Outstanding Pure DSD256 Downloads with some DXD thrown in...

[Rushton]

Hmmm, not sure what you mean by "quality" here. But let's give this a try...

The tracking channels (source) used in the mixing process are DSD64, one channel per microphone. This is our absolute source because this is what came from the microphone to the initial A/D conversion. These tracking channels are then mixed to a stereo output. That stereo output is at DSD256 when it comes out the other end of the HQPlayer Pro mixing process because that is what the mastering engineer (Tom Caulfield in this case) specified.

The mastering engineer could alternatively have specified that the mixing output be at DSD64. In the final release, the Producer's Choice album will be available for download in multiple different modulations: a mastering output at DSD64, then another at DSD128, then DSD256, and then DSD512. These files are identical except for the modulation to the higher carrier frequencies. But, they will not sound the same. They will not sound the same because of the way each of our DACs will handle that file at that given carrier frequency, and by the degree that the different carrier frequencies move the signal above noise and filter levels.

And here we get beyond what I understand. What I do know is what I hear when I listen to the different modulations on my DAC. And this will be different from what someone else hears on their DAC. This is because, unless our DACs are using exactly the same internal circuits or D/A converter chips, our different DACs will process the signal differently.

An example of this is the way most current manufacture D/A chips are optimized to process at the frequency of DSD512, and this is why some listeners will say that DSD512 sounds better to them. It's because their D/A converter chip is optimized for DSD12 and provides a cleaner output at that carrier frequency.

So, "is the quality the same" - doggone if I know. What DAC do you use. That will decide for you what resolution file you should download. It is why NativeDSD provides alternative DSD resolutions.

But is it "the same recording"? Yes.

And would original tracking channels made at DSD256 sound even better? Yes. But this album was recorded before DSD256 was available, so DSD64 tracking channels are what we have.

I hope this helps some. It is a complex topic, and I am not at all sure I'm being technically accurate in my explanation. I'm not an engineer, just a music listener whose been trying to understand by asking a lot of questions of people who work with this stuff.

 

[matthias]

My point is if you get the same quality level with DSD64 recordings modulated to DSD256 as you get with DSD256 recordings, why then do DSD256 recordings at all? You would need much less storage with DSD64 recordings than with DSD256 recordings for example and there might be other economic benefits for DSD64 recordings.
What does Tom Caulfield think about this point? I am curious

 

[Rushton]

if you get the same quality level with DSD64 recordings modulated to DSD256 as you get with DSD256 recordings, why then do DSD256 recordings at all?

Gotcha. No, you do NOT get the same sonic quality from an original DSD64 recorded file as you do from an original DSD256 recorded file. You can modulate the DSD64 file to DSD256, but you still only have the amount of information that was captured at DSD64.

This exercise is about getting the best sound quality possible out of those original DSD64 tracking channels (the source), not whether it can be stuffed with more data that is not in the original -- it can't.

And, in this comparison, the important point is comparing Pure DSD mastering to DXD mastering of the same channel trackings.

What did you think when you listened to the two samples provided? Which did you think sounded better?

 

[microstrip]

Sure, let's see if this helps: The sixteen DSD64 tracking channels have to be mixed to create the final stereo or multi-channel released file. The mixing can be done in PCM (usually DXD) and this is what usually happens, most often using Pyramix. But, the these sixteen DSD64 tracking channels can also be mixed entirely in the DSD domain without the use of PCM. This is done in HQPlayer Pro.

When mixed entirely in the DSD domain, with no PCM, the resulting mix is "Pure DSD."

This Pure DSD file is then modulated from DSD64 (2.8 MHz) to DSD256 (11.2 mHz) entirely in the DSD domain, no PCM involved. The result is thus "Pure DSD256." Modulating a DSD file from one resolution to another is by raising the frequency of the carrier band (from 2.8 MHz to 11.2 MHz in this example). This is where the various Pure DSD resolution releases come from: they are modulations from DSD64 to DSD128 to DSD256 to DSD512. All within the DSD domain.

The final release of the album will include all four of these different Pure DSD modulations, each independently generated from the original DSD64 tracking channels. For this sample comparison file, I asked Tom Caulfield to provide the DSD256 modulation because it would be a resolution most folks might like to hear.

Modulating DSD files is an entirely different kind of process than we are used to from the PCM domain -- it is not a conversion or quantization of the data stream. It is a modulation of the carrier frequency.

And if you feel cross-eyed after all of that, you are not alone. It took me a long time to shed my PCM contextual framework and begin understanding this new paradigm of PDM, a very different technology.

Thanks, I now got it. But in some sense Pure DSD256 looks a marketing driven ambiguous name - DSD resolution is linked to the carrier frequency, how can mixing increase resolution? Analogies are dangerous and misleading, but IMO mixing an eight track recorded at 15ips to a 30 ips stereo machine does not create a 30 ips recording.

It looks that pure DSD256 does not mean it was recorded using DSD256, as most people, as me, will wrongly assume.

 

[matthias]

Gotcha. No, you do NOT get the same sonic quality from an original DSD64 recorded file as you do from an original DSD256 recorded file. You can modulate the DSD64 file to DSD256, but you still only have the amount of information that was captured at DSD64.

