or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › DSD music file impression thread and file sharing link
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DSD music file impression thread and file sharing link - Page 3

post #31 of 163

I believe most monolithic audio DAC today with "DSD" mode actually internally digitally filter, decimate and merge the derived multibit stream with their own typically multibit delta sigma modulators  - there are very few actual single bit DSD DAC with the required >5 th order analog filters to actually roll off the noise shaping, MHz "noise" peaking +6 dB above analog band full scale level

post #32 of 163

Has anybody got any sites where they have downloaded DSD music? Ive tried to purchase a couple of albums but they are geographically protected (US only)

post #33 of 163

OK have found this site so far:

 

http://downloadsnow.net

post #34 of 163

I have a question about DSD/SACD. I discovered recently that these formats are considered equivalent. But long ago when SACD first came out, I was told it was a 96KHz format. Is there some specific reason people would have said that? Is it because at that time, all SACD's were played only by 96 KHz DACs for some reason? Maybe no native DSD consumer DACs existed? 

 

Also, if SACD/DSD are equivalent, why is it tricky to rip an SACD to DSD? Why were there comments earlier in this thread about whether it was done right?

 

Thanks.

John.

post #35 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by johncarm View Post
 

I have a question about DSD/SACD. I discovered recently that these formats are considered equivalent. But long ago when SACD first came out, I was told it was a 96KHz format. Is there some specific reason people would have said that? Is it because at that time, all SACD's were played only by 96 KHz DACs for some reason? Maybe no native DSD consumer DACs existed? 

 

Also, if SACD/DSD are equivalent, why is it tricky to rip an SACD to DSD? Why were there comments earlier in this thread about whether it was done right?

 

Thanks.

John.

 

 You were told wrong. SACD's were never 96kHz although it was possible to have 24/96kHz that were then converted and/or upsampled to DSD then put onto SACD. AFAIK, it was DVD Audio that was 96kHz (at least the ones I have anyway).

 

The reason why it's tricky to rip SACD is it's a protection mechanism (piracy reasons).

post #36 of 163

Thanks. Oh the other MAJOR question I have (puzzles me) is --> why has DSD become the talk of the town only recently when SACD has been around for 15 years or something like that? Or am I mistaken? Has it always been talked about? 

post #37 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by johncarm View Post
 

Thanks. Oh the other MAJOR question I have (puzzles me) is --> why has DSD become the talk of the town only recently when SACD has been around for 15 years or something like that? Or am I mistaken? Has it always been talked about? 

because the world wasn't ready for such a huge audio revolution!!!!

just kidding, IMO just better "marketing". they now have more unscrupulous people who make sure we'll never get some masters available as 16/44, or even 24bit. that way they coerce us into buying DSDs. it's always the same game of compagnies trying anything to dominate the market with the media they own.

 

so we have the brilliant choice between buying some DSD for some masters we wish to own, and that way sending a strong signal that it's legit to take the consumer for an idiot. or the other choice, not playing into their hands, but also not getting those great masters ...

sad sad world.

post #38 of 163

SACD DSD single bit "DAC" initially speced a 100 kHz analog low pass filter - this needs to be >5th order to get ahead of the noise shaping curve

 

the shaped noise rises rapidly above 20 kHz and was accused of melting down some "audiophile" power amps - the noise rise can be seen the links in post #30

 

so the spec was modified to 50 kHz low pass - giving ~ the same BW as 96k PCM


Edited by jcx - 7/5/14 at 7:52am
post #39 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post
 

because the world wasn't ready for such a huge audio revolution!!!!

just kidding, IMO just better "marketing". they now have more unscrupulous people who make sure we'll never get some masters available as 16/44, or even 24bit. that way they coerce us into buying DSDs. it's always the same game of compagnies trying anything to dominate the market with the media they own.

 

so we have the brilliant choice between buying some DSD for some masters we wish to own, and that way sending a strong signal that it's legit to take the consumer for an idiot. or the other choice, not playing into their hands, but also not getting those great masters ...

sad sad world.

