[Greenears]

iQuote:

  http://sdg-master.com/lesestoff/attachment.pdf
 
you think what you want of the thesis itself, but look at the pie charts p29 30 31. I find it to be one of the best example of sighted bias and why cognitive dissonance is such a real thing in everybody's life.
the number of subjects isn't really significant so I wouldn't use it to "prove" that DSD sounds like PCM, but it's still in accordance with most trials on the subject. but in a world were people go pay 1000$ for a headphone cable, it's not so strange to still see people going all Don Quixote against PCM.

Interesting PDF.  I think the results are a bit invalid, because they are recording industry students and in the first test they were told about the various formats, so they were biased to pick something rather than the 3rd option "no difference".  Some should have been fed the same track twice without telling them to see if they preferred A or B anyway. You need to run statistics to know if the blind results are better than guessing but I'd say the relatively low sample size (60) you can get random bunching the same order of 60% they were seeing.  To me the results are not inconsistent with coin-flipping but it doesn't prove they were guessing either.  I'm glad someone made the effort to research it though.
 
Are there any ABX test results out there that show conclusively that someone told the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit or DSD? Regardless which they liked better.

 

[stv014]

  Since almost all DACs these days are PDM/bitstream/delta-sigma, I think the difference really is just that when feeding them a PCM signal the DAC itself needs to perform the requisite upsampling, decimation and noise-shaping, whereas with DSD that step has already been done and the data stream can go directly to the bitstream switch.

 
Some DACs may actually convert the DSD input to (high sample rate) PCM first, because most modern DAC chips are multi-bit, and converting the 1-bit DSD stream could give better performance than trying to play it directly.
 
Also, any digital processing during the production of the music would likely be done in PCM format as well, because a 1-bit stream at MHz sample rate and with a large amount of high frequency noise is poorly suited to processing, while something like DSD sample rate combined with 32-bit floats is just very inefficient and there would be little useful content (even ignoring the fact that it is inaudible) above 96 kHz anyway. I would guess music sold in DSD format is often just converted high resolution PCM, but fortunately audiophiles will not hear the difference as long as they do not know about it.

 

[Greenears]

   
Some DACs may actually convert the DSD input to (high sample rate) PCM first, because most modern DAC chips are multi-bit, and converting the 1-bit DSD stream could give better performance than trying to play it directly.
 
 

I actually looked into this last week.  Checked specs on 3 main high-end 24-bit audio DACs (Wolfson, TI/Burr Brown, Cirrus/ESS).  Their public datasheet did not definitively say whether the 1 bit was converted to PCM before being up-converted to 2-3 bit sig delta, or not.  But, I did get the impression they had a separate path and did not go through PCM.  Only someone at the companies can confirm. 

 

[charleski]

   
a 1-bit stream at MHz sample rate and with a large amount of high frequency noise is poorly suited to processing

I have to say I think this represents the main benefit of DSD (to record companies). Back when they started to consider using high-bit/high-samplerate releases as a way to separate customers from more of their cash one of the main concerns was (and still is) piracy [insert scary Jaws theme here]. The CD standard just handed out everything on a plate, and the DVD-Jon fiasco showed the vulnerability of encryption schemes. DSD offers the 'advantage' that, even if you manage to break through all the encryption layers, you still end up with a signal that needs a lot of further processing to make it usable.
 
As far as multi-bit ΔΣ goes, it's sad but unsurprising that the chipmakers don't reveal the details of their implementation in datasheets. We might be able to infer some features by looking at the filtering, though. For instance, an early DSD DAC like the PCM1792 boasts an extensive 4-stage analog FIR filter to get rid of the DSD noise. Move forward 5 or 6 years to the CS4362A and we see that the 50kHz DSD filter is now implemented in the digital domain before it hits the DAC, suggesting that they may indeed be extending the wordlength to full-scale PCM.

 

[SilentFrequency]

I listen to music through iTunes quite a lot but have no idea what type of files they are, so am I missing out on any better type?

Thanks!

SF

 

[RRod]

I listen to music through iTunes quite a lot but have no idea what type of files they are, so am I missing out on any better type?

Thanks!

SF

 
iTunes native format is AAC, and these days they deliver in 256kbps, which should be as good to your ears as a FLAC. The issue with online music isn't really the format, it's the freedom to use the content and the choices of masters they have available.

