Music Player Network
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 134
S
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally posted by Tony Mah:

To me it looks like this: Suppose all speakers currently uses dome tweeters for high-frequencies (PCM). Sony invents this new high frequency driver called a ribbon (DSD). It is very expensive and every audiophile engineer that has heard it says it awesome, a must have. Sony has the patent on it and tells the world why dome tweeters (PCM) are flawed. (limited hifrequency response and inferior transient response) And in some ways tries to smear and bad mouth companies that make dome tweeters.

My question would be why can't a dome tweeter be made to have the same or better frequency response and transient as the Sony patented "ribbon"?

Tony W Mah


uh-oh... i know alphajerk's going to have something so say about THAT annalogy ;\)

Quote:
ML

PS: I really appreciate posts from folks who HAVE heard DSD. I also really like it when folks act like they would act in PERSON if we were all, you know, together. Like polite, or at least civil. Many other boards in the web are full of wankers and wanna-bees, with hardly anyone posting that is more than a senior wanker or 1st-class wannabee.


\:\) thanx for reminding some of us to stay out of this one ;\)

-stef

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 590
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 590
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark Lemaire:

If [DSD] survives, though, it will get cheaper and eventually the less monied of the engineering community will be able to choose the format that pleases their ears.


Amen. ;\)

It is for this reason that I hope labels like Telarc continue to do good work with DSD, that it does "survive" and that it continues to evolve and improve in parallel with PCM. With all reasonable cynicism aside, it's nice to see one of the monoliths coming out with a delivery format that's excessively good (remember DCC?).

-dg


DAVE GREENBERG
SONOPOD MASTERING
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 709
A
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
A
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 709
Since three or four years I read a lot about DSD. The only disadvantage compared to PCM is maybe the higher noisefloor (in theorie) and certainly the difficulties to work with (mixing or EQing isnīt as easy as with PCM).

But what are the advantages?
What we are looking for is an absolutely transparent system. Until now I heard DSD three times. The demonstration were done by SONY with very very expensive equipment (amps, cables, loudspeakers). I really was impressed. And yes there was also something I would say "emotionally strong" (excuse my bad english, canīt find better words).

On the other hand I also heard 100.000$ amps, cables, speakers where the source was 24/96 PCM - and I also was impressed. But I never heard DSD and PCM in comparison.

I agree with Nika, I donīt now from any scientific comparison between DSD and PCM.

Apart from that I would like to read about facts. What are the system inherent problems with PCM. What is better with DSD - noise, all kinds of distortion, behaviour with transients?
Is there a way to get around the problems of PCM (decimation?) and DSD (again, noise, EQing, mixing?).

In the end, is a signal coming from a microphone or an analog mixer and then digitally recorded better representet with DSD or with PCM? And Why?

Are we able to describe facts here, or can we only talk about emotions?

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,223
C
MP Hall of Fame Member
OP Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
C
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,223
Guy, in all honesty...

I did not post this thread with the intention of starting a big fracus (sp?). Although it has been fun and interesting debate, I really was just trying to find out if anyone had any meaningful analysis of DSD vs PCM.

A friend of mine bought an SACD system for his home recently, and it got me curious, that's all. It sounds good, but once again, the whole system down to the cables is all-pro, very expensive stuff. He gets home from a business trip tomorrow, so I'm gonna hit him up for a visit next week, and see if we can arrange some sort of A/B/X test. Can't guarantee a high degree of scientific integrity, though: it's in the basement of a rowhome in South Philly. I'll see what I can do.

In the meantime, thanks to everybody who participated in this discussion, especially crafty1, who's comedic relief was much welcome since I stopped watching Seinfeld reruns some months ago.

Eric \:\)
----------------
"Dancing bits...what, am I at the f*cking ballet now?!"


Eric Vincent (ASCAP)
http://www.curvedominant.com
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 397
S
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 397
\:\) well curve, thanks for starting the damn thing in the first place! \:\) Rarely have i gotten so wrapped up in lurking around. I wish i had more info to contribute but i sure as hell learned alot. But i WAS very serious in my feeling bad about the fellow Nika mentioned in one of the threads that was linked to....Stanley Lipshitz...my my my. Brilliant he was/is (?) i'm sure, but definately unlucky. Like i said, i'm not too worried about offending anyone with the joke because my last name's Wang...didn't serve me too well in junior high... \:D
Cheers,
Shiver


Rule #2: Don't sweat the petty stuff, and don't pet the sweaty stuff.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,223
C
MP Hall of Fame Member
OP Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
C
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,223
Shiver Wang? Sounds like a porn name...

