It's a universal thing - I am "allergic" to most DSD regardless of equipment. Obviously, there are great recordings in the DSD format which are great.
Nevertheless, the most revealing comparison was having the same vinyl record ripped (by a famous dude on $250K of equipment) to PCM 192/24 and to DSD, which eliminated the constant argument of whether the material came from the same master.
We all have our preferences, which makes things fun. I am assuming you prefer the "smoothness" and "spaciousness" of DSD to the "bite", "PRAT", etc., of PCM, which is totally cool.
I thought it might be different with classical music too, but to be quite honest, if I have ever heard a difference it comes down far more to the characteristics of the DAC than it does format. That being the case, I agree that it inherently cannot sound artificial.
Emil Berliner Studios (whom I hold in the greatest possible respect), had this to say about DSD versus PCM back in 2003:
During the recording of Mahler´s 2nd Symphony (Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, Gilbert Kaplan, released on Deutsche Grammophon CD 474 380-2, SACD 477 594-2) in the Musikvereinssaal, Vienna, the whole recording sequence is carried out by using both PCM and DSD technology following the microphone. To exclude sound variations by different A/D converters, the team uses special converters capable of dealing with both formats. The result of the subsequent listening comparisons by double-blind test is as straight-forward as sobering: There is no difference whatsoever.
That said, I do have to admit that I am not a fan of very high sample rates (to my ears it effects instrumental timbre and gives a steely and fatiguing edge to the sound that does not exist at sample rates of 96 KHz or lower), however I concede that this might simply be due to the fact that I have never had long term experience with a high end master clock with exceptionally low jitter at very high sample rates. It is possible I may change my opinion on that basis, however to this point in time, I have never come across any exception to this (unfortunately for me).
Personally, I enjoy rock, blues, and jazz, and can't stand how DSD makes the vast majority of these recordings so dull. DSD sure does make things smoother, but without the snappiness PRAT, DSD sounds very artificial to me.
Personal tastes aside, does anybody understand or have any theories why the high up-sampling/ oversampling rates of DSD, and such, kill the snappiness, aliveness, and PRAT of music?
And as mostly an RBCD person with the odd >48 KHz recordings here and there ... I frankly don't understand what Caesar is talking about. What the heck is "kill PRAT"??? Really???
We can call PRAT "rhythmic drive", "Snap", etc. Communicating about experiences is difficult. If we had the vinyl rip files I mentioned above to listen and compare via a shared experience, it would be easier to explain the differences. Furthermore, the only way to probe an issue scientifically or rationally is to first notice that it exists...
I thought it might be different with classical music too, but to be quite honest, if I have ever heard a difference it comes down far more to the characteristics of the DAC than it does format. That being the case, I agree that it inherently cannot sound artificial.
Emil Berliner Studios (whom I hold in the greatest possible respect), had this to say about DSD versus PCM back in 2003:
During the recording of Mahler´s 2nd Symphony (Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, Gilbert Kaplan, released on Deutsche Grammophon CD 474 380-2, SACD 477 594-2) in the Musikvereinssaal, Vienna, the whole recording sequence is carried out by using both PCM and DSD technology following the microphone. To exclude sound variations by different A/D converters, the team uses special converters capable of dealing with both formats. The result of the subsequent listening comparisons by double-blind test is as straight-forward as sobering: There is no difference whatsoever.
That said, I do have to admit that I am not a fan of very high sample rates (to my ears it effects instrumental timbre and gives a steely and fatiguing edge to the sound that does not exist at sample rates of 96 KHz or lower), however I concede that this might simply be due to the fact that I have never had long term experience with a high end master clock with exceptionally low jitter at very high sample rates. It is possible I may change my opinion on that basis, however to this point in time, I have never come across any exception to this (unfortunately for me).
You are talking about an original recording, and that may be a different case. But so many DACs like direct stream, playback designs, emm, dcs, etc., take the pcm file and recalculate it to DSD via a high up-sampling algorithm - and many enjoy that presentation.
It's a universal thing - I am "allergic" to most DSD regardless of equipment. Obviously, there are great recordings in the DSD format which are great.
Nevertheless, the most revealing comparison was having the same vinyl record ripped (by a famous dude on $250K of equipment) to PCM 192/24 and to DSD, which eliminated the constant argument of whether the material came from the same master.
Yes, but the comparison was done on one dad with one playback software. Possibly the DSD implementation of that dac or the playback software gave you the impression you got, and this impression could change depending on the implementation.
Yes, but the comparison was done on one dad with one playback software. Possibly the DSD implementation of that dac or the playback software gave you the impression you got, and this impression could change depending on the implementation.
I understand what you are saying, but I think people's tastes are pretty clear cut when it comes to this. There is a market for both PCM DACs and DSD DACs and people are making the trade-offs between the 2 formats based on their preferences.
I understand what you are saying, but I think people's tastes are pretty clear cut when it comes to this. There is a market for both PCM DACs and DSD DACs and people are making the trade-offs between the 2 formats based on their preferences.
