quality compared to dedicated speakers.
Money talks as long as Native DSD recording is expansive and devices that play DSD is fairly expansive it will never "bloom" and therefore will never become a new norm
Has it just been explained, or does my question indicate to audiophiles the world over that I have no idea what I am talking about - but - if one can have lossless compression, why ever bother with anything that is not compressed? And I mean 'ever'! OK, I'm teasing but I would really like to know.
My best wishes to PS Audio. I love the videos and the chatty ways of putting things across. I just get lost sometimes. It's not my fault - honest. I'm a philosopher, and philosophers love to get lost.
"why ever bother with anything that is not compressed?"
Because both the compression and decompression take time and incur complexity and cost. The vast majority of data transport in electronic systems (not just audio) is uncompressed for these very reasons.
@@trickyrat483 Many thanks for that clarification.
So wouldn’t WAV be the best PCM “format” besides DSD? I’m finding that when I am mixing and mastering for consumer audio, car stereos, earbuds etc. that converting WAV to MP3 is more than enough.
WAV and FLAC are equivalent in terms of the information - FLAC is lossless. You can always get the original WAV back from FLAC flawlessly. However, FLAC takes up much less space than raw WAV. So FLAC is purely better in the case of just listening.
FLAC = WAV > Lossy (MP3/AAC/AIFF/OGG/WMA/etc)
There is actually some variation between the lossy formats, but I don't think it's worth getting into. Modern storage is so plentiful that there's no reason to not just get FLAC.
@@TheGamerUnknown modern storage the way that it is, why don’t I just stay in WAV?
@@graxjpg There's no *disadvantage* to using FLAC vs WAV, so why use WAV, if FLAC takes less space?
@@TheGamerUnknown What would you recommend for converting a wav file to flac? I simply have not even given it the time of day.
@@graxjpg audacity should handle it easily, but you can use ffmpeg in the cmdline if you'd prefer that.
Paul cops a lot of FLAC!
Can't you go from dsd straight to FLAC that would be better what is the codex for dsd
Difference between dsd and pcm is the same as AM stereo and FM
No. FLAC is a PCM container.
@@angelwars3176 yes but you don't need the PCM container should be able to just have it straight to FLAC with a bit of programming I would have thought bypassing the PCM
@@johnsweda2999 what did you not understand in lossless? FLAC is just compression optimized for audio like brotli is compression optimized for HTML
@@Harald_Reindl I know that but I'm just saying haven't dsd as a FLAC file without the PCM
ADC technology is not a subject covered that has received as much scrutiny as DAC. Paul is suggesting DSD excellence in the ADC domain and that certainly is something to stay tuned to and to observe. Rob Watts is not a fan of DSD format as DAC source for reasons he described several times, but ADC is a different ballgame.
64bit / 192khz DSD is best!
So I like to keep it simple and make it plain. What I hear Paul saying is that a song recorded in " Native" DSD is going to sound better than a record recorded in PCM. Moreover converting from PCM to DSD does nothing good and maybe even does harm. Thus buying A SACD DSD of Miles Davis " One Day my Prince Will Come" Gets you nothing extra sonically. Which is a conclusion I have come to all ready.. This assumes no remastering or re-mixing.
It seems like anything that was recorded on tape or DSD, then properly converted to PCM sounds much better than music recorded natively in PCM. I have lots of old CDs of music recorded prior to natively recording in digital (early 80s) that sounds good (or at least until they were "remastered").
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is why we have null tests in the recording studio world. A null test will verify that flac is not "the same sounding" to wav and the digital meters together with your ears will confirm this on a null test. Wav is a source file and nothing can sound better than the source. Flac doesn't sound better and it sure as heck doesn't sound the exact same as wav period. This isn't a theory or delusion. There isn't a perfect null, which your ears and meters confirm. Hopefully we can somehow do the same null test with DSD vs PCM and that will be challenging or impossible, but it will put all these questions to rest.
Hi Paul. So since you started by saying FLAC is compressed PCM and then discussed DSD vs PCM, can I assume that a FLAC compressed file sounds the same as the PCM original? I know it should but is that your experience? Thanks a lot!
Flac is lossless so its sounds exactly the same as its PCM source.
My limited experience leads me to conclude that the mastering process is much more important that file format used for playback: I can't tell much difference between PCM and DSD... A well mastered music will sound amazing in either format...
Yup, even a well mastered recording can even sound good in mp3
You got that right! It’s all in the mastering. A well mastered CD still sounds darn good.
Yeah no... If you have a medium to high priced stereo, you can hear the difference as clear as night and day. DSD is always more detailed, transparent and full range. Record the performance as DSD, then playback and convert to "live analog" for mixing and mastering, while recording back to another DSD recorder(or bunch of DSD recorders).