E \:\)


Eric Vincent (ASCAP)
http://www.curvedominant.com
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 397
S
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 397
ROTF! Ha! Well, I DO star in alot of adult films...let's see:
"Tight Anal Rampage"(1 through 7)
"Knockin' on Heather's Door"
"The Only One Left For Debbie to Do"
"Late Night with David Leatherman"
Those are my most recent. \:D
Cheers,
Shiver Wang
(Porn Star Extraordinaire)

[ 01-31-2002: Message edited by: Shiver ]


Rule #2: Don't sweat the petty stuff, and don't pet the sweaty stuff.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 47
D
DG Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
D
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally posted by Curve Dominant:

EVEN IF DSD was some kind of superior high-resolution format, the whole logic behind using it as a consumer-end delivery system shoots itself in the foot...

1. Since one cannot edit DSD, it is rendered impractical and unusable for recording sessions.

2. Therefore, sessions will continue to be recorded in PCM.

3. So, all of those "evil" sounding artifacts allegedly produced by PCM will be faithfully rendered in high-resolution by DSD.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the signal hits PCM at any point in the path, the end listener is essentially hearing a PCM signal. Which would mean:

A. For a consumer to buy a DSD system, and DSD discs, would be a complete waste of money

B. For an engineer to master to DSD would be a complete waste of time and money

C. This whole concept of DSD as a practical option for the consumer is a complete hoax.

Where is the fundamental flaw in that equation?

Eric \:\) [/QB]


Well for one, you CAN edit DSD. We've been doing it for 3 years - first on a prototype Sonic USP system, then on the Sony Sonoma. Sadie is set to release a great stereo DSD workstation and Sonic Solutions has just announced that they will develop DSD editing for the HD system.

You're assuming that unless your source material is the highest possible resolution, then it's not worth putting on SACD, which is absurd. With that logic, we shouldn't be reissuing 78s on CD.

If your circustances require that you work in PCM, be satisfied that once it reaches the SACD master, all of the resolution is preserved, and in case you haven't noticed, PCM - even 44 or 48k - can sound very very good, especially if you can keep it 24 bit.

And if you've never heard a well-engineered pure DSD recording, you're in for a treat.


David Glasser
Airshow Mastering
Boulder, CO

http://www.airshowmastering.com
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,223
C
MP Hall of Fame Member
OP Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
C
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,223
Quote:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Curve Dominant:
EVEN IF DSD was some kind of superior high-resolution format, the whole logic behind using it as a consumer-end delivery system shoots itself in the foot...
1. Since one cannot edit DSD, it is rendered impractical and unusable for recording sessions.
2. Therefore, sessions will continue to be recorded in PCM.
3. So, all of those "evil" sounding artifacts allegedly produced by PCM will be faithfully rendered in high-resolution by DSD.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the signal hits PCM at any point in the path, the end listener is essentially hearing a PCM signal. Which would mean:
A. For a consumer to buy a DSD system, and DSD discs, would be a complete waste of money
B. For an engineer to master to DSD would be a complete waste of time and money
C. This whole concept of DSD as a practical option for the consumer is a complete hoax.
Where is the fundamental flaw in that equation?
Eric

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well for one, you CAN edit DSD. We've been doing it for 3 years - first on a prototype Sonic USP system, then on the Sony Sonoma. Sadie is set to release a great stereo DSD workstation and Sonic Solutions has just announced that they will develop DSD editing for the HD system.

You're assuming that unless your source material is the highest possible resolution, then it's not worth putting on SACD, which is absurd. With that logic, we shouldn't be reissuing 78s on CD.

If your circustances require that you work in PCM, be satisfied that once it reaches the SACD master, all of the resolution is preserved, and in case you haven't noticed, PCM - even 44 or 48k - can sound very very good, especially if you can keep it 24 bit.

And if you've never heard a well-engineered pure DSD recording, you're in for a treat.
--------------------
David Glasser
Airshow Mastering
Boulder, CO


David,

I'll tell you what's absurd: out of all of the posts on this thread, you chose that one to take entirely out of context to respond to.

If you had to dig so far into this thread to find that post, then surely you would have noticed a clarification I made of that, which I actually posted TWICE, which read:
Quote:
I'd like to repost this if yous don't mind, lest it got lost in the static...

