DSD vs. PCM vs. MQA - Group listening experiment

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    

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.

bump, 

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.

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

Remastered anything will sound better than a poorly mastered CD or vinyl. 

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'. 

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.

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.

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 worries.

My only thing is, I think we’re hearing better re-mastering, not a better technology. << shrug >>

The one place I was able to directly compare MQA to non MQA tracks, 2L I heard no such dramatic differences.

However, recent MQA remasters at Tidal sound pretty good.
Best,


E

Ok Everyone, got my "flack jacket" on....

I am really smitten by MQA, streamed from my Windows10 Tidal app.

I have enjoyed a PS Audio DirectStream DAC now for 2 1/2 years.  When Tidal started streaming MQA from Warner Music, I bought a Meridian Explorer2 DAC ($199 on Amazon) to see what all the fuss was.  I found some of the older titles sounded a little better, but some of the more recent ones knocked my socks and shoes off!

When I read that Universal Music signed up to do MQA, I purchased a Mytek Brooklyn (MQA) DAC, and now use it for MQA and the DirectStream DAC for everything else, as the DAC chipset in the Brooklyn is good, but no match for the DirectStream DAC with "regular" AIFF & FLAC files.

From what I've experienced, many of the titles I'm really familiar with seemed to have been "re-mixed", as well as re-mastered.  I listen to just about everything but country & rap (yes I tried, I did make it thru three songs on Jay-Z's "American Gangster" album!), and enjoy classical music and, unfortunately the MQA classics from Warner are not the best sound quality, one of Universal Music's labels is DG, so hopefully the future holds better sounding classical music on Tidal.

Many DAC manufacturers have held off jumping on the MQA bandwagon.  I presume that now with Warner, Universal & Tidal (about 2/3 of the music business) has signed up to do MQA, that either DAC manufacturers will adapt their hardware to do "end-to-end" MQA decoding, or that some DAC chipset company like ESS will add that to future chipset offerings.

PCM vs DSD....

http://audiophilereview.com/cd-dac-digital/dsd-and-pcm---horses-for-courses.html

...not saying I fully agree with respect to SQ.

You can rip SACDs with Oppos and Cambridge audio players and Pioneer too. Go to computeraudiophile forum and see it explained in a big thread there!

@gdhal

I've read much of that before elsewhere. It seems pretty consistent. :)

I wonder sometimes if some sorts of noise actually make things sound better for us. Like the way dither increases dynamic range.

Like I said, I like DSD, but I'm not sure I want to buy that much storage.

Best,

Erik

reads like an appropriate article. this may have been posted previously elsewhere in the forum

http://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/

@erik_squires
Just been there before your post and found out that they transfer from 1/2" tape masters. :)

On the home page, it also says, "We specialize in recording direct to DSD and tape to capture the natural acoustic sounds of our artists."

On one new DSD256 release :-
"Provenance: Recorded to 2" Analog Tape or DSD64 and mixed through analog console to DSD256.
All conversions were made from the DSD256 original source mixes. After several blindfold tests, it is our opinion that the DSF256 files sound the best, followed by DSF128. The best PCM sound is the WAV192. The difference is minimal. We suggest you purchase files for your best performing home DAC. The DAC will make more difference than the file type. Some DACs are not compatible with DSD256."


2 note-worthy points :-
1. The difference is minimal
2. The DAC will make more difference than the file type
(with regard to DSD in this context, lest someone pops his head up to.....)

@jon2020 Yeah, but we never want that. :)

Well, almost never.  Most recordings we hear are from multi-track masters with quite a bit of post-recording work. At the very least you want some control over the dynamic range of the performance. This makes true direct to DSD recordings exceedingly rare.  Go to Blue Coast Records and read the provenance of their recordings if you want a really good view as to how much goes into even "simple" production.

Best,


Erik

It is nearly impossible to do pure DSD without either analog tools or PCM in the loop.

It has been said that recording direct to a dsd master bypasses all the analog and/or pcm processes.

Anyway, noise issue aside, some dsd versions of the same file sound better and some worse than the hires pcm versions.

It is nearly impossible to do pure DSD without either analog tools or PCM in the loop.  However, I like what I've heard from the boutique providers such as Blue Coast.

And yes, I understand DSD still has noise issues compared to PCM.

Best,


Erik

The proof as always, is in the listening.

If we can hear a difference in our system and with our ears, we choose the format that we enjoy. If not, we move on.

Setting all theory aside, let’s just enjoy the music.
This is the only fundamental that matters above all else in this very pleasureable hobby of ours.

