[Tsukuyomi]

DSD and other high-resolution formats are necessary for mastering, not for listening.

100% this ^

Its really only used for mastering and archiving for later editing and reselling as "remastered" to the masses for money.

 

[gregorio]

DSD and other high-resolution formats are necessary for mastering, not for listening.

100% this ^ Its really only used for mastering and archiving for later editing and reselling as "remastered" to the masses for money.

These statements are incorrect. DSD actually cannot be used for mastering (or mixing), as 1bit DSD cannot be processed. A DSD recording requiring mixing or mastering actually has to be converted to PCM first, then mixed/mastered and then converted back to DSD. The only DSD albums which have not been converted to PCM for mixing and mastering are direct to disk recordings which have not been mixed or mastered.

At one time, high sample-rate PCM formats could be beneficial when mixing or mastering, when using certain types of non-linear processors for example. However, that time passed quite a few years ago! Today (and for over a decade) processors which can benefit from high sample rates simply up-sample internally before processing.

G

 

[71 dB]

Pretty much all "impressions" made about sound quality without proper blind testing are rubbish unless the differences are obvious and huge. I just watched a Youtube video about hi-res formats (correctly saying 16/44.1 is all you need), but someone in the comment section said 11 kHz sinewave sounds "steppy and harsh" at 16/44.1. Yeah, it LOOKS steppy and harsh at 16/44.1 on your computer screen, but digital audio does not look and sound the same simply because the data isn't graphed on the screen the way our hearing system hears them! The bits or sample points do not enter your ears. What enters ears is a sum of sinc functions with different delays and ampitudes determined by the "steppy and harsh" data and the SUM is NOT "steppy and harsh" at all. Instead it is extremely precise representation of the original 11 kHz sinewave with some very low level dither noise nobody can hear at any rational listening levels. So, saying stuff like 16/44.1 sounds "steppy and harsh" only exposes your total lack of understanding of digital audio. It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect. In audio this is pretty harmless, but in politics things get serious.

 

[bigshot]

Are the Pentatone SACDs direct to disk? They advertise that they are recorded to DSD.

 

[castleofargh]

Are the Pentatone SACDs direct to disk? They advertise that they are recorded to DSD.

I believe they have some minimalist solutions with DSD wide and some other name like that. but for more advanced mastering, as far as I know it's conversion or DXD(which is PCM but has the name to pretend it's not).

 

[71 dB]

Overkill formats are overkill formats no matter if they are bitstream or PCM.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Are the Pentatone SACDs direct to disk?
[2] They advertise that they are recorded to DSD.

1. I don't know.
2. If we were to assume they are converting to PCM for mixing and/or mastering and then back to DSD again for distribution, then still their advertising is technically correct: They ARE recording to DSD (just omitting to mention that after they've recorded to DSD, they converted to PCM and back again).

Castleofargh is correct. There's a fairly new system available which converts DSD into DSD wide (8bit DSD) which can be processed, although I believe only to a limited extent. Before that though, there was no choice, direct to disk or PCM conversion for mixing/mastering.

G

 

[bigshot]

It appears that there are several labels doing "direct to disc" DSD recordings. Pentatone is one of them. I found info here at a store that specializes in native DSD recordings... http://help.nativedsd.com/high-reso...the-music-recorded-edited-and-mastered-in-dsd

They also talk here about DXD (352.8KHx 32 bit PCM). The copy on this page sounds like a lot of the sales pitch in the liner notes on early stereo demonstration LPs. If doing things the difficult and clumsy way results in good sound, they must be the best sounding recordings of all!

 

[gregorio]

I found info here at a store that specializes in native DSD recordings... They also talk here about DXD (352.8KHx 32 bit PCM). The copy on this page sounds like a lot of the sales pitch in the liner notes on early stereo demonstration LPs. If doing things the difficult and clumsy way results in good sound, they must be the best sounding recordings of all!

Yep it's all marketing BS. Firstly DXD; what's the difference between DXD and say a 352/32 wav? DXD is a 352/32 wav! The only difference is that someone decided to call a 352/32 wav DXD presumably because they thought it sounded cool and could make the bitter pill (to audiophiles) of SACDs being converted to PCM easier to swallow. Hey, why don't we call 44/16 "DZD" and sell it as the new best thing to audiophiles? Secondly, they avoid the PCM conversion by mixing in analogue!! That's just brilliant, as if we don't have enough noise with DSD to start with, let's add some good old fashioned thermal noise in there as well. And, if that's not bad enough, it doesn't entirely eliminate the PCM conversion anyway, as all Xfades have to be converted. None of this should be at all audible but it's all just audiophile marketing.

G

 

[Aibo]

Tried DSD many times and except different mastering I never heard any special quality compared to good PCM. And talking about mastering, most of the DSD albums I tried are mastered to sound artificially sharp and analytical which often sound worse than CD/Hi-Res counterparts.

So even if DSD is technically superior format, a lot of dishonest publishers and their fake DSD editions with their overcooked mastering make it something better avoided in my experience.

 

[bigshot]

I guess the recording I used to compare SACD to CD was a direct to disc DSD recording. It still sounded exactly the same.