[Beolab]

I have searched for EDM , techno , Ambient and similar genres ( Not Classic or Jazz ) that is recorded in DSD for download or primilary for SACD’s , but i have realized that there aren't to many worth buying, so i want to ask here if someone have find or know of any albums in this audio category ?

Please name drop does SACD / DSD recordings would be great!

 

[Slaphead]

No real point getting those genres, or publishing them, in SACD or DSD.

Not because the music doesn't warrant it, I actually do some drum and bass myself, but because the music is heavily produced "in the box", meaning everything has to be done in PCM to allow for editing. At the end of it you would have to convert your final PCM bounce to DSD, and there's no point in doing that as you've already lost the advantage of DSD

For DSD to retain it's advantages (of which I'm of the opinion there are none, but that's for another discussion) the whole recording, mixing and production needs to remain analogue right up to the point it's encoded to DSD, and that simply does not, and cannot happen with modern EDM production methods.

Edited to add: If you want some EDM in DSD format then you can download the TASCAM Hi-Res editor for free - https://tascam.com/us/product/hi-res_editor/top and then convert some tracks to DSD, which is exactly what the record labels would do if you managed to successfully request DSD files from them.

 

[Beolab]

Hi Thanks

No real point getting those genres, or publishing them, in SACD or DSD.

Not because the music doesn't warrant it, I actually do some drum and bass myself, but because the music is heavily produced "in the box", meaning everything has to be done in PCM to allow for editing. At the end of it you would have to convert your final PCM bounce to DSD, and there's no point in doing that as you've already lost the advantage of DSD

For DSD to retain it's advantages (of which I'm of the opinion there are none, but that's for another discussion) the whole recording, mixing and production needs to remain analogue right up to the point it's encoded to DSD, and that simply does not, and cannot happen with modern EDM production methods.

Edited to add: If you want some EDM in DSD format then you can download the TASCAM Hi-Res editor for free - https://tascam.com/us/product/hi-res_editor/top and then convert some tracks to DSD, which is exactly what the record labels would do if you managed to successfully request DSD files from them.

Thanks for your reply , yes i was afraid that was the answer why there is zero EDM DSD out there becsuse you cant edit in DSD yet sadly.

So maybe high res MQA CD’s is the best medium for EDM music.

 

[Slaphead]

Hi Thanks



Thanks for your reply , yes i was afraid that was the answer why there is zero EDM DSD out there becsuse you cant edit in DSD yet sadly.

So maybe high res MQA CD’s is the best medium for EDM music.

Pop over to GearSlutz where a lot of producers, mixers, DJs, recording and mastering engineers hang out, and do a search on MQA - I think you'll find that the general response to it is pretty negative, and I doubt many, or any of the EDM guys are using it as part of their production chain

To be honest you'd be better off going for the high-res files, assuming they're available. EDM distribution is a completely different thing to most other music distribution.The vast majority of EDM is produced with a view to getting it into the hands of DJs and getting it played in clubs, so the formats are typically vinyl or high bit rate MP3. CDs aren't always available, and one of the reasons for this is that a lot EDM producers don't really produce albums as such, EPs (collections of up to 4 or 5 tracks) are more common, but often it's just one track released at a time which doesn't justify a CD.

If you were to ever see the kind of processing going on in an EDM track - hIgh pass and low pass filters all over the place, reverbs, compressors, limiters, fatteners, EQs, transient shapers, pitch shifters, distortion modules, the list is almost endless - then I think you'd also realise that it becomes difficult to justify releasing EDM in anything more than standard 16/44 or 48, especially when you realise there isn't much content above 8KHz.

An EDM track typically has a brief life, and then dies rapidly, so the EDM labels concentrate on delivering the music in the formats required by their customers which are mostly DJs (Pro and amateur) without adding in the "unnecessary" stuff. So as far we would be concerned it really is a take what you can get situation - I've had some tracks supplied in AAC HE which is around 70Kbps with no higher res option available.

 

[qboogie]

I have wondered the same thing. Would love to have some Odesza, DROELOE, or Tennyson in DSD. Just really thoughtfully produced electronic music.

 

[Vitaly2017]

So technically speaking all that edm music in flac its already at its best of what it can be ? would it still benefit if we listen to 24 bit 192 flacs over 44.1 16bit Edm pcm's recordings? Or its all simply up sampled?

 

[cobrabucket]

Daft Punk - Random Access Memories
Goldfrapp - Supernature
Gotan Project - La Revancha Del Tango
Groove Armada - Vertigo, Lovebox, Goodbye Country (Hello Nightclub)
Hidden Orchestra – Night Walks, Archipelago
Juno Reactor - Gods and Monsters, Labyrinth
Moloko - Statues
Propellerheads - Decksandrumsandrockandroll
Tokyo Zawinul Bach – Afrodita

 

[chrisdrop]

@Slaphead has offered very good comments IMO. Pass on DSD. Music of this sort, as mentioned, is captured and edited in PCM. no MQA it is a DRM device primarily. 16b/44.1 flac is good. Higher bitrates are fine but make no large difference.

