DSD vs. PCM vs. MQA - Group listening experiment


Hi everyone,

So I just re-discovered the 2L website which has free samples of high resolution music.

I thought it would be worthwhile to ask the fans about the tracks here, specifically if there are any you feel are really good exemplars of why encoding scheme X is better or different than Y.

I just downloaded a bunch of Vivaldi and will share my own observations (and lack thereof) here.

As for me, file size matters so I'm going to try to stick to relatively similar file sizes when possible.

Best,


Erik
erik_squires
I like both DSD and PCM. It all comes down to how well its Recorded. I must say DSD is very impressive specially on my Playback Merlot DAC.
Here's my take. I think a lot of time was spent trying to fix the grating sound of redbook . So some codecs to me are kinda out of order in regards to PCM only. Where Redbook 16/44.1kHz and 24/44.1 and integer multiples like 24/88.2 sound better to my ear than say 24/48 . However I do like DVD-A 24/96 . A lot fo the songs on the series the Sopranos sounded very good in 24/96.

Oddly 24/96 sounds more musical to me than most of the same files in 24/192. Which to me in counter intuitive. I have heard arguments of higher ultrasonic frequencies that are beyond what we hear and beyond the audio gear typically is supposed to deal with cause cascading noise throughout the Audible spectrum. And it would seem that this noise is not evenly spread throughout like white noise, and as such alters the sound and not in a. great way. So I used some Audio Research amplification and other wide bandwidth components that should not be affected by this, and I still heard the ill effects.

I was not a fan of single rate DSD as I heard anomalies in steel strings, and higher pitched percussion instruments and bells that were distractingly fake sounding. Like the resonance and decay was off. First time I heard SACD was at Red Rose music in NYC played for me by Mark Levinson and I heard his ribbon drivers portray some of the issues of SACD which dashed my hopes for this format.

But just as 88.2 allows you to use less of a brick wall filter and just a low pass filter, so too with multiples of DSD do you see benefits of bitstream .

I feel that DSD 128 offers some of the promise of digital without so many audible distractions of DSD 64. and quad rate is very promising. In fact taking Analog Mastertape and encoding that into quadrate DSD 256 is really pretty good.

The first time I noticed it was with a DSD 256 track of Henry Mancini's Pink Panther where the xylophone and triangle seemed more real than with most analog- The chain was MSB Analog DAC . some $20K MIT interconnects ,  VAC PHI 200, Some $57K MIT cable with I think 90 poles , Chapman T-9 loudspeakers $20K. The sound floated in the room and the entire xylophone was before us. Maybe there was no PCM post production conversion and reconversion to DSD?? I don't know but there was a thought that we wished all recorded music could sound so good. But that single track probably was 4 gig by itself. DSD 128 seems to bring back 3D height to the sound stage.

I have not heard any DSD 512 , or 352kHz PCM or higher. So I can't comment on that.

However - to this day, no digital can seem to create that floating and being suspended in the music from Steve Miller Band Fly like and eagle, or the immersion from Edgar Winter Frankenstein, there just seems to be some odd limits of digital as compared to analog. Reproducing those synths the way analog seems to is still beyond the reach of the very best Digital and dense file formats.

What is interesting to me is that some new technology I heard in loudspeakers seems to make some of the harsher sounds of cheaper digital much more tolerable and musical. For instance, I can NEVER BEAR to listen to those junky CD carousels , I have never heard one that is listenable . And recently through this newer crossover on these 2021 new crossover version of the Chapman T-7 speakers it seems less of the music is filtered out within the frequencies within the passband. And because of this , I heard a CD carousel become enjoyable at a friends house for he first time ever. So there may be more interactions between components- even down to the crossover in speakers that cause some digititis.

DACS I have heard extensively or owned. Aqua Acoustic quality La Voce, Formula, LA Diva/LA SCALA, Chord. Chordette, Chord Qute, Hegel, Wadia 860x with GNSC upgrade, Wadia 861, Wadia 860, Wadia 830, Denafrips terminator, Denafrips terminator plus, Denafrips Terminator Plus and GAIA, PS Audio Bitstream Senior, ARCAM, Mytek, Metrum, Most of the LampiZators, Playback Designs and their A/D converter too, SCHITT , Modwright -205, Lynx Hilo, Apogee Mini DAC, Apogee Symphony, Apogee Duet, Apogee Quartet, Grace Design M903, Light Harmonic DaVinci, MSB Analog DAC, E.A.R. Dacute, Bel Canto , Bryston BDA-3, California Audio Labs, Meridian , Resonessence INVICTA, LAVRY, DCS Elgar, and so many more....

Favorites.
Wadia 860x GNSC CD player can handle 24/96 (no DSD)
WADIA 861
DENAFRIPS terminator Plus with GAIA
Modwright -205 (because it can be very musical and has so many other amazing feature sets, just for what you would save in power cords alone you could upgrade other areas of your system. Its bass detail with the correct speakers can be astounding as its transient response. Midrange could improve with further mods.
La Voce burr brown version (did not hear the Phillips or other versions (but only with great power conditioning )

Those are the only DACs I could live with long term in order of preference .

For CD players a Modded CARY CD player is very smooth and musical.




Seems like all your favourites were R2R Ladder dacs, and rightly so, as Redbook (PCM) is converted "bit perfect" by R2R dacs.
Delta Sigma while good at doing SACD or DSD can only give a facsimile of RedBook (PCM).

Cheers George