OK, thanks this is my point.
BUT then it is not correct to call a DSD64 recording modulated to DSD256 "pureDSD256" like a DSD256 recording.
The right term for a modulated DSD64 recording would be like "pureDSD64+"

 

[Rushton]

OK, thanks this is my point.
BUT then it is not correct to call a DSD64 recording modulated to DSD256 "pureDSD256" like a DSD256 recording.
The right term for a modulated DSD64 recording would be like "pureDSD64+"

Okay, I get your point now. Thanks for hanging in there with me.

Yes, one is the original recording format of DSD64, the other is that DSD64 original recording format modulated to DSD256. Both are "Pure DSD," which is how Native DSD will categorize them. I apologize if my shorthand has been confusing.

We need to keep in mind to consider BOTH the original recording format and to the mastering used. An original recording format of DSD256 gets really degraded going through a DXD mastering.

And, again, the point of this article, and the point of the comparison is to compare the mastering in Pure DSD to mastering done in DXD.

In this case, the downloaded modulation is more of a factor of what will sound better in your DAC. For many DACs that will be the DSD256 modulation, not the DSD64 modulation, even though it has no greater data in the file itself.

 

[Rushton]

It looks that pure DSD256 does not mean it was recorded using DSD256, as most people, as me, will wrongly assume.

Fair point. I'll adjust my language to be more precise about this in the future. I am trying to parse out some clarity, not create greater confusion -- as it appears I have done.

 

[matthias]

@Rushton
I think we agree now
My only point left is that the customer should know exactly what is going on.
It is obviously the DSD rate at the source of the AD conversion what determines the quality and not the DSD rate of the later modulation. So a DSD64 recording should never be "renamed" into DSD128, DSD256, DSD512 or even DSD1024 after modulation. That wouldn't be fair to real high rate DSD recordings.

 

[Rushton]

I think we agree now
My only point left is that the customer should know exactly what is going on.

Yes, I agree completely with this. But...

 

[Rushton]

It is the obviously the DSD rate at the source of the AD conversion what determines the quality and not the DSD rate of the later modulation. So a DSD64 recording should never be "renamed" into DSD128, DSD256, DSD512 or even DSD1024 after modulation. That wouldn't be fair to real high rate DSD recordings.

I don't agree with you about this. I think you are not headed down an sustainable track here. And, I would disagree that the DSD rate of the later modulation does not impact the quality of the sound -- it can and does, depending on your DAC.

As to renaming as DSD126, DSD256, etc., think about the longstanding PCM world. We have 44.1kHz, 96kHz, 192kHz, 352.8kHz and a continuing basket load of sample rates from both original format and from upsampling. If the PCM file is upsampled that file is technically at that higher upsampled rate. In the PDM world, we have DSD64, DSD128, DSD256, etc. This is absolutely what that digital file is. It is that rate and it is accurate to name it thusly.

But, can a consumer be mislead? YES, absolutely. And we have experience with some retailers doing this.

Where I completely agree with you is that we (as audio consumers and writers) and producers and retailers should endeavor to be clear and transparent.

There are three things that need to be disclosed, in my opinion:

1) at what resolution were the original tracking channels created?
2) what was the mastering / mixing process (PCM, analog, DSD domain*)?
3) what is the distributed file's format/resolution?

I don't see any way to have some single word, phrase, or code that can cover all of these variables. And they all impact the final sound of what we download to listen to.

NativeDSD is trying very hard to get the terminology laid out and to be transparent on their own site. They are not perfect, but they are better than most. In their web pages, they clearly identify the "Original recording format" as best they know from what the label tells them. They identify whether the original recording was analog tape. They are now attempting to identify whether a DSD album is a Pure DSD album, with no PCM in the chain. And they show the various distributed formats you can download.

There is still some vagueness around the process that may have been used to create the edit master of a given release, in some cases. And there needs to be more clarity about which of the various files distributed is the Edit Master. But, they are working on it.

Bob Witrak at High Definition Tape Transfers is probably the most transparent retailer about the transfer process and the mastering process. But these are steps that he controls and of which he has direct knowledge. He is still not as open about the actual source tape used, however, and we should continue to ask for him to disclose more on that topic.

* Technically "multi-bit PDM," with DSD being the single bit variant of PDM

 

[microstrip]

I don't agree with you about this. I think you are not headed down an sustainable track here. And, I would disagree that the DSD rate of the later modulation does not impact the quality of the sound -- it can and does, depending on your DAC.

In fact, as you are adding several individual sources that are encompassing much more information you should increase the DSD rate - otherwise you will loose information.

My previous question was just on the semantics, not on the process.

A somewhat similar situation showed with tape - in multichannel tape 16 track Studer machines each individual track was around 1,27 mm wide. But the mix was tipically recorded in an half-inch stereo mastering deck - around 5.8mm wide tracks.

As to renaming as DSD126, DSD256, etc., think about the longstanding PCM world. We have 44.1kHz, 96kHz, 192kHz, 352.8kHz and a continuing basket load of sample rates from both original format and from upsampling. If the PCM file is upsampled that file is technically at that higher upsampled rate.