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to point out that DSD does have a timelocation reference (the "other white meat", or axis).
--------------------
George Massenburg
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correct, which is why simple editing is possible in DSD (???).
It's the EQ, FX, gain changes, etc. type of editing which become difficult in DSD. Why is that? What's the missing reference point?
Eric


So, yes, and I know you had to have noticed, that I am aware that DSD is capable of some level of editing.

So, David, since you have brought up the subject of editing DSD, and since you have obviously enjoyed the benefit of experience of working with DSD, could you at least contribute to our discussion in a way that transcends yet another sales pitch? For example:
1. How superior, scientifically speaking, is DSD over PCM?
2. To what extent do you edit DSD? Cut and paste? EQ? FX? Real time gain changes? Can you be the least bit specific?

Please enlighten us! Three years of experience with DSD cannot have left you entirely tongue-tied in regards to the finer technical details, eh? Do you know why you are using DSD? Can you at least explain that tiny bit of information to us? This is a tech board, after all.

Quote:
David Glasser writes:
You're assuming that unless your source material is the highest possible resolution, then it's not worth putting on SACD, which is absurd. With that logic, we shouldn't be reissuing 78s on CD.


You're assuming that my source material should be worth putting on SACD, without your even explaining why. Which is absurd. With that logic, we should be reissuing everything ever recorded on every sham format that gets shoved down our throats by the likes of the Sony Corporation. Nice try, but you strike out with that pitch.

Quote:
If your circustances require that you work in PCM, be satisfied that once it reaches the SACD master, all of the resolution is preserved, and in case you haven't noticed, PCM - even 44 or 48k - can sound very very good, especially if you can keep it 24 bit.


Thanks for the reassurance. I'm really sold on DSD now, knowing that all of my resolution will be preserved on it. Whew!

Quote:
And if you've never heard a well-engineered pure DSD recording, you're in for a treat.


A treat! Oh, goody! I like treats! Gee, thanks for the treat, David! But, since you can afford the time to post your sales pitch here, can you at least take a moment to explain why DSD will be such a treat, compared to PCM, in mathematical or scientific terms? That is what this discussion is about, after all. I mean, your website is cute, and all. But, you haven't made the sale yet, and we are the types who like to look under the hood before we buy.

A few more questions, David, since you've decided to grace us with your presence:
Quote:
you CAN edit DSD. We've been doing it for 3 years - first on a prototype Sonic USP system


Hmm...you have access to a prototype. Interesting. What exactly is your business affiliation with companies producing and promoting DSD-related products?
Quote:
Sadie is set to release a great stereo DSD workstation


How great is it?
Quote:
Sonic Solutions has just announced that they will develop DSD editing for the HD system.


Really? Can you be a little bit specific? How certain are you that they will do what they have "announced," and why?

You have to understand something, David: some of us are not sold on DSD just yet. We have a sneaking suspicion that it is PCM with a fancy faceplate. You come around here with a sales pitch, but nothing empirical to back it up. We get even more suspicious. The bullshit is piling up so high and so fast with DSD, that we start to feel like need wings to stay above it. Since you and your folks have so much invested in DSD, it may behoove you to cut the crap, unroll some blueprints, and explain to us exactly why, in scientific terms, DSD is where we want to be.

Thanks!
Eric \:\)


Eric Vincent (ASCAP)
http://www.curvedominant.com
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 370
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 370
Hi all,
Don't have anything to contribute in regards why DSD is better and how much better it is over PCM, however I would just like to suggest that the answer won't be found unless you direct the search into the source of the origin(which is the inventer/creater of DSD).

I am like everyone else, is very curious about this technology and would be very interested to grasp an understanding of the whole concept of DSD.

spam~ Ol\'timaz

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 709
A
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
A
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 709
Editing DSD is done in "DSD-wide" which is a 4-bit word. So one step of decimation is already done (some people say PCM wide is almost the same as PCM narrow). I donīt know from any possibility to edit or mix the origin DSD 1-bit signal.

If someone produces completely in analogue and only at the final end converts the analogue signal for release on SACD in DSD, than DSD makes sence.

It also makrs sence to use DSD for cheap consumer players because the DA conversion is done easier - and cheaper. Maybe thatīs why SONY decided to release the expensive DSD player first on the High End market, to distract poeple from the fact that DSD is the ideal format for cheap players?

