[Chimmy9278]

I understand that the nature of DSD does not allow it to be mixed after the fact that it is recorded and digitized.

So the audio engineer will instead track the mics at their best spots to have the best input possible.

Thus raises my question, what does one do to alter the music after the initial mic placement and tracking if the result is not yet ideal?

Thank you.

 

[jwbrent]

I understand that the nature of DSD does not allow it to be mixed after the fact that it is recorded and digitized.

So the audio engineer will instead track the mics at their best spots to have the best input possible.

Thus raises my question, what does one do to alter the music after the initial mic placement and tracking if the result is not yet ideal?

Thank you.

My understanding is a DSD file is converted to PCM for mixing/mastering then converted back to DSD.

 

[Chimmy9278]

Which is the exact reason why I specified pyramix.

I think in Sonoma that is what happens, but as Paul slowly built his studio to record DSD, I think he settled on pyramix, which should be pure DSD.

 

[sander99]

In a way it is all marketing hocus pocus. PCM is audibly transparent (meaning audibly perfect) so there is no problem to use it.
I quickly googled pyramix and saw dsd-wide and dxd mentioned. Dxd is 24 bit 352.8 kHz PCM. Dsd-wide also in fact is PCM, but at a DSD sample rate.
The marketing hocus pocus is to make people believe something is a pure DSD production while in fact it is just partly done in PCM in some form or the other. Which of course doesn't hurt the sound quality at all, but doesn't fit in the myth of DSD sounding better.

For DSD (and for "high resolution" PCM) offerings often different - better - masters are used than for example for the standard redbook CD version, so when people compare the same album in different formats they do sound different and the myth that standard 44.1/16 PCM is not audibly perfect is supported. Marketing induced placebo effects do the rest.
In case I wrote something that shocks or surprises you regarding dsd or high res: this is extensively discussed in other threads in the Sound Science forum.
Also you could read here: https://web.archive.org/web/20200426202431/https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[Peti]

DSD is one bit pcm. Don't get too hung up on formats. Go with the one you'll enjoy the most. I used to hate redbook pcm and preferred SACD rips until I got the source sorted out in my system. Now I love 16/44.1 and up. The key for me was the Sotm sms 200 Ultra in my signal chain.

 

[bigshot]

JWBrent has the answer. You convert it to mix. There's no advantage to recording from beginning to end in DSD. In fact it's a PITA.

 

[gregorio]

I understand that the nature of DSD does not allow it to be mixed after the fact that it is recorded and digitized.

Correct, simple editing (without cross fades) can be performed but that’s about it. More recently, DSD wide editing/mixing systems have been introduced but there are still limitations and it’s not widely used because DSD/SACD was already a dying format before it became available.

Thus raises my question, what does one do to alter the music after the initial mic placement and tracking if the result is not yet ideal?

After the mic placement and tracking, typically alterations will be done by converting to PCM, as others have stated, or just recording PCM to start with and then converting to DSD after mixing, etc. However, there is another option that was sometimes used for “purist” DSD recordings. After the placement of the mics, the mics’ output is routed through an analogue mixing desk where it is mixed (in real time) and then this mix is recorded in DSD. So there is no “after” tracking/recording unless you want to master that recording, in which case it still has to be converted.

DSD is one bit pcm.

Not really. DSD is effectively a delta/sigma format. Oversimplified, the one bit just effectively denotes if the signal amplitude is higher or lower than the previous sample point. In PCM the bits represent an actual quantified value of the signal’s amplitude, rather than just a + or - . In practice there’s not as much difference at it appears, because pro ADCs initially sample using delta/sigma at very high sample rates and then convert (decimate) to PCM.

Don't get too hung up on formats.

This is entirely true though! Although with one potential caveat: SACD was a consumer format that could only be played in the home on a relatively expensive system, while wav/CD could be played in cars and converted to low quality MP3s for mobile use or other poor listening environments. SACD/DSD was therefore typically mastered to take advantage of the exclusively high quality systems and listening environments it would be reproduced on/in.

G

 

[71 dB]

Not really. DSD is effectively a delta/sigma format. Oversimplified, the one bit just effectively denotes if the signal amplitude is higher or lower than the previous sample point. In PCM the bits represent an actual quantified value of the signal’s amplitude, rather than just a + or - . In practice there’s not as much difference at it appears, because pro ADCs initially sample using delta/sigma at very high sample rates and then convert (decimate) to PCM.

G

One could add that mathematically DSD is the derivative of PCM and respectively PCM is the integral of DSD. This is the principle how the conversions back and forth are done.

SACD format is still alive within the genre of classical music. A few labels such as BIS keep releasing hybrid SACDs. It is just a niche format.

 

[bigshot]

SACDs are pretty much dead. Replaced by Blu-ray audio.

 

[Chimmy9278]

In a way it is all marketing hocus pocus. PCM is audibly transparent (meaning audibly perfect) so there is no problem to use it.
I quickly googled pyramix and saw dsd-wide and dxd mentioned. Dxd is 24 bit 352.8 kHz PCM. Dsd-wide also in fact is PCM, but at a DSD sample rate.
The marketing hocus pocus is to make people believe something is a pure DSD production while in fact it is just partly done in PCM in some form or the other. Which of course doesn't hurt the sound quality at all, but doesn't fit in the myth of DSD sounding better.