Actually no, most people don't have sufficient compares to make that call. They do exactly what you are doing, take a stand. The PCM preference over DSD, for example, can come because of the experience they have had with their chosen dac. Anyway we are not discussing markets and preferences. The point was is PCM so better than dad as you suggested, and the answer is no it's not. Maybe you should send that file to those who back DAD and ask them to do a compare with their respective dac and software. If they confirm they like the DSD with the file, you should try out their implementation to confirm if it is a matter of preference or of experience. Many a time different preferences also result from differing experiences
Actually no, most people don't have sufficient compares to make that call. They do exactly what you are doing, take a stand. The PCM preference over DSD, for example, can come because of the experience they have had with their chosen dac. Anyway we are not discussing markets and preferences. The point was is PCM so better than dad as you suggested, and the answer is no it's not. Maybe you should send that file to those who back DAD and ask them to do a compare with their respective dac and software. If they confirm they like the DSD with the file, you should try out their implementation to confirm if it is a matter of preference or of experience. Many a time different preferences also result from differing experiences
Maybe. But also, I am not suggesting one format is better than another. I am suggesting it's different, and people will choose accordingly.
I love NOLA speakers, but at a recent show they had it fed by Playback Designs digital. I walked into the room, and left in 30 seconds, vs. spending 1-2 hours I have done in the past...
Anyways, I am curious if any one is aware of why - technically or scientifically - the high up-sampling rates seem to smooth the sound while trading off the rhythmic drive, "bite", "PRAT", etc.
Personally, I enjoy rock, blues, and jazz, and can't stand how DSD makes the vast majority of these recordings so dull. DSD sure does make things smoother, but without the snappiness PRAT, DSD sounds very artificial to me.
Personal tastes aside, does anybody understand or have any theories why the high up-sampling/ oversampling rates of DSD, and such, kill the snappiness, aliveness, and PRAT of music?
Theories in the high-end just to support ones own preference? IMHO we would need a detailed description of the system, recordings and experiences that lead to your starting statement. IMHO if you remove the personal tastes in the high-end you are elsewhere, probably ending in an AV system or a japanese receiver!
There is an interesting aspect in your statement - you say that DSD makes the vast majority, not all. This means that some recordings are not dull and have PRAT. Perhaps a detailed analysis of the exceptional recordings can lead to a reason why DSD sounds dull in your opinion.
DSD sounds great in the Vivaldi system, plenty of PRAT, snappiness and aliveness.
Theories in the high-end just to support ones own preference? IMHO we would need a detailed description of the system, recordings and experiences that lead to your starting statement. IMHO if you remove the personal tastes in the high-end you are elsewhere, probably ending in an AV system or a japanese receiver!
There is an interesting aspect in your statement - you say that DSD makes the vast majority, not all. This means that some recordings are not dull and have PRAT. Perhaps a detailed analysis of the exceptional recordings can lead to a reason why DSD sounds dull in your opinion.
DCS sounds great in the Vivaldi system, plenty of PRAT, snappiness and aliveness.
Sorry, I do not remember having tried it. As my system and room are currently evolving, I am focusing my very limited critical listening time in other areas.
Sorry, I do not remember having tried it. As my system and room are currently evolving, I am focusing my very limited critical listening time in other areas.
Sure - if you ever get around to it, would be an interesting perspective. For me right now, the perceptual difference is as big as a "sweet" tube amp vs. "clean" solid state.
(...) Anyways, I am curious if any one is aware of why - technically or scientifically - the high up-sampling rates seem to smooth the sound while trading off the rhythmic drive, "bite", "PRAT", etc.
Probably just DAC implementation in many cases. Years ago some manufacturers found that chips able to play at 176.4/192 kHz sounded much better at a half that rate and played these sampling rates undersampling them.
When you refer to high-sampling rates are you also referring to DXD?
Maybe. But also, I am not suggesting one format is better than another. I am suggesting it's different, and people will choose accordingly.
I love NOLA speakers, but at a recent show they had it fed by Playback Designs digital. I walked into the room, and left in 30 seconds, vs. spending 1-2 hours I have done in the past...
Anyways, I am curious if any one is aware of why - technically or scientifically - the high up-sampling rates seem to smooth the sound while trading off the rhythmic drive, "bite", "PRAT", etc.
I found PD disappointing in all systems I heard it in.
Maybe they make sound more real and give it more PRAT in the right dacs. Bill and I could obviously give you our opinion but just saying you need to experiment with more dacs on that front.
Probably just DAC implementation in many cases. Years ago some manufacturers found that chips able to play at 176.4/192 kHz sounded much better at a half that rate and played these sampling rates undersampling them.
When you refer to high-sampling rates are you also referring to DXD?
Probably just DAC implementation in many cases. Years ago some manufacturers found that chips able to play at 176.4/192 kHz sounded much better at a half that rate and played these sampling rates undersampling them.
When you refer to high-sampling rates are you also referring to DXD?
I honestly don't know if we went that high... I was hanging out with my friend. And his digital audio software had a feature to upsample, doubling / nearly doubling from 44 to 88/ 96 to 176/ 192. The music turned more and more dull to me the higher we went... Going past 88, I would enjoy the music in my car more...