So again, whatīs the advantage of DSD? If it is only that we donīt need the decimation to PCM, than I think itīs not a big advantage compared to the disadvantages in production. And there will be better decimation algorithms in the future for PCM.

Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 930
M
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
M
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 930
Jeez, Curve! Could you give these guys a break? You're acting as paranoid as if this were an X-Files episode! While these guys who have been using DSD are probably on an inside track on SOME level, (or else they wouldn't have access to beta testers, yadda yadda), try to act just a little less snide when someone who uses this shit posts!

(but on the other hand)... I appreciate you trying to seperate the wheat from the chaff in terms of who that's posting here has a vested interest in seeing DSD succeed (ie: secretly pimping their own gear)-- or fail (protecting their own ass, etc).

I'm just asking you to cool your jets here a little so your requests regarding more specific information are taken seriously. Remember, Mr crafty hasn't posted here for a while- these are OTHER guys, who may be OK. Anyhow, they may know stuff you want to find out. OK? (grovel, grovel....)

ML

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,974
Rog Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,974
Agreed ... here Curve, smoke this ==~ \:\)

One question, if the playback of an SACD disk is interupted, does that mean that the rest of the track is up shit creek? Doesn't it need a continous flow of 1s or 0s to work and so a scratched SACD is far worse than a scratched CD?


"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." - Banky Edwards.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 47
D
DG Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
D
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally posted by Curve Dominant:



You have to understand something, David: some of us are not sold on DSD just yet.



I don't think that any amount of chatter on this forum will 'sell' you on anything. If you want the knowledge you seek, you'll have to get it the old-fashioned way; it won't come pouring out of your internet connection.

The information and equipment are out there and easy to come by. If you are curious about DSD, then listen to some SACDs at the local hi-fi emporium, go to your pro-audio dealer and listen to DSD converters (from Genex & dCs), rent some DSD equipment for your next gig, check out the wealth of technical info from Sony & Phillips, attend the AES and Surround conventions, try to arrange a visit w/ a studio that is doing DSD recording.

You are located in Philadelphia, just a stone's throw from many folks who are working w/ DSD. You should take advantage of that.

Regards,


David Glasser
Airshow Mastering
Boulder, CO

http://www.airshowmastering.com
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 156
T
td Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 156
Curve - maybe a switch to Sanka would help and maybe you should take up David's Pepsi challenge in & around Philly instead of flogging every person that uses DSD and tries to state some thoughts about it ......... I mean they're out there on the edge of technology, trying something new. Breath in ~ breath out. Ahhhh.

Tony

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: td ]

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 426
B
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
B
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 426
I don't think theoretical considerations mean a hill of beans in audio unless you are speaking of obvious degradation. Implementation has always been the main thing that counts. The real issue about DSD is how well it will be implemented vs. how well future PCM products will be implemented. Hopefully both will soon reach the point that conversion to analog or conversion from one to the other causes no perceptible degradation.

Myself, I'm really happy to see some real competition in audio quality for the first time in years. We all will benefit from this.


Bob's workroom (615) 385-8051
http://hyperback.com
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 57
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 57
Everybody,

My bet is on the Sadie system
versus the Sony. I have disliked
Sony editing products going
back to the early days of 1630.
I've been a believer in their(Sadie)
product ever since Glen Meadows
of 'Masterfonics' fame turned
me on to Sadie back in 95'.
I'm still sticking with the dCS
DSD converters, & then possibly
Apogee DSD conversion(if they
come up with them in the future).


"The Crafty One".

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,223
C
MP Hall of Fame Member
OP Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
C
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,223
Quote:
You are located in Philadelphia, just a stone's throw from many folks who are working w/ DSD. You should take advantage of that.
Regards,
--------------------
David Glasser
Airshow Mastering
Boulder, CO


Well, not exactly, David.

Every studio owner I've talked to so far has got their sights set on upgrading to 96K, so they can go with DVD-A. I called one of the biggest commercial mastering houses here, and they do not master with DSD. I didn't speak with the head engineer yet, but the house manager told me they had a SACD player in to demo about a year ago. They did some A/B testing, and...a year later, still feel no need to jump in. I asked the manager what he thought of the sound, and he said, "Yeah, it sounded great." I asked him how much better than the Redbook CD, and he said, "A little bit." They do master with DVD-A, however, and are very happy with that format.

