Thanks, Paul. This is the first good, mathematical explanation I have ever heard as to why you can't change the levels in DSD. It makes sense now why something might have to be edited in PCM and then transferred back to DSD.
4:04 " Because PCM doesn't sound as good as DSD, period end of story." Actually not the end of the story, in fact, PCM definitely sounds as good as DSD! "...as a rule, no significant differences could be heard between DSD and high-resolution PCM (24-bit / 176.4 kHz) even with the best equipment, under optimal listening conditions, and with test subjects who had varied listening experience and various ways of focusing on what they hear. Consequently it could be proposed that neither of these systems has a scientific basis for claiming audible superiority over the other. This reality should put a halt to the disputation being carried on by the various PR departments concerned.” ~ “DVD-Audio versus SACD / Perceptual Discrimination of Digital Audio Coding Formats / Listening Comparison Test between DSD and High Resolution PCM (24-bit / 176.4 kHz)” and it was authored by Dominick Blech and Min-Chi Yang and presented to the Audio Engineering Society in 2004. In fact, DSD needs to have a significantly higher amount of noise added to it (compared to PCM) to minimize quantization errors and while the noise is pushed up into frequency ranges above 20 kHz, the signal to noise ratio of DSD falls significantly by 20 kHz compared to PCM. "In recent years, we have seen the consumer audio industry perform a remarkable feat of salesmanship by proclaiming that 1-bit converters are better than multi-bit converters, and succeeding in marketing 1- bit products as preferable for the highest-quality performance. The original primary motivation for pursuing the 1-bit converter architecture was not superior performance, but rather the fact that it is cheaper to manufacture, consumes less power, and can operate well at the voltages used in battery-powered portable equipment. This has now become secondary, as 1-bit converters are currently used in consumer audio equipment at all price and quality levels. The manufacturers of high-quality converters struggled mightily to produce 1-bit devices that met the performance goals of the industry. But, they could never eliminate all the undesirable artefacts of such converters, and after more than a decade of trying, they came to the realization that they could produce better performance by using multi-bit converter architectures in their products. ...In light of the above, it is with alarm that we note the adoption of the single-stage, 1-bit sigma-delta converter architecture as the encoding standard for a next-generation (and supposedly higher-quality) consumer digital audio format. We refer, of course, to the Direct Stream Digital (DSD) encoding which forms the basis of the Super Audio CD format introduced recently by Philips and Sony ... The original intention to have the digital audio data at every stage of the processing - from the original analogue to-digital conversion, through all the editing and mastering operations - stored in the DSD 1-bit format has apparently now been abandoned. This was a wise decision. The conversion to the final 1-bit DSD format, however, still represents a required, and quite unnecessary, degradation of the quality of the audio signal. Every single 1-bit data conversion entails an inevitable loss of signal quality in a way which need not occur with multi-bit, linear PCM. ~ Why 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Conversion is Unsuitable for High-Quality Applications, by Stanley P. Lipshitz and John Vanderkooy, Audio Research Group, University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada presented to Audio Engineering Society 2001.
Wait, , , so is it chicken or not? . . . . . what, what the heck am I eating?! O.o On a side note. Did you read the same article I did? I keep finding articles that suggest that DSD quality still resides roughly in the equivalent range of existing HD PCM. You would think with the insanely high sampling rates of DSD that it would be light-years better than PCM but since it's a different type of encoding altogether, I can't just assume it's one to one comparable based purely on sampling rate.
@@midnightsocean2689 PDMs high sampling rate combined with its 1-bit structure causes it to need high levels of noise applied to the incoming audio signal in order to lower quantization errors. Because it is 1bit it actually has only 1/32768 the resolution of16 bit PCM. This is in addition to other issues surrounding DSD (PDM). I would suggest that you find the research done by Stanley P. Lipshitz and John Vanderkooy which clearly shows the multitude of issues with DSD (PDM) including hardware issues that cause distortions. It clearly and scientifically shows the multitude of problems with DSD (PDM).
@@JonAnderhub I will look those up thank you. The 1 bit part only effects the volume resolution though, not the frequency resolution? Maybe I'm still thinking about it too much like how PCM works. This is where I'm having trouble finding answers. I want to know if PDM can define the sampled frequencies in significantly greater detail than PCM. For instance PCM has a resolution of 7.35 samples per waveform when sampling a 6Khz sound at standard 44.1Khz sampling rate. I don't know how PDM would handle that same 6Khz sound.