I listen primarily to electronic music and have a pretty resolving setup. Here are recent listens; https://www.last.fm/user/chrisdrop

IMO the biggest determinant of performance is the capture and production quality. Production quality varies massively in electronic music. Actually; it is generally poor; heavily compressed. There is a reasonable amount of well-produced out there, but you must really seek it out. IMO dynamic range is still a useful indicator of good production. This guy mellow and may not be your flavour of electronic FYI - but has very solid production quality and you can see it in the dynamic range of the actual flac files.

Therefore; put the most effort into finding well-produced music, not higher bitrate formats of poorly or marginally produced music. It won't make it better.

 

[Slaphead]

So technically speaking all that edm music in flac its already at its best of what it can be ? would it still benefit if we listen to 24 bit 192 flacs over 44.1 16bit Edm pcm's recordings? Or its all simply up sampled?

I believe that in all honesty no.

Yes, the production takes place in 24 or 32 bit space, with sampling rates or 192 or higher and a lot of the source samples are upsampled as well, but the primary reason is to reduce quantisation distortion with the large amount of effects processing going on - something that can appear quite rapidly when working in 16/44.1. After the track is mixed and mastered then you can just dump it down to 16/44, or as is often the case 320 MP3, and truthfully that's all you need - larger bitspace or sampling frequencies for the end delivered product aren't going to be an improvement.

Anyway most modern DACs will upsample playback as a matter of course if they're a delta sigma design - R2Rs not so much, so you don't need to upsample yourself, in fact I would advise against it as you can't really create information that's not there to begin with.

I'm sitting here with an RME DAC connected to some expensive professional Focal monitors listening to Dvořák's string quartet 11 as I type, and I'm feeding the DAC with 16/44 FLAC files, and I'm happy. truthfully I've never heard an improvement by going to a higher bitspace and sampling frequencies, with any music.

 

[cobrabucket]

Personally, I think I can hear a difference and no matter what, definitely prefer the sound of DSD and Hi-res over 16/44.1 FLAC.

 

[Vitaly2017]

I believe that in all honesty no.

Yes, the production takes place in 24 or 32 bit space, with sampling rates or 192 or higher and a lot of the source samples are upsampled as well, but the primary reason is to reduce quantisation distortion with the large amount of effects processing going on - something that can appear quite rapidly when working in 16/44.1. After the track is mixed and mastered then you can just dump it down to 16/44, or as is often the case 320 MP3, and truthfully that's all you need - larger bitspace or sampling frequencies for the end delivered product aren't going to be an improvement.

Anyway most modern DACs will upsample playback as a matter of course if they're a delta sigma design - R2Rs not so much, so you don't need to upsample yourself, in fact I would advise against it as you can't really create information that's not there to begin with.

I'm sitting here with an RME DAC connected to some expensive professional Focal monitors listening to Dvořák's string quartet 11 as I type, and I'm feeding the DAC with 16/44 FLAC files, and I'm happy. truthfully I've never heard an improvement by going to a higher bitspace and sampling frequencies, with any music.

I am inclined to purchase the files already in wav and as maximum its possible when purchased as highest resolution can get I mean.
I my self never up sample anything, I love bit perfect philosophy!
on bandcamp you can purchase in wav flac or mp3 as well. I think wav is best

 

[Slaphead]

I am inclined to purchase the files already in wav and as maximum its possible when purchased as highest resolution can get I mean.
I my self never up sample anything, I love bit perfect philosophy!
on bandcamp you can purchase in wav flac or mp3 as well. I think wav is best

Can't fault you for wanting non lossy files - it gives you more flexibility in how you can use the files. For instance you can easily create an MP3 or AAC for mobile use at whatever bit rate you require, and it will be the best possible quality for any given bit rate as the file you produce will be a first generation compressed file.

As for wav is best, well FLAC is in terms of information equal to WAV for any given bit depth and sampling rate as FLAC is lossless compression. Assuming both the WAV and the FLAC were generated from the same source (or the FLAC was generated from the WAV) once the FLAC has been extracted it will match the WAV 100% - there will be no difference.

In the past people have argued that the extra processing overhead involved with extracting the FLAC can affect the sound quality. This may have been true 20 years ago when realtime extraction of a FLAC could put the processor up against its limits and also there may have often been the situation where there was not enough RAM to hold the extracted data. However these days a FLAC track can be extracted and dumped into RAM in a fraction of a second, even on a older smartphone, so this argument no longer applies.