@@christophero1969 I do have what I consider as mid-fi as my setup is probably somewhere in the $20K range. Yet I can’t seem to tell the differences between DSD and PCM. I can easily tell between Vinyl and digital for sure with the exact / identical recording. Maybe my ears are failing me.
@@christophero1969 no
Funny when you said let say “I’m a recording studio”. Paul you are a recording studio or did you forget? 😂😂😂
Someone said "be whatever you want to be!" and Paul answered "ok, I want to be a recording studio!" :p
And flac is the worse, should use wav instead as it's quite lossless give or take.
*I'm hoping someone would be willing to answer a quick question for me...*
(This may seem a _no-brainer,_ btw.) If you have two *flac* files of the same piece of music _from the same source,¹_ but one is 2GB and the other is 833MB in size, is the larger file generally expected to sound better?
*If the answer is yes* ─ Then if there is such a substantial difference (833MB vs 2GB), would that also indicate an equally substantial improvement in quality?
*If the answer to the first question is **_"No"_* ─ Oh…okay. 😐
Thanks! 🙋🏼♂️
··•∶✺∶•··
¹ ─ Presumably from the same source, anyway.
FLAC has several levels of compression and the least amount, where it is in its lossless mode (about half the size of the original file) will sound the best.
Thanks @@Paulmcgowanpsaudio! Always appreciate the help!!🤍
DSD vs FLAC is apples vs oranges.
We already know the answer ...DSD
I lost lol
I think the question was about *why* is it better. We know that flac is better than mp3 because there's no information lost. But what makes DSD better than flac that's already lossless?
Great question. FLAC is a lossless compression of PCM while DSD is PDM. PDM Pulse Density Modulation is far closer to analog than is PCM and sounds
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio i'd love to see your channel discuss the different ways PCM and PDM converts analog signal into digital. I know Ted already did an explanation on DSD but i'd love to see Paul give it a go too
You have to still convert dsd to pcm for mixing and then convert back into dsd ...sooo not much difference there to pcm lol
You'd think that's true but it's not. First off, and here's where it's difficult to grasp, making an original recording in DSD sounds remarkably different than the same in PCM. It's likely to do with the A/D converters, but still, it's a fact. Most people, including us, go DSD ->analog-> DSD. In the future we will likely go DSD ->Zephir filter to PCM -> DSD. The Zephir filter is remarkable offering no loss from DSD to PCM. Remarkable.
This topic has been discussed many times and yet it keeps cropping it’s ugly head up again and again. I would like to suggest that you write a white paper in plain english that put it down on paper with quality CAD graphics so that you can refer people who pose these type of questions in the future to this document so they can get a proper explanation. This way there there will be a reference document written by you can refer them to. I think you’ll be able to put this type of question to the side much more quickly by taking this approach. Just saying.
Agreed, Paul needs to offer a better explanation of WHY he is so passionate about DSD.
@@angelwars3176 And while Paul does that, perhaps he could also please show us the spectral plots of the exponential rise in DSD's noise floor -- starting even before 20kHz :)
As soon as Paul says "for whatever reason, I haven't worked it out" you know we're not in Kansas anymore. If you want to make a bold statement such as "If I capture it in DSD...THAT sounds better than capturing it in PCM" you have to be able to back that up, not rely on nebulous, specious "trust me folks!" one liners. "Majorly better", forsooth.
What concerns me most about Octave Records - and I say this as someone who actually spent some of my cat's inheritance on their DSD releases - is that they seem to focus on the format and not the mastering (I'll leave the actual content out of it). I couldn't care less about the format, my system can play them all, it's the sound quality through the mastering that makes music sound great or sound mediocre. A DSD captured crap album remains a crap album, a PCM captured great album remains a great album.
Thanks, and I would have to reply that while we do focus on the technical aspects of what makes for a great recording, at the proverbial end of the day it's the quality of the final product that, like you, concerns us most. How did you enjoy the recording you purchased already?
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio I'm sorry to say it wasn't for me at all. It was Don Grusin's Out of Thin Air. I don't want to comment on the music itself - that's too subjective, and whilst I didn't enjoy it, I understand others might. What I didn't like, at all, was the sound. There was no space in the recording, it felt like the microphone was either pressed up against the piano, or actually inside it - it was an album that I really couldn't listen to for more than a few minutes without having to pause and take a breath and shake my head to clear it. I presume as it was the first release maybe the mastering wasn't indicative of how subsequent recordings sound? And as I said in my initial comment, mastering and an inherent understanding of the music is absolutely key for me.
@@richardt3371 That's fascinating. Thank you for honestly sharing.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio You're welcome! Maybe I need a PS Audio system in my house to appreciate it (hint hint!). Seriously though, I am glad you've taken it as constructive, honest feedback, not just product bashing for the sake of it - I know how much effort goes into producing such recordings.
@@richardt3371 Indeed! I agree that the miking was a bit more intimate than I would have personally done, but overall on most systems I listen to it on it's one of the better "in the room" piano recordings I know of. But, you're not the first person to mention it's a little like the microphones are in the piano. Live and learn. The feedback is much appreciated.