Guys.. you fundamentally don’t understand the differences between the two There is no such thing as 1 fraction of the resolution of PCM. The two systems do 2 fundamentally different things Paul doesn’t help either with his explanations The 1 bit system in DSD doesn’t capture what the bits in PCM capture, so saying we can’t change loudness because there are no bits it’s just nonsense
This is why I wish that more research was being done to create a new audio format that had the sonic qualities of DSD, but with the editing capabilities of PCM. Unfortunately research all seems to be into how audio files can be squeezed into ever smaller sizes. I would also add that whilst I can (just about!) understand the mathematical problems with processing a 1bit signal if you look at it literally and as a digital binary problem, if you look at it laterally as an analogue waveform signal problem instead.
@Douglas Blake Having had the benefit of hearing the best that PCM has to offer, through various high quality DACs, against both DSD and 8/16/24 track tape, all in a studio setting with very good monitoring - PCM isn't to my ears a good sounding recording system. I would take analogue tape or DSD over PCM any day. It is possible to make PCM recordings sound great but it takes a lot more work than either tape or DSD. I could record a session onto tape and out through a relatively good desk and some analogue outboard and get a good mix much more easily than attempting the same thing 'in the box' on Pro Tools or Logic. As I have learned over many years - facts and figures don't always tell the full story where audio is involved.
@@Toymortal That is because you have been brainwashed into believing that loss of high and low-frequency response, along with elevated levels of noise and harmonic distortion combined with tape hiss, and higher inter-channel cross talk equals great sound. The same arguments were used when electronics were moving out of the tube era to transistors. Those who grew up and worked with tubes insisted that transistors were harsh and none musical sounding. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion about what sounds good to you but from a factual state digital is far superior to analog in capturing and delivering better audio.
@@JonAnderhub Firstly, thank you for your concern about me having being brainwashed, however I can assure you that my brain is fully unwashed. In the message you are replying to, I was making a very specific point about an all analogue tape based mix versus a digital 'in the box' mix and how despite the problems and limitations of tape - it is much easier to achieve a mix with size, depth, weight and cohesion versus the in the box digital mix. Of course if you run the digital mix through some high quality DACs into a desk and outboard, a far better mix can be achieved which also offers improved sonic clarity over a tape based mix - but it's not quite as simple or as easy as many may assume it to be. The choice of recording medium is very much dependent on what material you are recording, your objectives and target audience. If a rock band wanted to make a loud, ballsy and in your face record then tape can be the ideal system due to the saturation (harmonic distortion) and the way that it forces you to record and work. Digital can simply just be too clean sometimes. If however the job was to record an orchestra or a piece of choral music or a jazz quartet with as much detail and dynamic range as possible - then digital systems are more appropriate. Which brings us to the PCM versus DSD debate. I can only comment on what I've heard, which was a two microphone recording of a jazz quartet, recorded onto both PCM and a DSD recorder simultaneously. Not just to my ears but to multiple people when blindfold tested - the DSD recording sounded much better than the PCM recording. The PCM version was recorded using a very high quality ADC/DAC pairing and both systems had a very short signal path so as to eliminate as many variables as possible. We can only base our opinions on a mixture of our experiences, knowledge and personal tastes. When it comes to the production and recording of music - what I or you find attractive in a recording others may not and for me that is one of the many joys of recorded music. The fact that we live in a time where the option to use tape or PCM or DSD, mix in the box, mix outside of the box or a hybrid approach - is liberating. Also, I would like to add that I'm not jumping to any conclusions about whether you have more or less experience than I do of working with the different systems in practice - you may be more or less experienced than I am. You may have no experience. But whatever the case we will have had different experiences and with different music. But as I'm sure you will know - tech specs on their own don't always tell the whole story and aren't a good way to judge what equipment to buy nor use.
@@FooBar89 Yes. If you're going to do a listening test such as that or when comparing cables, component choices in circuits or any such thing - you have to eliminate any outside factors and bias as best you can. Otherwise, like you say, the tests are meaningless. Personally I would say I have developed very good 'ears' due to the huge amount of music and equipment I've listened to and so know what I'm listening for. In the DSD versus PCM test, there were others who didn't have that experience and they all still preferred the DSD recording. One of the particular points everyone picked up on was a part in the piece of music where it dropped to just the sound of a sustained piano and double bass note, which was just at the end of disappearing, and some light brushing on the snare drum. In the PCM version everyone commented that it was like the ambience and the room was somehow sucked away, whereas in the DSD recording it was still very much alive and present. I can assure you that the very best that PCM technology has to offer, both in the ADC and DAC stages was used and was recorded at 24/192. This wasn't a standard recording studio and in fact a privately owned space. We can only base our opinions on what we hear.
ask Paul: Does a microphone for recording singing vocals need to be stereo? Why almost all KaraOK mics are mono? please enlighten us more about mono and stereo differences of the microphones..
