[KeithPhantom]

Isn't it possible to record something that does not need any kind of mixing or mastering, record both in PCM and DSD, and then with those files do a double-blind?

 

[bigshot]

I think his problem is with his computer. His comp may not be able to play DSD cleanly on the fly, but it can when it processes it for downsampling.

The easiest way to compare DSD to PCM is to buy two copies of a DSD native SACD and play the SACD layer in one player at the same time you are playing the CD layer in another. Patch them into two inputs on a preamp, level match, push play on both players and then skip to track two at the same time. You should be in pretty close sync to do blind A/B switching. The only trick is finding an SACD that has the same mastering on the SACD and CD layers. I can point you to one I know for sure is like that, and a record label that I suspect always uses the same mastering for both layers.

 

[Brahmsian]

he is not doubting the transparency of PCM 44.1/16, but he is doubting the tranparency of DSD!

@bigshot wasn't understanding me. Possibly I didn't express myself well enough. You're exactly right: I'm wondering whether recording in DSD colors the sound. In audio, there are so many variables that it's very easy to draw incorrect conclusions, so I'm seriously trying not to.

 

[bigshot]

If they sound different, how do you know which one is correct and which one is colored? Assuming you're right and the DSD is the one that sounds wrong, my guess is that played properly they both sound exactly the same. I think your computer just has trouble playing DSD on the fly. It may not have a problem transcoding to PCM though. If it is the other way around, the problem is probably in the transcoding.

 

[Brahmsian]

1. I think his problem is with his computer. His comp may not be able to play DSD cleanly on the fly, but it can when it processes it for downsampling.

2. The easiest way to compare DSD to PCM is to buy two copies of a DSD native SACD and play the SACD layer in one player at the same time you are playing the CD layer in another. Patch them into two inputs on a preamp, level match, push play on both players and then skip to track two at the same time. You should be in pretty close sync to do blind A/B switching.

3. The only trick is finding an SACD that has the same mastering on the SACD and CD layers. I can point you to one I know for sure is like that, and a record label that I suspect always uses the same mastering for both layers.

1. I'm using a 2017 MacBook Pro connected to a balanced Grace SDAC via USB. Player software is Audirvana. Right now the DAC is feeding my Koss 95X's energizer/amp. I'm not playing anything as DSD. I don't even think Qobuz has DSD downloads. Everything is PCM. My question is not about playback but the recording side: Is it possible that recording in DSD imparts any color to the sound?

2. If it's a native DSD recording, presumably the CD layer was also recorded as DSD, so it doesn't really answer my question. Again my question isn't about playing it back. I hear no difference between DSD and a native DSD recording played as PCM. If DSD is colored, PCM would be able to reproduce it just as it can reproduce the sound of vinyl and tubes. PCM would sound just like DSD. Watch this brief video, where Paul McGowan addresses whether you can digitally record the sound of tubes and vinyl. Presumably, the same would hold for DSD converted to PCM.

EDIT: McGowan doesn't get around to answering the question until 2:00 in case you want to skip ahead.



3. Sure. Which label?

Correction: I originally described DSD converted to PCM as DoP (DSD over PCM). Technically, however, DoP is not DSD converted to PCM but actual DSD that uses PCM as a container so that your computer can play it.

 

[bigshot]

On an SACD disc, the SACD layer is DSD and the Redbook layer is PCM. Two different audio files on the same disc. You need to find a native DSD recording that has never been transcoded to PCM to mix or master (somewhat rare) and a record label that doesn’t master their redbook layer differently (rarer than you would think). As long as the CD player is capable of playing the SACD layer cleanly, it is an apples to apples comparison.

I think your problem is Audirvana. I can see how that particular company might be motivated to color the playback with a “house sound”.

Pentatone’s SACD of Stravinsky chamber music by Paavo Jarvi is recorded direct DSD. Since Pentatone only sells hybrid SACDs they have no motivation to hobble the redbook layer. In fact, I bet more of their customers listen to their discs on CD players than SACD players. Pentatone probably has other direct DSD discs that would work too.

You need two copies of the disc and two players to rack them up in sync. They don’t necessarily have to be the same brand and model of player if you are doing a personal test. They both should have transparent line out.

 

[Brahmsian]

On an SACD disc, the SACD layer is DSD and the Redbook layer is PCM. Two different audio files on the same disc.

Yes but if it's a DSD recording the audio on the Redbook layer would have still been recorded as DSD. Assuming DSD colored the sound *when it was recorded,* the color would transfer over to the Redbook layer. The Redbook layer would still sound like DSD. But you're right: I may well be hearing something else.

 

[old tech]

Isn't it possible to record something that does not need any kind of mixing or mastering, record both in PCM and DSD, and then with those files do a double-blind?

Yes and it has been done (many times). For example, see the paper Blech, D., Yang, M. Convention Paper 6086: DVD-Audio versus SACD: Perceptual Discrimination of Digital Audio Coding Formats. Berlin: Audio Engineering Society, 2004. The study concluded:

..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.

An even better controlled test could be constructed using the methodology as employed by Geringer and Dunningan (Geringer, J., Dunnigan, P. "Listener Preferences and Perception of Digital versus Analog Live Concert Recordings." Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education. 1 Jul. 2000, Number 145: 1-13) when they compared all analog recordings with digital recordings of the same live concert, but who (or what organisation) has the resources, time, money and inclination to do it?

Subjects listened to digital and analog recordings of the same concert performance, recorded unequalized and unmixed (tape and CD). They were able to switch back and forth between the two at will, and everything was blinded and well controlled. Overall, the digital version was preferred in all ten scoring areas.