Omg these people first off flac is usually a recording of the master tape.. usually its the original recording as the artist intended zero compression thus why its usually much bigger then an mp3 compression so to sayflac is a compression scheme is wrong mp3 compresses to much smaller size.dsd you can argue again takes original master recording zero compression and tries to filter out impurities thats a debate for another time.either way its a digital recording flac or dsd thus why amp converters dsd or flac is converted to analog which some of us prefer.this debate about flac etc sounds no different then mp3 is wrong ive blind tested dozens of flac vs mp3 and have a 100% correct rate but these people swear its all a gimmick by music companies among others.
Neither. Listen to music on tapes and records.
Muhahaha
@@Harald_Reindl Mooha, Moooohaha ,mooomoohahahah
It constantly amazes me how audiophiles obsess over trivia. The quality of the original recording and engineering is a limiting factor. A poor recording will forever sound poor, regardless of the distribution format. Loudspeakers and room acoustics have a huge effect on audio quality and this is the area that should receive most attension. Moving a pot plant in the listening room will likely have more audible effect than different playback formats.
as an audiophile you don't care about the 50% the room makes, god bless I am Hifi and not High-End
"Moving a pot plant in the listening room will likely have more audible effect .."
Yes, but which one? And where?
Audio, always creating problems. :)
@@trickyrat483 not in a proper treatet room - without room acoustics all you highend-crap is useless
The best is codec atrac3 - plus , Sony
I think FLAC is pretty good, but I would Rather use 32 bit wave or 16 bit.
DSD just sound so much bettter and easier on the ears than FLAC or and other PCM format. Flac just sounds too harsh and hurt my ears. I even like the sound of WAV files over FLAC files. I convert all my FLAC, WAV or even 320 Mp3s files to DSD 256 files and they just sound better and for me closer to analog. It's like listening to an album without the pops and dust you hear on vinyl. My only issue is the files are huge.
Hmm. No - you'd have to prove such a statement with blind listening and to my knowledge no one has ever done that - and I don't think anyone ever will. I particularly don't understand how you are upsampling music, particularly mp3, and claiming a better sound?
@@StephenBrennanGuitar Well, if you definatley think that no one would ever be able to prove it sounds better to you, than there isn't anything I can say to convince you. I just know, for me, the best format I've heard for digital music is DSD.
@@YnotNomis nothing you could say perhaps - but definitely something you could do. Record a blind listening test and let us know the results.
@@StephenBrennanGuitar But even a blind test would produce variuous results depending on the listeners. There are too many variables in how and what people listen for to be accurate. But all I'm just saying is for me, DSD format sound the best for what I want to hear in diigtal music. For others it may not.
@@YnotNomis but now you're saying you may not be able to identify the 'better' in a simple a/b test.
(I appreciate there are certain time and event variables)
And I appreciate you say 'for you' - i do appreciate that - but ultimately if you cannot identify it then what you're stating doesn't mean anything and has no application or value for anyone.
Hd video has visibly more resolution than sd video - all the time. Everyone can see it.
Wav files have more 'resolution' than 128kbps mp3 - almost always aurally noticeable.
However 320mp3 makes the distinction harder aurally, flac removes it more or less.
The inability of people to identify between high bit rates doesn't invalidate dsd - it just contextualises it more. It also contextualises the bit rates that are indistinguishable from it.
FLAC does not mean it'll sound good. You can convert MP3 to FLAC. lol.... FLAC is the FLASH of audio IMHO and it should DIE. I know I will get a lot of hate for saying it. lol....
What the hell is FLAC?
It’s a format, like mp3. It’s the format the actual digital song is stored in
A lossless audio codec that uses compression to make file sizes smaller without reducing actual fidelity.
Unlike ALAC, album artwork cannot be added to FLAC files. Not a deal breaker, just an FYI.
It's is not a "format" but rather is merely a "container" where the analog wave file as captured is compressed loselessly using a mathematical algorithm so it doesn't take up as much space on your hard drive or require the streaming of as much data. When properly "decoded" it should sound the exact same as the original file, no better and no worse. Apple has their similar ALAC which stands for Apple Lossless Audio Codec that pretty much does the same thing.
@@bema_seat You are completely wrong on this. FLAC stores the info and metadata including artwork. I have thousands of FLAC files ripped from my CDs containing all the data.
As I understand it I think of lossless compression this way: Let's say you have a string of values like 275397024 followed by 777777. Instead of writing 777777 you write (7(7)) Granted with the flags it's not a great savings in this case but it demonstrates my understanding right or wrong and it adds up over the course of a file. I'm sure someone here knows how it works much better than I do.
it is more or less the same as zip, 7z, rar and so on just optimized for audio - what goes in comes out, 100% identical without any "but"