 

[RRod]

  I have to say I think this represents the main benefit of DSD (to record companies). Back when they started to consider using high-bit/high-samplerate releases as a way to separate customers from more of their cash one of the main concerns was (and still is) piracy [insert scary Jaws theme here]. The CD standard just handed out everything on a plate, and the DVD-Jon fiasco showed the vulnerability of encryption schemes. DSD offers the 'advantage' that, even if you manage to break through all the encryption layers, you still end up with a signal that needs a lot of further processing to make it usable.

 
This is why I was glad when hybrid discs became the standard: kept a lot of good recordings usable in the normal PCM way (multichannel SACD tracks notwithstanding).

 

[SilentFrequency]

iTunes native format is AAC, and these days they deliver in 256kbps, which should be as good to your ears as a FLAC. The issue with online music isn't really the format, it's the freedom to use the content and the choices of masters they have available.

That's great, thanks!

 

[analogsurviver]

  I actually looked into this last week.  Checked specs on 3 main high-end 24-bit audio DACs (Wolfson, TI/Burr Brown, Cirrus/ESS).  Their public datasheet did not definitively say whether the 1 bit was converted to PCM before being up-converted to 2-3 bit sig delta, or not.  But, I did get the impression they had a separate path and did not go through PCM.  Only someone at the companies can confirm. 

There is at least one outside the companies that did the homework - beyond the companies/manufacturer. iFi Audio - or its parent AMR. They went to test every imaginable chipset and found one relatively "vintage" one that not only can do PCM and DSD - both natively - but also can perform way above manufacturer's specifications; they wrote their own protocol in order to squeeze the last bit of performance available from this chipset. Modern day chips simply do not allow for this kind of performance - proving again the point that when any technology is being made available for the first time, they try to make it best they can - then come cost cutters in the subsequent generations...
 
Without their effort, DSD512 or corresponding DXD would not have been a reality. Now everything else has to catch up, about three months ago I was checking there was no DSD512 recorder available - yet.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
Yes it is. I produced an LP back in the day. At the cutting stage, along with the RIAA curve, they applied a high frequency roll off to prevent ultra high frequencies from prematurely wearing into distorted mush. As I remember, the roll off started around 15kHz. Not anything that would affect the music.
 
It doesn't matter what a cartridge is capable of playing back. Those frequencies aren't in the grooves. Any frequency above the rolloff is just noise from imperfections in the vinyl.

This is a totaly misleading. Simply record any LP made after say 1960 to any PCM of your choice, play it in foobar2000 with spectral analyzer enabled and get back to me if you can not find any 20 kHz indication bar moving - well past noise levels. No more and also no less than with CD. The instrument most likely to show 20 kHz in solid evidence are cymbals/percussion - I can not help if you dislike them, they are part of the music and will always be.
 
Back in the day CD was new, magazines in their review of new recordings did compare spectrum analysis of both LP and CD version. The most notable difference was - and remains to this day - in bass; because of playing time compromise, bass is being somewhat reduced for LP. There is little if any difference in treble and those analysis did show no indication of  "nothing above 15 kHz" on records.
 
If shoddy or overcautious engineers have actually cut the record with filter above 15 kHz ( mainly to keep it safe for the cutter head, which does lion's lion share of work in the region of 10 kHz and beyond - peaks can reach over 400 W/channel, meaning during some hot rod cymbal work there is almost one kilowatt peaks driving the cutting diamond, and the potential to burn the expensive cutterhead ( today anything from 5-10 K ), even if helium cooled,  is unfortunately real ) it is their fault - not that of analog record medium.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
References please?

http://www.korg.de/uploads/media/KRMR_OneBitRecording.pdf   Sorry, I can not find it in English anymore - this PCM lobby is obviously VERY strong. Truth to be told, I did not believe Sony will allow release of DSD recorders at this price level, despite ... - LONG story.  The inventor of DSD is/was working with Korg.
 
I wish I could post a link for the only objective test for the Korg MR-1000 DSD recorder made in Germany by the pro audio magazine - back in the day MR-1000 was current and for sale by Thomann, Thomann(www.thomann.de - in German only ) did provide free link to that review - now it is not available anymore. I do have it in printed form, but do not want to infringe any copyrights. It does show true 1 kHz square wave performance that I verified on my units.
 
Simply wait for the promised recordings and photos of analog oscilloscope screen - it should be clear as a bell why I prefer DSD over PCM.
 