As far as the local hi-fi emporiums go, those $5.50/hour salesman aren't going to tell me anything more in-depth than what Sony wants them to tell me about the nuts and bolts of DSD. You refuse to answer any of my questions as well, about the nuts and bolts of DSD, even though you've been working with it for three years, and have time to post here.

The following attitude is indicative of the highest level of constructive input we've recieved so far:
Quote:
poated by Tony:
Curve - maybe a switch to Sanka would help and maybe you should take up David's Pepsi challenge in & around Philly instead of flogging every person that uses DSD and tries to state some thoughts about it ......... I mean they're out there on the edge of technology, trying something new. Breath in ~ breath out. Ahhhh.
Tony


That's it? That's the most specific anyone who advocates DSD can be? "Try it, you'll like it!" followed by a snarky taunt. Very helpful. You're a real pillar of the scientific community, Tony! \:D

How is it "on the edge"? What makes it so "new"? If you have to flog someone in order to get a straight answer out of them, is that such a bad thing? I'll stick to real coffee, thank you very much. So far, the thoughts posted by people who do use DSD have been utterly useless. To me, that says something about them, and format.

Once again: Does anyone out there have some hard science that tells me I'm dead wrong? I would love to see it.

Thanks in advance!
Eric \:\)


Eric Vincent (ASCAP)
http://www.curvedominant.com
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 57
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 57
Curve D.,

Did it ever come to mind that the DSD info could be so proprietary in nature that Sony has a lock on it, & that's why people are not giving up the inside story on DSD, especially to early nay sayers as yourself. And not for the reason of trying to push a new product just to enhance their earings ratios but to in fact properly promote the new medium by influencing people to go and actually listen to it before killing it at the drawing board. Some of the most revered high-end equipment has only 'good' technical spec's but when you actually listen to it 'it's a whole new world'. Let the ears be the judge sometime.

"The Crafty One".

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,223
C
MP Hall of Fame Member
OP Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
C
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,223
Point well taken, crafty one.

My ears haven't decided yet.

E \:\)


Eric Vincent (ASCAP)
http://www.curvedominant.com
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 930
M
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
M
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 930
Eric-

I don't think that the folks who want you to switch over to decaf are all "pro DSD" and trying to get you to back down. I, for one, just want to assume that MOST of these guys are using the thing because (in descending order of liklihood):

1. it sounds better to them and it's worth the effort/expense

AND/OR:

2. The snob value of using this new technology will sell them records (they hope)

3. They all secretly will get their bank accounts stuffed by Sony if they can get this stupid thing respected by other engineers.

4. They secretly work for a paramilitary wing of Sony that will achieve world domination if it can brainwash enough gullible engineers from Philadelphia into purchasing this expensive box without checking it out before they buy. So far, their evil plan seems not to be working.


I, for one, don't really need the science of it explained to me before I can decide if it sounds good-- anymore than I need to understand the science behind how my TV works before I turn it on and watch 'The Prisoner'. Now THERE was a man justified in feeling paranoid!

"I am not a number- I am a free man!"

HAAAAA hAhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

sincerely,

Number Two

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 157
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 157
DSD has the potential of sounding better than CDs today. And as has been said a few times it may already be self-evident for those who've heard it. Specwise, it ought to compete very well with DVD-A. But that's just one aspect isn't it? After all, can't you just remaster to DSD/DVD-A or whatever?

Often enough, you'll hear folks right on this form yearn for that good old analog sound--in a production context. In other words, recording, mixing, & mastering. Though I'm also certain that many of these same folks wouldn't give up the flexibility and myriad conveniences of digital production.

So my question is, if DSD/DVD-A are better consumer formats (the marketplace will judge soon enough) what are the expected production advantages of DSD? Will it be easier to edit, process, route, mix, master, ...

Are there any other advantages or is it just supposed to sound better than 48+/24?

Anyone with experience or guesses, wanna chime in on this one?
I haven't heard any so far.

