Post by RWetmore September 2, 2008 (31 of 42)
|
|
Ear said:
Do you mean when something is recorded in DSD and PCM to compare the more accurate reproduction of the original performance or when an analogue source is coverted to DSD and PCM? What bothers me is the term 'artificial'. Vinyl (my only analogue source) has always sounded softer than digital recordings. That was one of it's advantages. The analogue soft and warm sound. Maybe I miss the point. HELP :-)
Yes - "artificial" meaning not present in the original source. The source could be an analog tape or a live mic feed. The belief is this softer sound is a result of the inherent distortion associated with a 1 bit A/D -> D/A process and not the result of greater transparency to the source than comparable PCM.
I have noticed a slight softness with DSD, especially with the earlier releases from when the format first came out. 2L's founder said this in an interview when comparing DXD and PCM to DSD: "I find DSD, as found on the SACD, somewhat different in the colour from DXD and 192kHz PCM; in some mysterious way DSD is softer and more beautiful but slightly less detailed. In DXD I find the shimmering brilliance from the original analogue source as directly from the microphones."
I've also heard some people say they found DSD more transparent to a live mic feed than PCM. I don't think they were referring to DXD though - probably 192khz/24bit or 96khz/24bit. The beauty of DXD is its frequency response is so high no filtering is required. Perhaps no filtering along with a linear signal to noise ratio is the key to perfectly transparent sound - I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RWetmore said:
Yes - "artificial" meaning not present in the original source. The source could be an analog tape or a live mic feed. The belief is this softer sound is a result of the inherent distortion associated with a 1 bit A/D -> D/A process and not the result of greater transparency to the source than comparable PCM.
I have noticed a slight softness with DSD, especially with the earlier releases from when the format first came out. 2L's founder said this in an interview when comparing DXD and PCM to DSD: "I find DSD, as found on the SACD, somewhat different in the colour from DXD and 192kHz PCM; in some mysterious way DSD is softer and more beautiful but slightly less detailed. In DXD I find the shimmering brilliance from the original analogue source as directly from the microphones."
I've also heard some people say they found DSD more transparent to a live mic feed than PCM. I don't think they were referring to DXD though - probably 192khz/24bit or 96khz/24bit. The beauty of DXD is its frequency response is so high no filtering is required. Perhaps no filtering along with a linear signal to noise ratio is the key to perfectly transparent sound - I don't know.
Isn't there a DXD website where you post propaganda about PCM? This site is for people who love SA-CD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I already recalled for everyone's benefit an anecdote (true story ladies and gents), in response to one of Mr Wetmore's earlier posts pursing this issue, but since he seems unable to let it go, neither will I.
A little over a year ago I met a recording engineer in his early to mid twenties who is also a cellist and in my opinion, an opinion formed as we spoke over several hours listening to live and recorded feeds, he has a VERY good ear.
I asked him whether he thought there was any difference between DSD and the 24bit PCM his studio was using at the time.
Yes, he said; "At first I thought PCM to be more detailed."
He waited for that to sink in. Then he said:
"When I started comparing it to the live feed, I realized that the PCM seemed "more detailed" than the live feed. DSD is actually closer to the live feed!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windsurfer said:
I already recalled for everyone's benefit an anecdote (true story ladies and gents), in response to one of Mr Wetmore's earlier posts pursing this issue, but since he seems unable to let it go, neither will I.
A little over a year ago I met a recording engineer in his early to mid twenties who is also a cellist and in my opinion, an opinion formed as we spoke over several hours listening to live and recorded feeds, he has a VERY good ear.
I asked him whether he thought there was any difference between DSD and the 24bit PCM his studio was using at the time.
Yes, he said; "At first I thought PCM to be more detailed."
He waited for that to sink in. Then he said:
"When I started comparing it to the live feed, I realized that the PCM seemed "more detailed" than the live feed. DSD is actually closer to the live feed!"
Interesting. So did he conclude what it was that he was actually calling, "detail?"
Was it noise? Because, similarly, when I hear upsampled music, I can hear something that I can't using the standard signal and whilst some people prefer upsampled music, I find that I just hear noise disgusied as music! Almost a sugary layer on top of the original music, that I don't like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
Interesting. So did he conclude what it was that he was actually calling, "detail?"
Was it noise? Because, similarly, when I hear upsampled music, I can hear something that I can't using the standard signal and whilst some people prefer upsampled music, I find that I just hear noise disgusied as music! Almost a sugary layer on top of the original music, that I don't like.
Unfortunately we didn't pursue the question further, simply assuming it was SOME sort of distortion - added noise is, of course a distortion.
|
|
|
Post by RWetmore September 2, 2008 (36 of 42)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
I already recalled for everyone's benefit an anecdote (true story ladies and gents), in response to one of Mr Wetmore's earlier posts pursing this issue, but since he seems unable to let it go, neither will I.
A little over a year ago I met a recording engineer in his early to mid twenties who is also a cellist and in my opinion, an opinion formed as we spoke over several hours listening to live and recorded feeds, he has a VERY good ear.
I asked him whether he thought there was any difference between DSD and the 24bit PCM his studio was using at the time.
Yes, he said; "At first I thought PCM to be more detailed."
He waited for that to sink in. Then he said:
"When I started comparing it to the live feed, I realized that the PCM seemed "more detailed" than the live feed. DSD is actually closer to the live feed!"
What 24 bit PCM? 48khz, 96khz or 192khz?
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Paper says DSD not good for audio
I'm listening now to La Stravaganza 12 Violin Concertos (Channel Classics SACD) and have to strongly disagree with the paper's claims as from what I hear I can say DSD is not only good for audio, but more over, it is the best known, commercially available, audio format on the market.
|
|
|
Post by RWetmore September 2, 2008 (38 of 42)
|
|
audioholik said:
>Paper says DSD not good for audio
I'm listening now to La Stravaganza 12 Violin Concertos (Channel Classics SACD) and have to strongly disagree with the paper's claims as from what I hear I can say DSD is not only good for audio, but more over, it is the best known, commercially available, audio format on the market.
Agreed; however, I don't think it's as perfect a system as a lot of people here think it is. It's great though and the best thing currently available.
|
|
|
Post by raffells September 2, 2008 (39 of 42)
|
|
RWetmore said:
What 24 bit PCM? 48khz, 96khz or 192khz?
or even 88.2 and 176.4.
Incidently for Funkeys benefit,Try upsampling using these rates and you may probably avoid some of the probelms you hear.
Convertion from 44.1 to 96hz has known problems often referred to as digital artefacts.There are even different conversions programs,some better than others.
|
|
|
Post by wehecht September 2, 2008 (40 of 42)
|
|
Isn't it time we gave this a rest?
Personally I don't care what the recording system is if the result is realistic. Some of the best sound I've heard is on the BIS Grieg series, recordings that are PCM based. Some of the best sound I've heard is on the Pentatone Brahms series, recordings that are DSD based. I've also heard bad sounding recordings in both formats. It seems obvious to me that the recording venue (think Barbican vs Concertgebouw), the skill of the engineering and production team, the commitment and skill of the performers, and my personal frame of reference for what constitutes "realistic", all have much more of an effect on how I hear the end product than whether the recording is native dsd or pcm.
|
|