It very often is not stereo and almost always mono, then later made stereo in the mix. That's not the best way to do it if the goal is to sound live. Think of a singer either sitting or standing as they sing. They move around and their head is never in exactly the same place. A stereo microphone picks those movements up and reproduces them as if they are live. It's subtle but makes a big difference.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio thank you for the very reasonable explanation ..that stopped me from buying expensive new stereo mic for my mom because so I thought the mono ones are insufficient to capture vocals. Now what i'm gonna do is to tune more on the mono mics..
Maybe I'm. stupid, but I have to confess that I'm still puzzled about this. When we look at DSD we seem to see what looks like an analogue waveform, so if we watched two different levels of the same signal, how would they differ? I'm afraid I just get confused when I consider the concept of waveform density. Nevertheless, I'm certainly a big fan of the format and have a large collection of both SACDs and DSD files (in mainly DSD128 resolution). There's a sweetness about the sound at the top end that I just don't seem to hear from even hi-res PCM!
well a signal is going through dsd high and low and as you say you can chop it so why can't you lower the output of what you needed, then feed that back on itself through the one bit processor mix? you saying that wouldn't work? 🇺🇦
Paul, why are you so hateful to Amir. If your going to start hating on him simply show us your measurements and let the facts speak. That is unless you have no measurements and you are not being honest. Paul, be kind and stop trying to shut him down. Thank you and have a nice day😑
i guess i missed the part where he was "hateful" to amir but i guess he has the same standpoint as many of us, differences that can be heared cant always be measured with the current meassurements we do, so there is no point in arguing with people that believe the (current) measurements are everything and all. its just pointless to try and explain because of course science and you are the fool because (current) measurements say so best thing "right now" is either you heared it for yourself or didnt
theoretically nobody can not feel differance 24 bit 192 khz signal between dsd..nobody doesn't need... dsd should be for lab experience..or mastering process...
Thanks, Paul. This is the first good, mathematical explanation I have ever heard as to why you can't change the levels in DSD. It makes sense now why something might have to be edited in PCM and then transferred back to DSD.
4:04 " Because PCM doesn't sound as good as DSD, period end of story."
Actually not the end of the story, in fact, PCM definitely sounds as good as DSD!
"...as a rule, no significant differences could be heard between DSD and high-resolution PCM (24-bit / 176.4 kHz) even with the best equipment, under optimal listening conditions, and with test subjects who had varied listening experience and various ways of focusing on what they hear. Consequently it could be proposed that neither of these systems has a scientific basis for claiming audible superiority over the other. This reality should put a halt to the disputation being carried on by the various PR departments concerned.” ~ “DVD-Audio versus SACD / Perceptual Discrimination of Digital Audio Coding Formats / Listening Comparison Test between DSD and High Resolution PCM (24-bit / 176.4 kHz)” and it was authored by Dominick Blech and Min-Chi Yang and presented to the Audio Engineering Society in 2004.
In fact, DSD needs to have a significantly higher amount of noise added to it (compared to PCM) to minimize quantization errors and while the noise is pushed up into frequency ranges above 20 kHz, the signal to noise ratio of DSD falls significantly by 20 kHz compared to PCM.
"In recent years, we have seen the consumer audio industry perform a remarkable feat of salesmanship by proclaiming that 1-bit converters are better than multi-bit converters, and succeeding in marketing 1-
bit products as preferable for the highest-quality performance. The original primary motivation for pursuing the 1-bit converter architecture was not superior performance, but rather the fact that it is cheaper to manufacture, consumes less power, and can operate well at the voltages used in battery-powered portable equipment. This has now become secondary, as 1-bit converters are currently
used in consumer audio equipment at all price and quality levels. The manufacturers of high-quality converters struggled mightily to produce 1-bit devices that met the performance goals of the industry.
But, they could never eliminate all the undesirable artefacts of such converters, and after more than a decade of trying, they came to the realization that they could produce better performance by using
multi-bit converter architectures in their products.
...In light of the above, it is with alarm that we note the adoption of the single-stage, 1-bit sigma-delta converter architecture as the encoding standard for a next-generation (and supposedly higher-quality)
consumer digital audio format. We refer, of course, to the Direct Stream Digital (DSD) encoding which forms the basis of the Super Audio CD format introduced recently by Philips and Sony ... The original intention to have the digital audio data at every stage of the processing - from the original analogue to-digital conversion, through all the editing and mastering operations - stored in the DSD 1-bit format has apparently now been abandoned. This was a wise decision. The conversion to the final 1-bit DSD format, however, still represents a required, and quite unnecessary, degradation of the quality of the audio signal. Every single 1-bit data conversion entails an inevitable loss of signal quality in a way which need not occur with multi-bit, linear PCM. ~ Why 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Conversion is Unsuitable for High-Quality Applications, by Stanley P. Lipshitz and John Vanderkooy, Audio Research Group, University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada presented to Audio Engineering Society 2001.