I could be absolutely blind. Any glare that is in vocals from PCM that keeps me from turning it up is GONE. The bass is solid as a rock, much more solid  than PCM. I have many things that are unlistenable in the first 5 seconds on PCM that are fine and wonderful on SACD. SACD makes all the difference. That's why I buy these discs whenever something I like is released. This has been since 1999 and the players have gotten even better.
Cheers also.
Rich

From "Real HD Audio" 

"DXD is the recommended recording format “when setting up systems for the absolute highest sound quality”. It turns out that DSD AD conversion is just not up to the task because of the lack of tools and the high noise levels that are generated.
So what the Sony and Phillips folks are actually saying is that HD PCM at 352.8 or 384 kHz and 24 or 32-bit word is the “best” system for capturing audio."

Cheers George

@gdhal You are right, but I personally seem to slightly like DSD better so far. No idea why.  not sure I'd pay for the extra hard disk space for it yet.

What I do know is that I've never heard a difference between PCM and MQA encoded PCM.

this is a great topic. i hope many contribute. 

@rgs92 do you mean to say you are able to hear a difference in a BLIND test between PCM and DSD? If yes, that has never been known to have been achieved, nor is that documented by an applicable and recognized scientific study. 

SACD of things like the Stones, Doors, Carly Simon, Carole King, Fleetwood Mac and the like is so much better than redbook or even hi-res downloads it’s not funny. It’s awesome and I’m greatful whenever a new SACD is released, something far too rare.

On a great SACD player like EMM, Esoteric, or Playback Designs, it’s astounding, especially through headphones. The vocals and texture and imaging and transparent bass are a glorious thing to behold, natural as can be.

No matter how well a non-DSD recording is mastered, it does not compare to a true SACD to my ears.

Thanks @jon2020 I'll keep that recording in mind. I've not really liked anything I've listed to from 2L so far. I just got a 60 CD "living stereo" collection so I think I'm going to be listening to Redbook for a while. Fortunately the Mytek Brooklyn plays them very well too.

Best,

Erik

We have done direct comparisons between DSD and 44.1-24/192. In my reference system, DSD was more holographic. The difference were not night and day but for me and my audio friends, we all preferred DSD when compared to all other formats. We did not compare MQA. It does take a very revealing system to understand what DSD is doing but when you get it right, it is stunning!

I agree. I compared dsd vs hires pcm of the same files from the 2L website and dsd sounds superior to the hires pcm version.

Dsd done right is spectacular. That said, dsd isn’t always done as right as by 2L or Blue Coast.

Anyway, 2L does very right by hires pcm on its own too. I just downloaded the album Mozart/Grieg Vol 1 by Dena Piano Duo in 96/24 (dsd format not available) and the sound is to die for.

First I would like to say I am an audio distributor but I do not have any affiliation with Blue Coast Records. My system consist of high efficient speakers that are very revealing. We have done direct comparisons between DSD and 44.1-24/192. In my reference system, DSD was more holographic. The difference were not night and day but for me and my audio friends, we all preferred DSD when compared to all other formats. We did not compare MQA. It does take a very revealing system to understand what DSD is doing but when you get it right, it is stunning!

 

Cheers,

@georgelofi  Well, yeah, I expect it to sound the same becuase it IS the same. :)

It's not that SACD has a copyright so much as there are no ripping drives that would allow most of us to store from them.

In any event, I like the few SACD recordings I've heard, but I'm not moved to declare it a superior format.  All things considered, I'd rather have the smaller file size of PCM.

Best,

Erik

To me DSD sucks, just SACD without the copyright.

Give me good uncompressed PCM (Redbook, DXD or DVD-A) converted with a well implemented Multibit dac with a well thought out I/V stage.

Cheers George

@georgelofi Well, I'm pretty sure my karma is such that I'll die of some mental disorder, but I turned the music off before they were affected. :)

@jon2020 Like I said, the oddest thing. I've experienced this once before, but I think I attributed it to the speakers. This was a long time ago.  I should have given them a chance with different material. At the time I didn't think it was weird, but thought everyone must experience it too.... so I didn't make a note of it.

This time it happened with me in my living room, so I know it's not the speakers, unless the speaker's high bandwidth made something of the recording come through.

In any case, I'm saddened that I really don't seem to like the recordings over at 2L as much as I had hoped.

I'm going to download some DSD from Blue Coast Records to give my ears a thorough spa treatment. :)


Best,

Erik

@Erik

That was your "temporal" lobes getting a workout.

Cheers George

Very interesting.....

If you didn’t sound so serious, I would have thought you were punking us. :)
But it does sound real and at the same time, surreal.......

@jon2020

It was really odd.  I mean my ear lobes literally felt hot.  Like they'd been exposed to too much sun. :)  I've not tried to reproduce it, it may have had more to do with the recording than MQA.

Best,

Erik

However, though I hear no difference, the MQA recording makes my ears hot, and

uncomfortable. More on this later.

???

@georgelofi

Yep, I wrote a similar point several weeks ago on an earlier Stereophile posting, before they had any real explanations.