-Dennis

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 238
M
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
M
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 238
I'm in the middle of (DSD) post-production right now, so this is brief:

1. DSD is not pcm in disguise. The pcm part of co-processing DSD data during mixing, editing, etc. is 4-bit at 64x, also known as "wide DSD". The effective bandwidth exceeds that of oversampled LPCM. There is R&D underway to eliminate the pcm co-processing.
2. SACDs play the same as a CD - interrupting it does nothing unusual. Hybrid SACDs play in ALL CD-compatible players.
3. DSD is being edited, mixed, EQd, compressed, etc everyday in our facility on the Sonoma DSD editor. The Sonoma is NOT a Sony pro audio product. It is under development.
4. Sony does not pay me or Telarc to say good things about DSD. Actually, no one at Sony has ever even suggested what we say about DSD, good or bad.
5. I use DSD, (Meitner converters, not dCS) because it sounds much closer to the board output than any pcm converter at any rate has...so far. And because I can.
6. Many, many projects will not benefit from release on SACD at this time. Not all projects are maintained at high-resolution all the way through the process to be worth the extra time, expense, etc. Not all projects should be heard in high-resolution. Transferring 16-bit 44.1 pcm recordings to DSD does not get you anything more than what you started with. An SACD of that pcm recording will not sound any different than a CD of the same recording.
7. An outstanding DSD recording from SACD will sound better than the same recording as played from a CD regardless of the system. So will an outstanding analog recording transferred to DSD.
8. The quality of the music is MUCH more important than the means of recording or reproducing it.


Instead of going 'round and 'round with speculation here, take advantage of the wealth of knowledge within the Audio Engineering Society. The nitty-gritty on DSD and delta-sigma conversion can be found through the the AES preprint order page:

http://www.aes.org/publications/preprints/search.html

and search for these publications:
AES preprint 5377:
DSD-Wide. A Practical Implementation for Professional Audio

AES preprint 5392:
Investigation of Practical 1-Bit Delta-Sigma Conversion for Professional Audio Applications

AES preprint 5393:
Acheiving Effective Dither in Delta-Sigma Modulation Sustems

AES preprint 5394:
The Practical Performance Limits of Multi-Bit Sigma-Delta Modulation

AES preprint 5395 (the Ying...)
Why 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Conversion is Unsuitable for High-Quality Applications

AES preprint 5396 (and the Yang...)
Why Direct Stream Digital (DSD) is the best choice as a digital audio format

AES preprint 5397:
SDM versus LPCM: the debate continues

AES preprint 5398:
Towards a Better Understanding of 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Modulation

AES preprint 5399:
Editing and Switching in 1-Bit Audio Systems

Happy Reading!

With Best Regards,
Michael Bishop
Telarc International


Best Regards;
Michael Bishop
Telarc International
http://www.telarc.com
SACD, DSD & DVD-A Editing and Mastering available now at:
Wired 4 Music
http://www.wired4music.com
also: DSD, SACD, DVD, surround recording, and pro-audio information & links
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,223
C
MP Hall of Fame Member
OP Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
C
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,223
Quote:
I'm in the middle of (DSD) post-production right now, so this is brief:
1. DSD is not pcm in disguise. The pcm part of co-processing DSD data during mixing, editing, etc. is 4-bit at 64x, also known as "wide DSD". The effective bandwidth exceeds that of oversampled LPCM. There is R&D underway to eliminate the pcm co-processing.
2. SACDs play the same as a CD - interrupting it does nothing unusual. Hybrid SACDs play in ALL CD-compatible players.
3. DSD is being edited, mixed, EQd, compressed, etc everyday in our facility on the Sonoma DSD editor. The Sonoma is NOT a Sony pro audio product. It is under development.
4. Sony does not pay me or Telarc to say good things about DSD. Actually, no one at Sony has ever even suggested what we say about DSD, good or bad.
5. I use DSD, (Meitner converters, not dCS) because it sounds much closer to the board output than any pcm converter at any rate has...so far. And because I can.
6. Many, many projects will not benefit from release on SACD at this time. Not all projects are maintained at high-resolution all the way through the process to be worth the extra time, expense, etc. Not all projects should be heard in high-resolution. Transferring 16-bit 44.1 pcm recordings to DSD does not get you anything more than what you started with. An SACD of that pcm recording will not sound any different than a CD of the same recording.
7. An outstanding DSD recording from SACD will sound better than the same recording as played from a CD regardless of the system. So will an outstanding analog recording transferred to DSD.
8. The quality of the music is MUCH more important than the means of recording or reproducing it.