And these more recently available masters on DSD probably victims of the loudness war, too? eh?

 

I completely believe you when it comes to motivation of the companies. They don't want there to be one well-established, well-regarded format.

 

I suppose faster download speed is making a difference.. these DSD files are many gigabytes each.

post #40 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcx View Post
 

SACD DSD single bit "DAC" initially speced a 100 kHz analog low pass filter - this needs to be >5th order to get ahead of the noise shaping curve

 

the shaped noise rises rapidly above 20 kHz and was accused of melting down some "audiophile" power amps - the noise rise can be seen the links in post #30

 

so the spec was modified to 50 kHz low pass - giving ~ the same BW as 96k PCM

Is this 50KHz low pass a specific order? I'm thinking about how shallower slopes are generally less intrusive on the signal. But there's only one octave between 50 and 100 KHz, so if you are going to significantly lower power at 100 KHz that would have to be steep.

post #41 of 163

Sony has never put it out in the public domain but people have calculated that they must be using at least 5th order noise shaping - so 6th order analog low pass filtering is the least that starts to actually roll off the DSD shaped noise rather than merely level it off

post #42 of 163

Thanks, that's interesting. Too bad such a steep filter is required--I'm assuming that a complex analog circuit with real-world non-perfect components is going to intrude on the signal, but maybe not.

post #43 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by liyzag1 View Post
 

is there any site where i can get trance, hip hop, ambient dsd music files ?

I found a site that had dance .  I only track of Donna Summer. :etysmile:

 

But there is a lot of old classic rock etc around , But it seems I can't buy it because i am in Australia. 

 

But it would be great to get some of that sort of stuff. 

post #44 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiDi View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by liyzag1 View Post

 

is there any site where i can get trance, hip hop, ambient dsd music files ?





I found a site that had dance .  I only track of Donna Summer. " src="http://files.head-fi.org/images/smilies/etysmile.gif" />



 



But there is a lot of old classic rock etc around , But it seems I can't buy it because i am in Australia. 



 



But it would be great to get some of that sort of stuff. 


 

I for one, am bloody sick of this geographically restrictive selling of music. It hurts the artists because it only encourages less honest folks than me (LOL) to take music by torrent. I can't believe how many times I've gotten the "not available in your region," from HD tracks, or the special 'Canada downloads from Acoustic Sounds.' I used to care about such things, but now, I don't give a care. I'll find what I like, where I can.
post #45 of 163

DSD isn't worth it if the files as conversions from other formats. Only DSD from start to finish will really show what it's capable of. That means recording at the front end to DSD and then using DSD all the way through to the distribution medium.

 

Presenting a retail DSD product as superior is borderline fraud. No reproduction medium can sound better than the weakest link in the process chain that made it. Very few studios work with DSD all the way through the process. It's very expensive software and has limitations that don't apply to PCM processing. I don't really know, but I'll guess that nearly all DSD versions are just conversions from high bitrate PCM mixes or masters. In that case, it's hardly surprising that most people say they can't hear a difference. An 8"X10" plate camera image of an instamatic print is still an instamatic print, but stored in an enormously over the top size file.

 

To really hear what DSD sounds like you'll need to experiment with a recorder that can record straight from real life analog to DSD. I've tried this, and it sounds fantastically real. Any recording situation that can be done simply by going "straight to stereo" is well worth doing as DSD. Multitracking is prohibitively expensive to get tooled up for. I searched on the internet for information about DSD studio software and found very little. What I did find was software costing in excess of £70K for a basic DAW that normal VST plugins won't even work with.

 

Unless this barrier between real life analog and the reproduction medium is simplified and drastically reduced in cost, I can't see any way that DSD has got a future in the music industry. It's even hard to see much of a future for it in the technical sense at all. Sure, it's a superior principle but an economically impossible practice. Being practically confined to simple stereo recording situations, it's fun to play with as a recordist out in nature or whatever, but it's not going to make normal album masters sound better than the PCM masters it's made from.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › DSD music file impression thread and file sharing link