The only currently available prosumer level DSD recorder is http://tascam.com/product/da-3000/  I have not been able to trace any objective review for it comparable to the one for the Korg MR-1000 mentioned above - yet; as it can be used also as a DAC ( something that Korg units are uncapable of and which eventually lead to discontinuation ), it is the most rational decision in digital audio today if you have even the modest desire in recording. 

 

[castleofargh]

  iQuote:

  http://sdg-master.com/lesestoff/attachment.pdf
 
you think what you want of the thesis itself, but look at the pie charts p29 30 31. I find it to be one of the best example of sighted bias and why cognitive dissonance is such a real thing in everybody's life.
the number of subjects isn't really significant so I wouldn't use it to "prove" that DSD sounds like PCM, but it's still in accordance with most trials on the subject. but in a world were people go pay 1000$ for a headphone cable, it's not so strange to still see people going all Don Quixote against PCM.

Interesting PDF.  I think the results are a bit invalid, because they are recording industry students and in the first test they were told about the various formats, so they were biased to pick something rather than the 3rd option "no difference".  Some should have been fed the same track twice without telling them to see if they preferred A or B anyway. You need to run statistics to know if the blind results are better than guessing but I'd say the relatively low sample size (60) you can get random bunching the same order of 60% they were seeing.  To me the results are not inconsistent with coin-flipping but it doesn't prove they were guessing either.  I'm glad someone made the effort to research it though.
 
Are there any ABX test results out there that show conclusively that someone told the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit or DSD? Regardless which they liked better.

I agree, that's why I did warn about the work itself and its significance. but if they had truly kept people in the dark, then we would have missed the nice differences between sighted and blind listenings showing all the bias so many dignified audiophiles would never admit possible.
 
I've read about a few trials, usually with small number of participants, and each time whatever the result, you get the opposing team giving the same justifications.
if they succeeded in telling 16 from 24 or 16 from DSD, then we end up looking for problems in the setup and usually we find some.
if they couldn't tell the formats apart, the we end up with the fact that the test wasn't done on good enough gears, or was with songs the testies didn't pick, or even that the test is wrong and stressful or inviting null results.
so as always, the only thing we can know for sure, is if I as an individual can hear a difference. past that there will always be people saying that the results are wrong because else they themselves would be wrong and they can't fathom the idea.
 
 
speaking of wrong, @analogsurviver I would love to see what your equal loudness contour looks like. I'm sure it would show us all how important those ultrasounds really are for you.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
If you could find and scan that pic I'd love to see it. Do the graphs in this post reflect typical square-wave activity in vinyl?

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/2/23876.html
 
It is a highly charged  thread - like whenever there is evidence against status quo. 
 
For life, I can no longer find link for  Popular Electronics, Nov. 1980 issue, "Phonograph Playback: It's better than you think!" By Dr. Bruce Maier and Jon Risch  ( the Discwasher team  provided some of the best reasearch into phono ever made ) ; all I can find is http://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Poptronics/80s/1980/Poptronics-1980-12.pdf where you can see it listed in Index  ( Audio) on Page 82.

 

[bigshot]

Propeller Head Plaza!

 

[analogsurviver]

  Propeller Head Plaza!

I did not like the tone of the thread either ( I go there only if and when there REALLY is no alternative ) - but it is the only place where it is available and with the author posting. 
 
It was/is the very same merry-go-around as here - it was debate MM vs MC cartridges ( Discwasher being distributor of Denon MOSTLY MC cartridges at the time ) versus the MM crowd who were of course panicking of losing business - just before MMs toppled off the Audio Throne by the MCs - at least for considerable amount of time.  It was the same high frequency issue as with redbook vs FASTER whatever - with the benefit that at the time faster recording without brick wall filtering (analog) was the norm and there was no generation being brought up with the CD , so sound quality was of greater concern than today - at least in general public. And it was pro et contra ad nuseaum, with proverbial bats not escaping the party....
 
Funny thing - I did manage to get ( near ) equivalent of MC performance with MM cartridges - very best ones, with most of the pros and almost none of the cons of MM - but anyway, it is possible to have an extended frequency response with MM, for all practical purposes equalling that of MC ( > 50 kHz ) - under right conditions if the
MM cartridge has not been hopelessly compromised in the first place. Sonic benefits being the very same as redbook vs Faster whatever - only in analog domain.