DSD comparison to PCM.

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,002
508
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
Well I do agree there Bruce. In fact I took the lid off one of my SACD players (Pioneer) and found its using a PCM DAC from BB.

Well there you go!!


You'd have to convince me on a technical basis what constitutes a 'decent' DAC, pretty hard I reckon... :p

That's easy.... Playback Designs MPD-5 or MSB Diamond........
 

Bruce B

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
Apr 25, 2010
7,002
508
1,740
Snohomish, WA
www.pugetsoundstudios.com
See there - you don't listen. I distinctly said 'technical basis' did I not?

You want technical??? Because the Playback Designs does not have a S-D chip. Now you're basing your listening preferences on "technical basis".
 

edorr

WBF Founding Member
May 10, 2010
3,139
14
36
Smyrna, GA
Yeah I want a good story. Technical stories work for me. Pretty much like anyone else I need to be convinced of something before I'll pull the trigger on getting hold of it. I haven't found the stories convincing from either Playback Designs or MSB.

You're obviously not in it for the music. While you are waiting for a good technical story, I'm listening to glorious music played through undoubtedly imperfect yet musically totally satisfying DACs.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
I'd prefer they left their thinking out of it and just reported what they heard.

Is this a nonsensical statement? How can you report on something without thinking about what you are going to say first??

If someone's only reference to what beef tasted like was eating at McDonalds, would you think it was a little odd if they were commenting on how McDonalds beef should taste better than a NY Strip served at a fine steakhouse and they wanted to argue with you over which tasted better? Wouldn't you just scratch your head and wonder how someone who only eats at McDonalds could possibly compare that experience with eating a really good NY Strip steak at a great steakhouse?

I'm only being slightly facetious here because it would be far more valuable to me to hear from people who regularly listen to PCM and DSD and have them tell me what they hear vice people who exclusively listen to only one format and assume what the other sounds like.
 

opus111

Banned
Feb 10, 2012
1,286
3
0
Hangzhou, China
Is this a nonsensical statement?

Not to me, no. Does it become nonsensical because you choose not to make sense of it?

How can you report on something without thinking about what you are going to say first??

Simply by doing just that - describing something does not require thinking about what you're describing. Describe it spontaneously, in an un-premeditated manner. Thinking about something first leads to interpretation of the phenomenon, hence I prefer the raw description. I was training students in this excercise only a week or so ago, they understood what I meant and they weren't native English speakers. They understood (they were Chinese native speakers) that thinking about what to say in Chinese first then translating in their minds was inferior to coming up with English directly. One step in that direction I suggest to my students is thinking in English rather than thinking in Chinese. The aim though is spontaneous speech without premeditation.

If someone's only reference to what beef tasted like was eating at McDonalds, would you think it was a little odd if they were commenting on how McDonalds beef should taste better than a NY Strip served at a fine steakhouse and they wanted to argue with you over which tasted better?

I'm unclear of the relevance of this question but yes, sure.

Wouldn't you just scratch your head and wonder how someone who only eats at McDonalds could possibly compare that experience with eating a really good NY Strip steak at a great steakhouse?

No, I'd simply ask them 'How do you know when you've never tasted the steak?'. Why scratch my head over something and waste time wondering when I can just ask and be done with it?

I'm only being slightly facetious here because it would be far more valuable to me to hear from people who regularly listen to PCM and DSD and have them tell me what they hear vice people who exclusively listen to only one format and assume what the other sounds like.

So its now becoming clear why you introduced the analogy. You seem to be saying that a person needs regular Happy Meals at McDonalds in order to appreciate the NY Strip steak. I disagree, I am perfectly content with my (very long ago) memory of a Big Mac to be sure that the NY steak tastes better.
 

Kal Rubinson

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2010
2,358
696
1,700
NYC
www.stereophile.com
Simply by doing just that - describing something does not require thinking about what you're describing. Describe it spontaneously, in an un-premeditated manner. Thinking about something first leads to interpretation of the phenomenon, hence I prefer the raw description. I was training students in this excercise only a week or so ago, they understood what I meant and they weren't native English speakers. They understood (they were Chinese native speakers) that thinking about what to say in Chinese first then translating in their minds was inferior to coming up with English directly. One step in that direction I suggest to my students is thinking in English rather than thinking in Chinese. The aim though is spontaneous speech without premeditation.
That is really not possible. While I agree that hearing in English, thinking in English and responding in English is more spontaneous than taking a detour through translating to Chinese, thinking in Chinese and translating to English, there is, except for expletives, always a cognitive stage between hearing and speaking. And I am not considering the transduction processes at either end.