Instead of going 'round and 'round with speculation here, take advantage of the wealth of knowledge within the Audio Engineering Society. The nitty-gritty on DSD and delta-sigma conversion can be found through the the AES preprint order page:
http://www.aes.org/publications/preprints/search.html
and search for these publications:
AES preprint 5377:
DSD-Wide. A Practical Implementation for Professional Audio
AES preprint 5392:
Investigation of Practical 1-Bit Delta-Sigma Conversion for Professional Audio Applications
AES preprint 5393:
Acheiving Effective Dither in Delta-Sigma Modulation Sustems
AES preprint 5394:
The Practical Performance Limits of Multi-Bit Sigma-Delta Modulation
AES preprint 5395 (the Ying...)
Why 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Conversion is Unsuitable for High-Quality Applications
AES preprint 5396 (and the Yang...)
Why Direct Stream Digital (DSD) is the best choice as a digital audio format
AES preprint 5397:
SDM versus LPCM: the debate continues
AES preprint 5398:
Towards a Better Understanding of 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Modulation
AES preprint 5399:
Editing and Switching in 1-Bit Audio Systems
Happy Reading!
With Best Regards,
Michael Bishop
Telarc International


\:\)


Eric Vincent (ASCAP)
http://www.curvedominant.com
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 930
M
Gold Member
Offline
Gold Member
M
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 930
Thanks for all the links, Michael! I wonder if this is some of the scientific reading material that some of us have been lusting for.

thinking this over a bit more, I came up with these thoughts:

Even though it has been perhaps the most important recurring theme on this thread, I wonder sometimes if connecting the *science of a process* to the *sensation of hearing that process in action* is really so key to understanding whether it is the right thing to use in one's music.

One might as well study the taste buds to decide why a certain food appeals, or our auditory system to understand why a certain piece of music makes us feel nostalgic...


I expect that a lot of these guys that are using DSD are doing so because they like it's sound. They don't have to to justify their choice with science- though that may frustrate the hell out of folks that want hard science answers- they may have just heard it and listened hard and made their decisions.

BUT anyone who is invested in DVD at this early stage is hoping their investment works out, I assume. Some may (do) have ties to Sony- I suppose some of them are insiders on some level (after just reading your post above, Michael, I guess many users DON'T have any connection to Sony either). So in some cases it might be hard to get straight answers from a given user for that reason too.

Anyhow, I'd love to see 'why' DSD should sound better scientifically- but if it really does sound better to ME when I finally have a chance to test it and use it- then knowing WHY may be as pointless and someone explaining WHY a certain joke is funny or WHY a certain food tastes good to me. I'll just 'know'.

Mark 'I don't understand art but I know what I like' Lemaire

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2
I think we need to consider the issue of DSD as a production format seperately from DSD as a distribution format.

As a distribution format, DSD is far, far better than CD. I've had the privilage of listening to it in David Glasser's mastering rooms, and he's made me convert, at least as concerns DSD's sonic merits. As for its technical necessity (or even its long-term sufficiency), I still have my doubts. But if SACD beats out DVD-A in the consumer marketplace, I won't be crushed. I just hope one or the other wins, because I'd love to see conventional CDs go the way of the analog cassette.

As a production format, DSD has the practical difficulties mentioned by others. Most of the important audio processing algorithms that we use with PCM have yet to be invented for DSD. I think that DSD-oriented engineers will eventually learn that its one-bit form is best reserved for distribution. My guess is that in a few years, Michael Bishop will think the idea of actually _recording_ in a one-bit format was rather quaint. If we have to record in DSD, I hope it turns out to use multibit modulators which can be properly dithered. I hope we don't have to settle for the current DSD bitrate which, from an information theoretic viewpoint, is already inadequate to store the output of the latest PCM audio converters. Our production format ought to be better than the delivery format.

I don't see a whole lot of difference between high-rate PCM data format, and this "DSD-wide" format. You can do the processing slowly at 24-bit resolution, or quickly at 4-bit resolution. Multiply sample-rate by word width and you get the channel capacity. If the channel capacity is the same, then you're basically handling the same amount of information. That means we're down to arguing about who can implement the better processing algorithm. Same as it ever was.

DSP guys who code for PCM are wise to use oversampling and then decimate back down to their preferred resolution. DSP guys who burn Xilinx chips for DSD probably don't have to oversample, and instead of putting a decimation filter at the back end, they need to build another modulator. I personally think its more difficult to design a good modulator than a good decimator, but maybe I just don't have true religion. Both camps had better keep track of their accumulator widths, or all bets are off.