Wait, , , so is it chicken or not? . . . . . what, what the heck am I eating?! O.o
On a side note. Did you read the same article I did? I keep finding articles that suggest that DSD quality still resides roughly in the equivalent range of existing HD PCM. You would think with the insanely high sampling rates of DSD that it would be light-years better than PCM but since it's a different type of encoding altogether, I can't just assume it's one to one comparable based purely on sampling rate.
@@midnightsocean2689 PDMs high sampling rate combined with its 1-bit structure causes it to need high levels of noise applied to the incoming audio signal in order to lower quantization errors.
Because it is 1bit it actually has only 1/32768 the resolution of16 bit PCM.
This is in addition to other issues surrounding DSD (PDM).
I would suggest that you find the research done by Stanley P. Lipshitz and John Vanderkooy which clearly shows the multitude of issues with DSD (PDM) including hardware issues that cause distortions.
It clearly and scientifically shows the multitude of problems with DSD (PDM).
@@JonAnderhub I will look those up thank you. The 1 bit part only effects the volume resolution though, not the frequency resolution? Maybe I'm still thinking about it too much like how PCM works. This is where I'm having trouble finding answers. I want to know if PDM can define the sampled frequencies in significantly greater detail than PCM. For instance PCM has a resolution of 7.35 samples per waveform when sampling a 6Khz sound at standard 44.1Khz sampling rate. I don't know how PDM would handle that same 6Khz sound.
Guys.. you fundamentally don’t understand the differences between the two
There is no such thing as 1 fraction of the resolution of PCM. The two systems do 2 fundamentally different things
Paul doesn’t help either with his explanations
The 1 bit system in DSD doesn’t capture what the bits in PCM capture, so saying we can’t change loudness because there are no bits it’s just nonsense
@@rrricmat Please elaborate. : )
This is why I wish that more research was being done to create a new audio format that had the sonic qualities of DSD, but with the editing capabilities of PCM. Unfortunately research all seems to be into how audio files can be squeezed into ever smaller sizes.
I would also add that whilst I can (just about!) understand the mathematical problems with processing a 1bit signal if you look at it literally and as a digital binary problem, if you look at it laterally as an analogue waveform signal problem instead.
@Douglas Blake Having had the benefit of hearing the best that PCM has to offer, through various high quality DACs, against both DSD and 8/16/24 track tape, all in a studio setting with very good monitoring - PCM isn't to my ears a good sounding recording system. I would take analogue tape or DSD over PCM any day. It is possible to make PCM recordings sound great but it takes a lot more work than either tape or DSD. I could record a session onto tape and out through a relatively good desk and some analogue outboard and get a good mix much more easily than attempting the same thing 'in the box' on Pro Tools or Logic. As I have learned over many years - facts and figures don't always tell the full story where audio is involved.
@@Toymortal That is because you have been brainwashed into believing that loss of high and low-frequency response, along with elevated levels of noise and harmonic distortion combined with tape hiss, and higher inter-channel cross talk equals great sound. The same arguments were used when electronics were moving out of the tube era to transistors.
Those who grew up and worked with tubes insisted that transistors were harsh and none musical sounding.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion about what sounds good to you but from a factual state digital is far superior to analog in capturing and delivering better audio.
@@JonAnderhub Firstly, thank you for your concern about me having being brainwashed, however I can assure you that my brain is fully unwashed. In the message you are replying to, I was making a very specific point about an all analogue tape based mix versus a digital 'in the box' mix and how despite the problems and limitations of tape - it is much easier to achieve a mix with size, depth, weight and cohesion versus the in the box digital mix. Of course if you run the digital mix through some high quality DACs into a desk and outboard, a far better mix can be achieved which also offers improved sonic clarity over a tape based mix - but it's not quite as simple or as easy as many may assume it to be. The choice of recording medium is very much dependent on what material you are recording, your objectives and target audience. If a rock band wanted to make a loud, ballsy and in your face record then tape can be the ideal system due to the saturation (harmonic distortion) and the way that it forces you to record and work. Digital can simply just be too clean sometimes. If however the job was to record an orchestra or a piece of choral music or a jazz quartet with as much detail and dynamic range as possible - then digital systems are more appropriate. Which brings us to the PCM versus DSD debate. I can only comment on what I've heard, which was a two microphone recording of a jazz quartet, recorded onto both PCM and a DSD recorder simultaneously. Not just to my ears but to multiple people when blindfold tested - the DSD recording sounded much better than the PCM recording. The PCM version was recorded using a very high quality ADC/DAC pairing and both systems had a very short signal path so as to eliminate as many variables as possible. We can only base our opinions on a mixture of our experiences, knowledge and personal tastes. When it comes to the production and recording of music - what I or you find attractive in a recording others may not and for me that is one of the many joys of recorded music. The fact that we live in a time where the option to use tape or PCM or DSD, mix in the box, mix outside of the box or a hybrid approach - is liberating.