I think the reasonable aim is more spontaneous speech with less premeditation.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
Not to me, no. Does it become nonsensical because you choose not to make sense of it?

No, it becomes nonsensical when the statement makes no sense.



Simply by doing just that - describing something does not require thinking about what you're describing. Describe it spontaneously, in an un-premeditated manner.

Really?? Just start blabbering without thinking about what you want to say and describe?


Thinking about something first leads to interpretation of the phenomenon, hence I prefer the raw description. I was training students in this excercise only a week or so ago, they understood what I meant and they weren't native English speakers. They understood (they were Chinese native speakers) that thinking about what to say in Chinese first then translating in their minds was inferior to coming up with English directly. One step in that direction I suggest to my students is thinking in English rather than thinking in Chinese. The aim though is spontaneous speech without premeditation.

This is comparing apples to car tires. I'm getting tired of playing whack-a-mole. I will let others chime in on the validity of your arguments.


So its now becoming clear why you introduced the analogy. You seem to be saying that a person needs regular Happy Meals at McDonalds in order to appreciate the NY Strip steak. I disagree, I am perfectly content with my (very long ago) memory of a Big Mac to be sure that the NY steak tastes better.

If my only memory of digital was what it sounded like when it was first introduced in the 1980s, my thoughts about how digital sounds now wouldn't be valid.
 

opus111

Banned
Feb 10, 2012
1,286
3
0
Hangzhou, China
That is really not possible.

How do you know that its not possible? I would agree its something that requires considerable training, but for such a sweeping claim I'd appreciate some support, some reasoning, some anecdotes.

While I agree that hearing in English, thinking in English and responding in English is more spontaneous than taking a detour through translating to Chinese, thinking in Chinese and translating to English, there is, except for expletives, always a cognitive stage between hearing and speaking.

Ah so you will admit that its possible now, for expletives. But again I ask how you know there's always a 'cognitive stage'? Simply because there is for you and for people you've asked about it?

The instance I was talking about wasn't one of hearing, it was one of describing a picture they were presented with. They have to do this for an exam, so they need training. At the start of the training the students were pretty bad - they found it hard to grasp the essential difference between describing what they were seeing and interpreting what they were seeing. So I kept on asking '..and how do you know?' to draw them back to the primary sense data. For example they might say 'The man looks sad' so I'd ask them what features (face, posture) led them to this interpretation. After some time, the girls (there were 5 students in all, 4 girls and 1 guy) got better but the boy found this too hard and dropped out.

I think the reasonable aim is more spontaneous speech with less premeditation.

I definitely go along with that. But then I'd always be encouraging less and less premeditation - the aim is zero but it takes a fair amount (probably years or perhaps Gladwell's 10k hours) of training to get there.

<edit> Here's an interesting article which touches on what I'm getting at - what they call the 'default brain network' or 'unquiet or noisy mind' isn't an essential aspect in the descriptive task as the writer notes some can switch it off : http://www.creativitypost.com/psychology/the_brain_as_a_network_focusing_your_network
 
Last edited:

opus111

Banned
Feb 10, 2012
1,286
3
0
Hangzhou, China
No, it becomes nonsensical when the statement makes no sense.

Makes no sense to you. But sense is something each of us make, its not in the images of letters themselves. They just present information to our eyes.

Really?? Just start blabbering without thinking about what you want to say and describe?

Yeah why not - give it a try and see how you get on.

To me this seems analogous to how people are sometimes trained to draw faces when learning art. When we first try to draw a face we tend to draw what we think we see. There's a way to bypass this tendency - draw from a photo of a face which has been turned upside down - it prevents the 'interpretive' part of the brain from taking over. That's harder work because then, without interpretation we have to copy what's actually presented to our eyes. But then the result, when turned back the right way up turns out to be a much more representative image.

If my only memory of digital was what it sounded like when it was first introduced in the 1980s, my thoughts about how digital sounds now wouldn't be valid.

Yep I agree. Can't see how that fits this particular case though. I note that you still think you're listening to a format... :p
 

Orb

New Member
Sep 8, 2010
3,010
2
0
That is really not possible. While I agree that hearing in English, thinking in English and responding in English is more spontaneous than taking a detour through translating to Chinese, thinking in Chinese and translating to English, there is, except for expletives, always a cognitive stage between hearing and speaking. And I am not considering the transduction processes at either end.

I think the reasonable aim is more spontaneous speech with less premeditation.