The researchers concluded that results showed that music major listeners rated the digital versions of live concert recordings higher in quality than corresponding analog versions. Participants gave significantly higher ratings to the digital presentations in bass, treble, and overall quality, as well as separation of the instruments/voices. Higher rating means for the digital versions were generally consistent across loudspeaker and headphone listening conditions and the four types of performance media.

 

[Brahmsian]

This is more or less what I was envisioning would have to be done on the recording side.

It's not proof of anything, but it's interesting that though they found no statistically significance results overall, they generally got better scores using the STAX headphones (i.e. stereo) than when the music was played in multichannel surround. Moreover, the four subjects who got statistically significant scores all used the headphones, though the authors surmise that they were perceiving a very faint crackling noise that was slightly different for PCM than DSD. Their theory goes that the other subjects didn't perceive it, but that these did because they were enrolled in a Tonmeister course that teaches that crackling is "valid semantic content." I don't know how believable that explanation is. Their reasoning seems to be that the rest of the experiment proved that there was no audible difference, so these four students couldn't have been hearing a difference, which means that the only explanation is that they went by the crackling which all the other subjects somehow missed.

 

[KeithPhantom]

Yes and it has been done (many times). For example, see the paper Blech, D., Yang, M. Convention Paper 6086: DVD-Audio versus SACD: Perceptual Discrimination of Digital Audio Coding Formats. Berlin: Audio Engineering Society, 2004. The study concluded:

..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.

An even better controlled test could be constructed using the methodology as employed by Geringer and Dunningan (Geringer, J., Dunnigan, P. "Listener Preferences and Perception of Digital versus Analog Live Concert Recordings." Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education. 1 Jul. 2000, Number 145: 1-13) when they compared all analog recordings with digital recordings of the same live concert, but who (or what organisation) has the resources, time, money and inclination to do it?

Subjects listened to digital and analog recordings of the same concert performance, recorded unequalized and unmixed (tape and CD). They were able to switch back and forth between the two at will, and everything was blinded and well controlled. Overall, the digital version was preferred in all ten scoring areas.

The researchers concluded that results showed that music major listeners rated the digital versions of live concert recordings higher in quality than corresponding analog versions. Participants gave significantly higher ratings to the digital presentations in bass, treble, and overall quality, as well as separation of the instruments/voices. Higher rating means for the digital versions were generally consistent across loudspeaker and headphone listening conditions and the four types of performance media.

I would like to have a look into the data they got from the experiments, I'm pretty sure nobody got close to comprobate the alternative hypothesis even when using an α = 0.10.

 

[bigshot]

Testing schedule was full, so unfortunately the subjects couldn’t be brought back for verification tests...

 

[spiderking31]

I will say this….I have DSOTM 30th anniversary hybrid, and an old version of DSOTM, and listening through my OPPO SACD player; and I can hear so much more on the SACD format, than that crumby old version of the album. Also, I have the Focal Utopia headphones. And a very nice setup! I can hear every nuance in the DSD version, over the PCM format! But yes….it does mostly rely on the mastering (thriller anymore on PCM???) that album can definitely compete with DSD SACD! But I feel I can hear more on SACD, as it has a lower noise floor! In other words, you don’t have to crank the volume as much as if you were listening to a RedBook! That’s just me….I’ve been listening to SACD’s for a few years now, and can confidently say DSD brings out more detail! Think of 1080P compared to 4K UHD! Just some food for thought……

 

[bigshot]

It's been established in reviews that the SACD layer on Dark Side of the Moon is mastered differently than the CD layer. It isn't a good title to use to do a comparison. I did a careful comparison of SACDs years ago, and I found that many legacy titles have different mastering on the layers. There was a Rolling Stones SACD that had the single version on the CD layer and the album version on the SACD. I searched to find a disk that was both direct DSD on the SACD layer and never released on CD.(see mention above.) I finally found a label called Pentatone that fit the bill. Since it was Direct DSD, I was hearing pure DSD with no PCM intermediary step, and since it had never been released on CD, the CD layer was likely to be exactly the same mastering as the SACD. When I compared that, I found no difference at all between the layers. The record industry makes it very hard to do a comparison like this. I think they deliberately hobble the CD layer to make people think there is an audible improvement when there isn't.

 

[spiderking31]

It's been established in reviews that the SACD layer on Dark Side of the Moon is mastered differently than the CD layer. It isn't a good title to use to do a comparison. I did a careful comparison of SACDs years ago, and I found that many legacy titles have different mastering on the layers. There was a Rolling Stones SACD that had the single version on the CD layer and the album version on the SACD. I searched to find a disk that was both direct DSD on the SACD layer and never released on CD.(see mention above.) I finally found a label called Pentatone that fit the bill. Since it was Direct DSD, I was hearing pure DSD with no PCM intermediary step, and since it had never been released on CD, the CD layer was likely to be exactly the same mastering as the SACD. When I compared that, I found no difference at all between the layers. The record industry makes it very hard to do a comparison like this. I think they deliberately hobble the CD layer to make people think there is an audible improvement when there isn't.

I’m not going to lie….you have me thinking of going with only single layer Japanese pressings!!! And yes….I own more than a few single Japanese SACD’s! Don’t get offended, but you might have a point about hybrids! Just saying

 

[bigshot]

Again, it isn't the fault of the format. The Pentatone disk was a hybrid too. The problem is the record industry playing fast and loose with different masterings. I've found that there is absolutely no connection between sound quality and format. I have horrible sounding SACDs and great sounding CDs. The best sounding album I've ever heard, Donald Fagan's "The Nightfly" was recorded 16/44.1. Naturally, it has been released in Japan on SACD, even though there is no reason why it would sound any better in that format. Criterion is putting out a blu-ray of David Lynch's Inland Empire even though it was originally shot on 480p digital cameras.