Phasecorrect, There is a good deal of interest in native DSD especially at the pro level and in doing recording. I have listened to 192/24 PCM versus double DSD of the same material using SACDs as the source and double DSD wins hands down.
SONY does have a poor record but also owns 40% of master tapes. If they make their quad DSD at a good price and somehow distribute it, I think they will be an audiophile's friend. |
TBG, I agree with your take. I'm sold on native DSD being better than PCM, and I am confident there is a large latent market waiting for the software to be released at a reasonable price. I am just afraid that there is a narrow window for capitalizing on that latent market, and I fear, with good reason, Sony is once again poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I'm a Cleveland Browns fan, so I am an expert in reading the signs!
Equipment like the new PS Audio DSD DAC and Sony's own HAPZ1, not to mention other similar devices, may make the difference in downloaded native DSD and DSD converted on the fly too small to justify buying the native DSD at a premium. Based on my listening with my ModWright Sony HAPZ1, I just don't see the price differential being worth it.
If my assessment of the difference between the DSD master of Ma's Appalachian Journey is typical, the DSD master is like 1.03 compared to 1.0 for the AIFF redbook up sampled to 2 x DSD by the MW Sony. The DSD is $25, the redbook CD was $7.00 shipped. I have a large budget for new music, but it is a budget, and I can buy a lot more music, with a very small sonic compromise. They are going to have to offer more music at a better price and do so quickly, or people are going to move on. |
|
" I'm sold on native DSD being better than PCM"
Why is that again? Is there a concrete technical reason or reasons? I would think a quality implementation of each playing same resolution source material would be more alike than different.
What would be the technical reason for better apples/apples sound quality? THen how much is there really in practice and is there good value there or just another new technology and format to sell stuff with.
Thanks. |
"I have listened to 192/24 PCM versus double DSD of the same material using SACDs as the source and double DSD wins hands down. "
Tbg always manages to determine what sounds better when comparing two very similar things. Can I assume he is unbiased in his judgements? Is anyone? I wish I had his ears and his unabiding trust in what I hear. I hear things that both sound really good in significantly different ways all the time and am still challenged to say which is conclusively "better".
On the other hand, I am pretty good I think at detecting noise and distortion when I hear it and have no doubt then that something is amiss, but still lots of reasons why still possible.
I think I've pretty much heard it all and have come to the conclusion that there is not always a clear winner when comparing two different things done well. Its more a matter of individual tastes and perspectives, which ALWAYS vary.
|
Mapman, you ask good questions and provide good counterarguments. DSD is not universally better than PCM in the sense that all DSD recordings are better than PCM recordings.
As for the technical reasons, I'm just a simple organic chemist, not an ee, computer scientist, or physicist. I'm smart enough to leave such discussions to those who know what they are talking about. I'd rather take an empirical approach here, allowing my ears and emotional response to music to trump technical considerations, although I don't want anyone selling me snake oil, either.
I have a limited sampling--one, which is somewhat short of being statistically significant. I'd like to have more samples, but I'm not going to blow my entire estate at $25 each to run the experiment.
My fascination with DSD is based on what I hear from people I trust, who are in a better position to make statistically significant judgments. Also, I have a general preference for the sound of cds that were produced from DSD masters. It's by no means a universal preference, but I don't have many bad recordings in my collection that were recorded in DSD, while I have more than a few bad recordings that came from PCM masters. In all fairness, I have a wall full of wonderful PCM master derived CDs. That observation is proof of nothing, but it is enough to keep me interested in native DSD files.
If Sony lets us down here (again), it is not the end of the world. As you have pointed out, PCM properly implemented can be extremely good. All I'm asking here is that Sony implement a marketing strategy that allows the musical cognoscenti an opportunity to determine the real value of hi rez in general, and DSD in particular. |
Mapman, I have been enjoying dramatic improvements in my audio reproductions the last several years. This has many roots but I will not bore you with them. What has happened is that I am getting realism that I never thought was possible and I have learned how fragile that realism is.
When I play the double DSD version, I hear the decay of notes that are absent when I listen to the PCM 192 version. And there more detail in general. It may not be dramatic but it is thrilling and, I thought, impossible. |
"Mapman, I have been enjoying dramatic improvements in my audio reproductions the last several years. This has many roots but I will not bore you with them. What has happened is that I am getting realism that I never thought was possible and I have learned how fragile that realism is."
Same story here.
PCM has not gotten my attention to date. Too many other fish to fry until the unique value might become clear.
I am a computer systems/software engineer by profession and am tasked to understand new technology daily in my role. Adding DSD to my list of things to try to understand better when the right time comes. |
Since there is hardly any DSD or even high res music available I agree. DSD is dead in the womb. |
Mordante, pardon the pun, doesn't the first part of your name "mort" (ok there is a t instead of a d : )) say it all. Pour mes amis seulement. In the womb is a little harsh isn't it? |
Bien sur Ptss. C'est fou!
J'ai beaucoup de DSD. PS3 c'est genial...gace a Dieu! |
I am not disputing the merits of DSD...that's in the eye of the beholder...and true...from a production angle it will have its niche...but Sony is a big company who expects BIG profits...and on the commercial side...there is not enough consumer demand...if there was....we have seen a vast array of hi rez downloads...remember, superior technology doesnt gurantee a place in the audio market...Sony had the arrogance of pushing SACd on the general public...only select audiophiles took the bait... |
Phasecorrect, the hybrid layer on most SACDs in DSD on a music server are far superior to those played a universal player. It is all the crap that SONY added to the DSD. |
TBG, I'm not sure I understand your last post. Could you explain again what you mean my SACDs in DSD on a music server vs a universal player? |
Gareneau, I must say that I am repeating a pro guy who is at the edge of the art. He says that Sony and Philips devised a way to put copy protection on DSD recordings in doing their SACDs. He merely undoes this effort, as Playstation 3 allowed to get back to the DSD information. I compared a universal player playing SACDs to what I had on my music server by him playing the DSD that he had gotten off those same SACDs. There was much greater clarity and transparency.
Finally, as to why Sony is getting DSD out mainly on old recordings is that those tapes are deteriorating and approaching being lost. I have heard much discussion that all Sony's master tapes will be captured on quad DSD digital media. |