For DSD (and for "high resolution" PCM) offerings often different - better - masters are used than for example for the standard redbook CD version, so when people compare the same album in different formats they do sound different and the myth that standard 44.1/16 PCM is not audibly perfect is supported. Marketing induced placebo effects do the rest.
In case I wrote something that shocks or surprises you regarding dsd or high res: this is extensively discussed in other threads in the Sound Science forum.
Also you could read here: https://web.archive.org/web/20200426202431/https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

> PCM is audibly transparent (meaning audibly perfect) so there is no problem to use it.

I am not saying that there is any problem with PCM. Indeed, it is a very matured technology and well improved format of digital music. Yet people still choose analog some of the times because there is a preferable difference.

So there brings up the problem of DSD. Since it has a higher sampling density, it should be able to recreate the wave form more accurately ~ analog. And since I did find them to sound better than a file played by converting to PCM, I believe there is a difference and therefore wanted to know of the mastering process.

The DXD point you brought up is completely valid, and I think that is good to know how most DSD recordings are still mastered in PCM. But the way I take it is, DSD recoding is mixed and mastered with a better base then CDs, whether it is PCM or not. So it should still result in a better product then a CD.

Thank you for your input.

 

[Chimmy9278]

Correct, simple editing (without cross fades) can be performed but that’s about it. More recently, DSD wide editing/mixing systems have been introduced but there are still limitations and it’s not widely used because DSD/SACD was already a dying format before it became available.

After the mic placement and tracking, typically alterations will be done by converting to PCM, as others have stated, or just recording PCM to start with and then converting to DSD after mixing, etc. However, there is another option that was sometimes used for “purist” DSD recordings. After the placement of the mics, the mics’ output is routed through an analogue mixing desk where it is mixed (in real time) and then this mix is recorded in DSD. So there is no “after” tracking/recording unless you want to master that recording, in which case it still has to be converted.

Not really. DSD is effectively a delta/sigma format. Oversimplified, the one bit just effectively denotes if the signal amplitude is higher or lower than the previous sample point. In PCM the bits represent an actual quantified value of the signal’s amplitude, rather than just a + or - . In practice there’s not as much difference at it appears, because pro ADCs initially sample using delta/sigma at very high sample rates and then convert (decimate) to PCM.

This is entirely true though! Although with one potential caveat: SACD was a consumer format that could only be played in the home on a relatively expensive system, while wav/CD could be played in cars and converted to low quality MP3s for mobile use or other poor listening environments. SACD/DSD was therefore typically mastered to take advantage of the exclusively high quality systems and listening environments it would be reproduced on/in.

G

Very good point! The face that it is probably mastered for a difference audience is what I think DSD makes the most difference.

So it does seem like the production chain is still involved with PCM, good to know that.

But for now I will still stick with DSD because it does sound better when reproduced natively as far as I could tell. I think only a blind ABX could convince me otherwise for now.

 

[gregorio]

Since it has a higher sampling density, it should be able to recreate the wave form more accurately ~ analog.

There’s a few logical and factual problems with your post. If as you (correctly) state: “PCM is audibly transparent (meaning audibly perfect) so there is no problem to use it” - But DSD sounds different (better or worse) then DSD must be audibly imperfect. Logically therefore, if you prefer DSD, it must be because you prefer imperfect, lower fidelity, reproduction.

This is certainly the case with analogue, which is not more accurate, it is far less accurate, which is why digital audio was invented in the first place to replace analogue. The “analogue more accurate” thing was invented by Sony when they released SACD and is complete marketing nonsense. As is the assertion that a higher sample rate/density should be able to recreate the wave form more accurately.

In practice, there’s no audible difference between DSD and PCM, so what you’re hearing is either a perceptual error/placebo caused by the false marketing you’ve quoted or a difference in mastering as mentioned previously.

G

 

[gregorio]

I think only a blind ABX could convince me otherwise for now.

Been there, done that, so have many others and there’s published scientific ABX studies as well but I’d highly recommend you trying yourself, for your own peace of mind.

G

 

[71 dB]

SACDs are pretty much dead. Replaced by Blu-ray audio.

Whatever. I keep buying and listening to them so for me it looks a "living" format. Just bought three SACDs form BIS for example release in 2018, 2021 and 2022.
I guess supercars are also dead, since so few are sold in the World yearly... niche is niche, not dead.

 

[gregorio]

I guess supercars are also dead, since so few are sold in the World yearly... niche is niche, not dead.

At one time, many commercial studios were recording SACD format and many labels were releasing them. Now very few are, and SACD sales are a fraction of what they were a decade or more ago. So if not quite dead yet, at least in critical condition.

Supercars on the other hand are selling very well currently compared to the past and there are as many if not more supercar manufacturers, so obviously not dead or dying.

G