Bandwidth and disk space is much cheaper than it was. I could see it having a benefit to the service providers though. Being able to keep smaller files, and pay less for their ISP to stream out thousands of files at a time is a good thing.

But the reality is my current DAC is damn good without MQA. So was my previous DAC. :-) MQA is going to have to be really great to be meaningful.

I was chagrined at PS Audio’s blog about it. Seems like Meridian didn’t put together a very convincing, or good looking, presentation for them.

Best,

Erik

I think this post hits the mark better, might as well just flip a coin. 

Far too little, A little too late.

A 4 out of 7 hit rate, by a pro golden ear even

Cheers George

http://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-mqa#cp3kmAj6ToocuiAS.97

The comments section is interesting as always.

The difference is definitely there but it is a different type of difference, sort of like the difference between 2 dac's.
It's either choose between MQA vs non-MQA file or between MQA dac vs non-MQA dac.
It all depends on what type of sound one likes in his system.

Only 7 hardware manufacturers have signed up so far :-

http://www.mqa.co.uk/customer/our-partners

Not much to wonder why. Main reasons are :-

1. Licensing fees from recording studios, artists and hardware manufacturers
2. Stringent hardware/software requirements for manufacturers
3. Lack of content (Warner Music has no time frame for launch since announcement of joint venture with Meridian)
4. MQA foreshortens soundstage depth which they attribute to the temporal
deblurring process(see Stereophile report on Meridian Explorer 2 and TAS report on Meridian 808v6); if temporal deblurring does this to all MQA files, audiophiles may not be interested
5. Hires MQA files cost more than pcm/dsd hires files
6. MQA redbook files cost more and take up more data space than regular redbook files.

Looks like a long journey ahead for MQA.

I'm curious if there's really a compelling story to go with format x or y and whether we could find it among these free to download files. 

None, really.

The latest Mytek's can of course, play all three formats, but I have not yet been able to listen to DSD directly.  Too much computer configuration for me right now.

I guess when you boil it down I'm curious if there's really a compelling story to go with format x or y and whether we could find it among these free to download files.

Lots of claims,. and misinformation, circulates about any given format.

Besides file size compression, I have yet to experience a reason to go with MQA for instance.  To spend 1 Gbyte to store a single song in DSD format is also very pricey.  YMMV, of course. :)  But here we have a treasure trove of files in different formats. Are there champions here who would wave the flag for their preference?

Best,


Erik

Hi Erik,

Coming back to the title of the thread, I have listened to PCM vs MQA files from the 2L website via the mqa-capable Meridian 808v6 player in my home system.

I found that the 808v6 renders the PCM version beautifully, and there is an incremental improvement with the MQA version. Having said that, I couldn’t compare DSD vs PCM or MQA versions of the same files as the Meridian does not do DSD.

But comparing PCM vs DSD via my non-MQA Esoteric N-05 dac, I preferred PCM. Needless to say, I can’t listen to MQA via the Esoteric.

That said, comparing the PCM versions through the Meridian 808v6 and Esoteric N-05, I preferred the Esoteric. The Meridian foreshortens soundstage depth, bringing me to rows 1-3 while the Esoteric places me at rows 7-9 which I find much more pleasant and natural. Meridian’s Explorer 2 does the same thing according to a Stereophile report while RH of TAS observes the same thing in his review of the 808v6. Also, the highs are airier via the Esoteric.

The only way to compare DSD vs PCM vs MQA, would be via Meridian’ s new Ultradac which does all 3. Now, that’s progress. I have not brought home the Ultradac simply because of its prohibitive cost.

Best regards.
Jon.

DSD vs. PCM vs. MQA - Group "listening" experiment

"Listening" is the word that should ring a bell???

Maybe it’s you that needs knowledge or professional help, as one of your statements suggests, "The ripped cd file sounds better than the cd spinning in the super heavy transport of my old Esoteric K-01."

Passing judgment without having listened to and compared both set-ups in the same system in the same room(mine, that is)......

Hmmm.....I guess someone just has to be right all the time.
Now, that would most certainly be a call for professional help.

OP - " I only posted what was supposedly for an ideal file, not an ideal dac. "

+1, Erik.

Look at the title, "DSD vs. PCM vs. MQA" it can't be done fairly without compromises using the same dac.
Maybe it's you that needs knowledge or professional help, as one of your statements suggests, "The ripped cd file sounds better than the cd spinning in the super heavy transport of my old Esoteric K-01."  

Cheers George

"....forum cop."
Hmm...the irony of it all, judging from history, that is. 

I have said this before and I will say it again, you need professional help. 

jon when are you going to stop trying to be a forum cop??

The OP asks in his title
" DSD vs. PCM vs. MQA  Group listening experiment "

I say it can be done with any validity because one dac can't do all at their best!!!
So it can't be a valid comparison. 
Cheers George