I'm still at a loss to find anything about DSD that's THEORETICALLY superior to PCM. I'll admit that there's still a lot wrong with current IMPLEMENTATIONS of PCM. The economics associated with the personal studio revolution (of which I am a beneficiary, BTW) have made for some pretty damn sloppy DSP coding in the PCM world. If PCM is to reach its true potential, that has got to stop. When PCM algorithms start being routinely coded with oversampling and high-order noise shaping, I predict that noone (not even Michael Bishop) will be able to tell it from DSD.

Best regards to all,

David L. Rick
Hach Company (the day job)
Seventh String Recording (sleepless nights)
drick@hach.com

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 157
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 157
My sentiments, David, exactly. Now back to Michael's reading list.

These papers are expensive at $10 apiece. AES policies for access are a bit unusual for such organizations these days. Most research docs are free. But I'm sure there's something about AES finances I don't understand.

-Dennis

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,223
C
MP Hall of Fame Member
OP Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
C
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,223
Quote:
posted by David L. Rick:
My guess is that in a few years, Michael Bishop will think the idea of actually _recording_ in a one-bit format was rather quaint. If we have to record in DSD, I hope it turns out to use multibit modulators which can be properly dithered. I hope we don't have to settle for the current DSD bitrate which, from an information theoretic viewpoint, is already inadequate to store the output of the latest PCM audio converters.


This reminds me of a question someone once asked me: how does one dither one bit, and where does the dithering noise go?

Quote:
Multiply sample-rate by word width and you get the channel capacity. If the channel capacity is the same, then you're basically handling the same amount of information. That means we're down to arguing about who can implement the better processing algorithm. Same as it ever was.


This is why I always suspected DSD was a "6 of one, half-dozen of the other" sort of marketing gimmick. Higher sampling rate+lower bit depth, as opposed to vice-versa...it just didn't seem like "The New Frontier" that some peeps were making it out to be.With all of Ed Meitner's flowery analogies, there was no hard math that I could see poking it's head through, and saying, "This is a shorter distance from point A to point B!" And that is ultimately what we are looking for, right? A clearer signal path. I'm all for clear and pro-active progress. Juggling numbers is not progress.

Quote:
I'm still at a loss to find anything about DSD that's THEORETICALLY superior to PCM.


Well, we've gone to 4 pages of debate on gm's board over this issue, with no hard math posted which would contradict that statement.

Quote:
I'll admit that there's still a lot wrong with current IMPLEMENTATIONS of PCM. The economics associated with the personal studio revolution (of which I am a beneficiary, BTW) have made for some pretty damn sloppy DSP coding in the PCM world. If PCM is to reach its true potential, that has got to stop. When PCM algorithms start being routinely coded with oversampling and high-order noise shaping, I predict that noone (not even Michael Bishop) will be able to tell it from DSD.


\:\)

Eric Vincent
Curve Dominant Sound&Vision
curvdominant@earthlink.net


Eric Vincent (ASCAP)
http://www.curvedominant.com
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,649
OK thanks! I'll try not to get too excited until we're hearing 24 bits or more at 2+ MHz! Maybe by then I'll be able to afford it, and people will routinely listen to 16 bit 2+Mhz at home. My prediction- like the hula hoop, great home stereos will become hip again, maybe by then.

"I don't think theoretical considerations mean a hill of beans in audio unless you are speaking of obvious degradation. Implementation has always been the main thing that counts. The real issue about DSD is how well it will be implemented vs. how well future PCM products will be implemented. Hopefully both will soon reach the point that conversion to analog or conversion from one to the other causes no perceptible degradation.

"Myself, I'm really happy to see some real competition in audio quality for the first time in years. We all will benefit from this."

This is the essence- it's junk science if it doesn't deliver a classic recording medium, and if it does, it's progress!

Ted


A WOP BOP A LU BOP, A LOP BAM BOOM!

"There is nothing I regret so much as my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?" -Henry David Thoreau
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,184
gm Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,184
Quote:
Originally posted by David L. Rick:
[...] You can do the processing slowly at 24-bit resolution, or quickly at 4-bit resolution. [...]

...or, as Ed Meitner suggests, you can do single-bit at 256FS.

In fact, it may matter how you get there. What if there were sample-rate related artifacts (as distinct from the bandwidth limitations, including filtering problems, that have everyone's attention) in PCM? Then, only a higher sample rate is going to improve things? And, if that's true, what's the 'next frontier' in sample rates? 96kHz doesn't seem like a big step. Maybe 192 (which sounds pretty good to me)?


George Massenburg

http://www.massenburg.com
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  gm 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5