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
The question with MQA is it's staying power, not its technical excellence.  It has a very tall hill too climb to become relevant.  IMHO the only genre that really merits it is acoustic music, most of which is classical, and that genre is increasingly going to either hi bit rate PCM or 5.1 96Khz / 24 bit MCH (Blu-Ray). Many industry observers think it has already missed the window.  I also agree with Erik, in that whatever MQA brings to the party, it is still a secondary factor to the quality of the recording and the mastering itself.

BTW, I like SACD and DSD, but the absolute best digital I have heard is Reference Recordings DXD which is 352 kHz/24 bit PCM.  In addition, if your processor / DAC uses DSP's for room corrections or even digital reconstruction filtering, it will convert DSD to PCM before it converts it to analog.  This is a buyer beware issue "pure DSD" DAC's which use only analog low pass filters for reconstruction are rare birds.
No matter the format medium is the production is bad the sonics will be bad. The only way to improve is to go back and remix. A great recording sounds good on vinyl and CD if mastering was done with care. MQA will never change that and I take this even further improve your room and that will do more from a sonic stand point then any piece of gear, cables or new format. They keep chasing their tail. The really only way to judge digital is a Prue digital recording, tapes age and deteriorate, that was and will be the challenge of taking old recordings and making them sound good at times, want the best sonics then look for a 1st pressing LP then buying  a new reissue, or find a CD that been remastered, at times also remixed with care. MQA not a factor for great sonics same issue for vinyl and CD. It all starts with recording quality and always has.
Keep in mind the audio magazines now days are about working with manufactures and promoting sales more so then honest reviewing. They will say MQA is the second coming if they will Get you to buy the same recordings over and over, and new gear. Nothing is ever night and better if something is already of high quality. Can it sound different yes, does that mean better always? We all know that answer. Our hobby is the endless goal of believing a holy grail exists and the audio mags always promotes this myth. Like I say theory must have had poor ears if the product they raved about is now so inferior to the new model. Do things improve sure but most of the time your splitting hairs or you like a fresh sound, cables are the cheapest way to do this by the way then buying new gear.

I have both a PS Audio DirectStream DAC and a Mytek Brooklyn DAC as well, both fed with the identical brand/model Wireworld USB cable.

When I compare the exact same PCM file on both DACs, the Brooklyn sounds very good, but I'd say it sounds somewhat "dry" compared with the DirectStream DAC.

I've done this comparison on quite a few of my 44.1/16-192/24 AIFF files, using Roon on a nice Windows 10 Pro laptop.
We need to be careful when criticising hi-fi gear. Sometimes suppirier component build to reproduce the most neutral/natural sound can be mistakenly consider to be 'dry', while a component that design to make a manipulation on the sound might mistakenly consider to be more 'warm' and 'interesting'. 
phillyb169 posts05-20-2017 6:12amRemastered anything will sound better than a poorly mastered CD or vinyl.
Sorry Phill, this is 180’ out, but also half right with the "poorly" statement.
The original first issue non remastered cd's and lp’s are the best, and most important least compressed.

Do your homework here on this site and compare.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/

Cheers George

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