Also, I would like to add that I'm not jumping to any conclusions about whether you have more or less experience than I do of working with the different systems in practice - you may be more or less experienced than I am. You may have no experience. But whatever the case we will have had different experiences and with different music. But as I'm sure you will know - tech specs on their own don't always tell the whole story and aren't a good way to judge what equipment to buy nor use.
@@FooBar89 Yes. If you're going to do a listening test such as that or when comparing cables, component choices in circuits or any such thing - you have to eliminate any outside factors and bias as best you can. Otherwise, like you say, the tests are meaningless. Personally I would say I have developed very good 'ears' due to the huge amount of music and equipment I've listened to and so know what I'm listening for. In the DSD versus PCM test, there were others who didn't have that experience and they all still preferred the DSD recording. One of the particular points everyone picked up on was a part in the piece of music where it dropped to just the sound of a sustained piano and double bass note, which was just at the end of disappearing, and some light brushing on the snare drum. In the PCM version everyone commented that it was like the ambience and the room was somehow sucked away, whereas in the DSD recording it was still very much alive and present. I can assure you that the very best that PCM technology has to offer, both in the ADC and DAC stages was used and was recorded at 24/192. This wasn't a standard recording studio and in fact a privately owned space. We can only base our opinions on what we hear.
So the density of the pulses at each sample point in the timespam of interest have to be assigned a 16 or 24 bit value then the levels can be edited.
Thanks!
ask Paul: Does a microphone for recording singing vocals need to be stereo? Why almost all KaraOK mics are mono? please enlighten us more about mono and stereo differences of the microphones..
It very often is not stereo and almost always mono, then later made stereo in the mix. That's not the best way to do it if the goal is to sound live. Think of a singer either sitting or standing as they sing. They move around and their head is never in exactly the same place. A stereo microphone picks those movements up and reproduces them as if they are live. It's subtle but makes a big difference.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio thank you for the very reasonable explanation ..that stopped me from buying expensive new stereo mic for my mom because so I thought the mono ones are insufficient to capture vocals. Now what i'm gonna do is to tune more on the mono mics..
Maybe I'm. stupid, but I have to confess that I'm still puzzled about this. When we look at DSD we seem to see what looks like an analogue waveform, so if we watched two different levels of the same signal, how would they differ? I'm afraid I just get confused when I consider the concept of waveform density. Nevertheless, I'm certainly a big fan of the format and have a large collection of both SACDs and DSD files (in mainly DSD128 resolution). There's a sweetness about the sound at the top end that I just don't seem to hear from even hi-res PCM!
well a signal is going through dsd high and low and as you say you can chop it so why can't you lower the output of what you needed, then feed that back on itself through the one bit processor mix? you saying that wouldn't work? 🇺🇦
Paul, why are you so hateful to Amir. If your going to start hating on him simply show us your measurements and let the facts speak. That is unless you have no measurements and you are not being honest. Paul, be kind and stop trying to shut him down. Thank you and have a nice day😑
i guess i missed the part where he was "hateful" to amir but i guess he has the same standpoint as many of us, differences that can be heared cant always be measured with the current meassurements we do, so there is no point in arguing with people that believe the (current) measurements are everything and all. its just pointless to try and explain because of course science and you are the fool because (current) measurements say so
best thing "right now" is either you heared it for yourself or didnt
Thanks Jedi-Master Paul!
Is DSD still a thing ?.
Please no more dad sacd talk Paul please mor about speakers or amps etc 😊
This is the Octave Records channel.
Try subscribing to the PS Audio channel
ruclips.net/user/PSAudiochannel
Jimmy Dore and Russel Brand unbiased news
DSD, DSD, DSD, DSD, DSD…………… DSD - New subject please
Gosh, you must be the only guy on the planet using DSD , and most of us stopped using windows 20 years ago
what are you using since 20 years?
theoretically nobody can not feel differance 24 bit 192 khz signal between dsd..nobody doesn't need... dsd should be for lab experience..or mastering process...