Kal.
That is interesting about expletives.
Please could you briefly describe how they differ to the usual cognitive process of hearing and speaking.
Much appreciated
Orb
 

edorr

WBF Founding Member
May 10, 2010
3,139
14
36
Smyrna, GA
opus111 said:
The aim though is spontaneous speech without premeditation.


That is really not possible. While I agree that hearing in English, thinking in English and responding in English is more spontaneous than taking a detour through translating to Chinese, thinking in Chinese and translating to English, there is, except for expletives, always a cognitive stage between hearing and speaking. And I am not considering the transduction processes at either end.

I think the reasonable aim is more spontaneous speech with less premeditation.

I don't think you can always classify the congnitive stage between hearing (or any external stimulation of the sensory system) and speaking as "premeditation". If I see a chair, I can spontaneously say chair without premeditation. In this case, the congnitive process and translation going on in my brain is subconscious and hence not "premeditation" (which is a conscious mental process).

So while I agree the subconscious cognitive process involved in speaking can never be "unlearned", up to a level the translation between languages and other forms of "premediation" taking place in the conscious brain can be.

opus111 said:
I definitely go along with that. But then I'd always be encouraging less and less premeditation - the aim is zero but it takes a fair amount (probably years or perhaps Gladwell's 10k hours) of training to get there.

"Zero" premeditation in verbal expression is complete illusive. Describing simple single objects or repetiive events can be done without premeditation, but describing complex events will always require a conscious thought process (i.e. premeditation).
 

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
8
0
Dallas, Texas
1.Know how the recording was done.
2.Know what kind of DAC you are listening to.
3.Hear the same live performance captured on a DSD DAC (DSD128) and Multi-Bit DAC(24/352.8) at the same time.
4.Play both files back: PCM file on multi-bit DAC, DSD file on SDM DAC in the same system.
5.Decide which one is closer to the performance.

I haven't done that. I am not aware of anyone else here having done that.

DSD is not better than PCM. If you have a DSD DAC like the Playback Designs or a heavy over sampling dac, then I can see how you would conclude that DSD is better.

I could say that native PCM recordings like Keith Johnson's Hrx recordings are far superior to any native DSD I've heard on a Playback Designs MPD-5, but that observation would be just as meaningless as a 1-bit DAC fan extolling the superiority of DSD over PCM.
 
Last edited:

edorr

WBF Founding Member
May 10, 2010
3,139
14
36
Smyrna, GA
1.Know how the recording was done.
2.Know what kind of DAC you are listening to.
3.Hear the same live performance captured on a DSD DAC (DSD128) and Multi-Bit DAC(24/352.8) at the same time.
4.Play both files back: PCM file on multi-bit DAC, DSD file on SDM DAC in the same system.
5.Decide which one is closer to the performance.

I haven't done that. I am not aware of anyone else here having done that.

DSD is not better than PCM. If you have a DSD DAC like the Playback Designs or a heavy over sampling dac, then I can see how you would conclude that DSD is better.

I could say that native PCM recordings like Keith Johnson's Hrx recordings are far superior to any native DSD I've heard on a Playback Designs MPD-5, but that observation would be just as meaningless as a 1-bit DAC fan extolling the superiority of DSD.

From a recoding perspective the 2L nordic sound tracks available in DXD and DSD are close to the mark, although not DSD128.

Comparing DSD with 192/24 played of the same Nordic Sound tracks on my Marantz ud9004 back in the days (DSD in native mode), yielded a very small preference for DSD (with no assurance I could pick a winner in a blind A/B).
 

Kal Rubinson

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2010
2,358
696
1,700
NYC
www.stereophile.com
I don't think you can always classify the congnitive stage between hearing (or any external stimulation of the sensory system) and speaking as "premeditation". If I see a chair, I can spontaneously say chair without premeditation. In this case, the congnitive process and translation going on in my brain is subconscious and hence not "premeditation" (which is a conscious mental process). ......................................................................................
"Zero" premeditation in verbal expression is complete illusive. Describing simple single objects or repetiive events can be done without premeditation, but describing complex events will always require a conscious thought process (i.e. premeditation).
The very decision to describe and the selection/order of the description require cognitive processing. You may be able to attend to the stimulus pattern (chair) without premeditation but choosing to act in response requires it. Responding with a shreik to the sudden appearance of a snake requires the recognition of the object as a snake (infratemporal cortex) and then the association of that awareness with fear (amygdala) may be so rapid as to precede any "premeditated" response.

Premeditation implies a lot.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing