Multibit (16bit) Versus BitStream (1bit)... Which is better to you?

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by theaudiohobby Let’s rephrase this question and ask rather that for the purposes of music encoding, PCM and SDM, which is better? I think that compared to SDM, PCM is a simple but crude encoding algorithm compared to SDM. The main thing I think that 'straight' PCM has going for it is its simplicity. Compared to PCM, SDM looks quite complex however as a predictive coding algorithm, I think it has some keys advantages over non-predictive coding algorithms such as PCM for applications with fairly defined bandwidth such as music.

I don't have the time nor the energy to rehash this debate with you. Neither SDM nor PCM is "simple" or "crude" -- they're roughly equivalent in complexity if you understand the math.

In my comparison, I was referring to current implementations that you can buy, not theoretical storage media that only exist in the laboratory. There was an excellent article in Stereophile recently showing that, tested on real-world recordings, SACD tends to throw away information compared to DVD-A:
http://www.stereophile.com/features/...ics/index.html
Whether the differences are audible is another question entirely. They are easily measurable, however.

 

[rickcr42]

well.fuel for the fire i guess.......

http://www.stradivarisociety.com/News-JapanDVD.htm

 

[theaudiohobby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy I don't have the time nor the energy to rehash this debate with you. Neither SDM nor PCM is "simple" or "crude" -- they're roughly equivalent in complexity

If the mathematics were equal in complexity, the last two threads that I have participated in on the PCM/SDM debate will not even have started at all. Nor will a major crux of the PCM/SDM debate, SDM signal processing complexity, have ever gained traction. While at it, you might want to read Mr. Keith Howard's (author of the referenced stereophile article) article in Hifi News July 2004, pp80-85 on DVDA ringing where looking at two current implementations of SACD and DVDA, acknowledges that even at 192KHz PCM has inferior energy smear performance compared to DSD/SACD and suggests new solutions to combat the problem based on Peter Craven's fairly recent AES papers(citations listed). I maintain that a non-predictive coding algorithm like PCM is less sophisticated than a predictive coding algorithm like SDM and by definition SDM will be more complex because it is predictive. On that note, I withdraw from this thread.


NB.
P Craven 'Controlled pre-response antialias filters for use at 96KHz and 192kHz. Mar 2003
P Craven, 'Antialias Filters and System Transient response at High Sample rates' AES Mar 2004

addendum: jefemeister, you might want to have a look at the article also to see if you agree/disagree with his comments, he specifically discusses certain Pioneer and Wadia approaches to the energy smearing mitigation techniques.

 

[rickcr42]

"putting out the fire with gasoline ! Putting out the fire ....with GASOLINE !" (Bowie)



http://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/bitstrea.htm

http://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/araconta.htm



" Been soo long soo long , sooo loong...(putting out the fire)"

 

[iq160plus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42 well.fuel for the fire i guess....... http://www.stradivarisociety.com/News-JapanDVD.htm

This was the most interesting part of that article. Does anyone here believe it?


Quote:

Super DVD vs. PCM and Your Health—Mark Levinson Demonstrates the Surprising Difference Mark Levinson astonished Forum attendees with the revelation that the PCM recording system that is currently used for our CDs, DVDs, television, and cell phones has a negative effect on the body—and that, in addition to the extraordinary improvement in high fidelity, one bit technology has a very positive physical effect. With a demonstration utilizing kinesiology techniques to identify factors which block the body's natural healing processes and show weaknesses through pressure point testing of muscle strength, Levinson put forth a compelling case. In a “blind” test on several audience members selected at random, PCM elicited an across-the-board negative response, indicating high stress levels, while response to Super DVD was overwhelmingly positive. Geoffrey Fushi commented: “When Mark did his tests, a shock wave went through the audience. I hope that the recording industry will make a decision to drop PCM and transition to one bit technology—both for the amazing high fidelity and postive phyical effect, and the potential boom in sales as public enthusiasm gains momentum.”

 

[rickcr42]

Rick' Soap box Part XXX


not taking a side but a comment on the above.i have read since the '60s where a product manufacturer has "proved" why his point of view is the correct one .
but the funny thing is ,all these proven methods are polar opposites at times .
So how can both be correct ?
Because you can always set up a test to attain the results you want and just like in a court trial where both the prosecution and defense will bring in a professional to testify from the two points of view and both these professionals have the same training and background they still testify opposite opinions about the same facts.
So while facts can not be denied ,being facts afterall,perceptions and interpretation of the facts can be very different and like with any thing else you come at it with preconceptions and an opinion already formed so you look for the parts you need and toss the rest.
bottom line ,beleive no one source of information on anything ! do your own research and homework ,weigh it against your own experiences and preconcptions ,and only then come to a decision as to where the truth lies.
But in audio there is no one truth so in the end it is still all about personall taste even though we all claim to want to try and recreate the original performance .


Speech over

 

[Leporello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iq160plus This was the most interesting part of that article. Does anyone here believe it?

It reeks of snake oil. "Healing"? Yuck....


Regards,

L.

 

[Ynot1]

Hip Dac.

 

[Mike C]

The key question was "which is better to you", and I'm writing about this as I've fairly recently changed my opinion.

The matter of measurements and technical analyses are interesting but I like Rick's post above on the matter; experts can disagree when interpretation comes into it. As for direct measurement generally in hifi … well my SET amp is the *worst* measuring amp imaginable (and the best sounding I've ever owned). Measurements are interesting (I'm an engineer) but I don't trust them very far in hifi.

My introduction to multibit was in systems of two friends, both Naim addicts, so naturally they had Naim multibit players; they loved the rhythms, but I found the sound a bit rough, so I avoided multibit for many years and owned a few bitstream players
Then I tried a Resolution Opus 21 (multibit) and liked a lot of what I heard, but ultimately parted with is as, guess what, I heard a slight degree of roughness.

Later, I got a Lector CD player, multibit with valve output and loved it! The musicality and solid weighty sound of multibit without any roughness, probably due to (or helped by) the valve stage. This I enjoyed for quite a few years (and still can't bear to part with it).

I then looked further into multibit with valves. Tempted by reports that non oversampling worked well with multibit, I tried a MHDT Atlantis. Though it has drawbacks (treble is a bit recessed), I really liked what it did well; naturalness, excellent midrange giving superb vocals (and I love good female vocals).
After more research, I got a ANK Dac 4.1x kit as it uses a nearly identical dac chip as Atlantis, NOS, with a good valve output stage. I use this for CD only. Superb! The best digital I've ever heard. For me, this is IT.

So my answer to the original question is a definite, but qualified, yes for multibit 16 bit. The qualification is all in the implementation.
If I can't have valves, and unless I could find a solid state output stage as good as a good valve stage, my vote would be for bitstream.
But I personally find the combination of a good implementation of multibit, NOS, and valves to be awesome.

So that's my view, personal and opinionated, many will disagree with good reason.

 

[bagwell359]

What controversy? MB is the answer.

 

[524419]

1 Bit. Hands down....To my ears it's not even close. PCM in comparison sounds harsh, and unnatural, a bit compressed/loud.
DSD on my portable and HiFi system create the illusion of being there, and it is unmistakably superior. At least as I hear it.
I don't know if any digital source can be truly analogue, but DSD gets me there more than PCM files, 24/192 included.

 

[sajunky]

Old thread... 1-bit (bitstream) decoders chips died in early 1990. SACD commercial attempt died, DVD Audio died even earlier (for a different reason). SACD format is still available for download, but PCM 96kHz /192kHz is the main offering of audiophile oriented labels. Even mastering these days is done in DXD (which is PCM in a case you didn't know about).

A world is changing constantly, but one things is unchanged. Delta-Sigma decoders had improved a lot, but still produce unnatural sound. SACD content sounds better than Redbook, but only on a cheap converters (as conversion to analog is very simple to implement). To deal with a problem, recording studios has learned how to do mastering that sounds good on Delta-Sigma converters. It came even to the extremes, as we can see in a loudness war. The artists had adjusted accordingly, so most of the current music production sounds good on DS converters. When I listen to Calvin Harris - "18 Months" (SICP 3704 - Sony Japan 2012) it sounds extraordinary on my Topping D30, a decoder which otherwise produce unacceptable trash.

In other words, your preference to the decoder depends on the music you are listening to. You do adopt the anticulture, you are permanently bound to the particular technology. On the other side, if your music is performed on acoustic instruments, you want a natural sound, as only a natural sound do not produce fatigue in our brain, you can listen for hours. With multibit decoders you get an accurate timing (drums), true harmonics (multiple instruments playing unisono) or a real presentation of enormous efects on decays (gong multiple frequency transformations, synchronisation of strings on piano, guitar plunks, etc.). A sound coming out of delta-sigma converters is simplified, a clarity of main tones is achieved on the cost what is happening around a dominant frequency. With more intensive harmonics, it cause a fatigue.

When I came late to the digital in late 90's, it was a challenge to find a CD player. With limited founds I settled for a Rotel RCD-971 with PCM-63 chip. It had a digital filter, not really an audiophile things, but still acceptable with some tweaking. A year ago my Rotel had to be replaced, it did cost me lot of frustrations, as in my naive assumption reality has changed, it didn't. A little portable Nobsound 8x TDA1387 DAC/HPA gave me a hint what I should be looking for and now my low-cost DAC which reproduce music properly is Audio GD R2R11. (R2R is embedded in the product name).

 

[cheeseburgers]

1 Bit. Hands down....To my ears it's not even close. PCM in comparison sounds harsh, and unnatural, a bit compressed/loud.
DSD on my portable and HiFi system create the illusion of being there, and it is unmistakably superior. At least as I hear it.
I don't know if any digital source can be truly analogue, but DSD gets me there more than PCM files, 24/192 included.

Agreed. I own a few PCDP, Sony D35, D12, D2, and hands down my favorite is the Magnavox AZ6820, 1 Bit Bitstream Conversion player... that iirc wasn't a bank breaker in the early 90s when it dropped. The sound doesn't feel harsh, it feels warm / full if I had to describe it... everything seems to have its place... even compared to the D-35.

 

[Mink]

In the 90's and early 2000's the consensus was that cheap to moderate priced 1 bit CD players had a tendency to sound a bit brighter and less refined in the treble than multi bit CD players. My multi-bit Denon DCD 1450AR is proof of that. Compared to my single bit Marantz CD5000 the treble seems indeed more refined and gentle (without roll-off). But I must emphasize that the difference is very subtle, in no way the CD5000 sounds harsh in comparison. My 1 bit Yamaha CDX 870 however has its treble slightly rolled off, and sounds a bit flatter, less airy.
DSD vs PCM? I don't have a preference. I don't care either. I listen almost exclusively to PCM fixed at 24 bit 48Khz with my laptop (music and videos) connected to my DACs and 16 bit 44.1 Khz with my cd players. I have tried high-res files a couple of times and didn't notice any improvements, not via headphones, maybe it works wonders with speakers?