But is still an original rate PCM recording.

These problems also show in DXD - DXD is a mixing and storage format. We seldom know about the whole chain. The excellent Merging Technologies’ ADCs (Horus, Hapi) use native DSD converters, then perform real-time decimation to output PCM/DXD!

In the PDM world, we have DSD64, DSD128, DSD256, etc. This is absolutely what that digital file is. It is that rate and it is accurate to name it thusly.

But, can a consumer be mislead? YES, absolutely. And we have experience with some retailers doing this.

Where I completely agree with you is that we (as audio consumers and writers) and producers and retailers should endeavor to be clear and transparent.

There are three things that need to be disclosed, in my opinion:

1) at what resolution were the original tracking channels created?
2) what was the mastering / mixing process (PCM, analog, DSD domain*)?
3) what is the distributed file's format/resolution?

I don't see any way to have some single word, phrase, or code that can cover all of these variables. And they all impact the final sound of what we download to listen to.

Yes. In the old days we just had AAA AAD ADD and DDD ...

NativeDSD is trying very hard to get the terminology laid out and to be transparent on their own site. They are not perfect, but they are better than most. In their web pages, they clearly identify the "Original recording format" as best they know from what the label tells them. They identify whether the original recording was analog tape. They are now attempting to identify whether a DSD album is a Pure DSD album, with no PCM in the chain. And they show the various distributed formats you can download.

There is still some vagueness around the process that may have been used to create the edit master of a given release, in some cases. And there needs to be more clarity about which of the various files distributed is the Edit Master. But, they are working on it.

Bob Witrak at High Definition Tape Transfers is probably the most transparent retailer about the transfer process and the mastering process. But these are steps that he controls and of which he has direct knowledge. He is still not as open about the actual source tape used, however, and we should continue to ask for him to disclose more on that topic.

* Technically "multi-bit PDM," with DSD being the single bit variant of PDM

Nice to know of these efforts.

 

[godofwealth]

All this talk of DSD omits mention of one simple fact: the DSD process generates an incredibly high amount of ultrasonic noise that needs to be filtered out. Early SACD players had this filter that brick walled all frequencies above 50 kHZ or so. I suspect higher DSD rates only generate even more ultrasonic energy. This plot is revealing of the inherent problems with DSD. It's taken from a long technical discussion of PCM vs DSD at the following link: https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/

 

[treitz3]

Respectfully, and in the most basic of terms, why would that even matter?

Most humans can't even hear those frequencies.

Tom

 

[Al M.]

Respectfully, and in the most basic of terms, why would that even matter?

Most humans can't even hear those frequencies.

Tom

Because ultrasonic noise can give problems in electronics during amplification and in HF overloading of transducers. You will not hear the noise directly, but it can have sonic effects throughout the system chain.

At least theoretically it can be a problem, how much it matters in practice will be debatable. It will also depend on how much things are filtered out in the DAC.

 

[Rushton]

All this talk of DSD omits mention of one simple fact: the DSD process generates an incredibly high amount of ultrasonic noise that needs to be filtered out.

Good case of be aware of your source and what the information means.
I've seen this information and this graph before. The graph is about 10dB hot, and is only for DSD64. DSD256 expands the frequency scale 4X, and DSD512 8X. All of that leads to the ability to employ more Gausian shaped minimal phase effects reconstruction filters. And, fwiw, the link is to a company that makes PCM ladder DAC's.

Respectfully folks, in the article I shared, I've provided two samples files for a listener to judge a mastering technique for their system and subjective personal preference. Has anyone listened to these?

 

[Rushton]

Back to music...



Acoustic live set, recorded to analog tape, transferred from the master tape to DSD256.

In 2002 Djabe gave a series of concerts in the most famous jazz club in Budapest, New Orleans. For eight nights the group played almost totally different sets. The last two nights were unplugged gigs. 19th of November 2002 Saïd Tichiti joined Djabe. These 9 tracks are taken from that show. The set covers the whole carrier of the band from the first album Djabe (1996) to Sheafs Are Dancing (2003) creating a new and fresh approach of many classic and previously live unplayed Djabe tracks.

 

[Rushton]

Musing here... As I listen the the HDTT release of Sonny Rollins' Way Out West in the DXD mastering of the tape transfer HERE, I was prompted to think about what different listening experiences they are between media. Listening to vinyl (which I did for decades) is one experience, listening to reel-to-reel tape another. And now, listening to ultra-high resolution digital is yet another. Can anyone say that one is better than the other? No, I'm not willing to say this. They are different. Qualitatively, subjectively, they are different listening experiences for me. I can thoroughly enjoy the best of one. Then the best of another. And I am entirely happy in the moment.



So now, in the digital medium era of my audiophile life, I find myself being entirely happy with my all-digital listening. Of course, I am happier when I can listen to the best that digital has to offer. And when listening to lower resolution digital I know I am "slumming" just to immerse myself into a recording that is not otherwise available in some level of better digital sound that could be. But, I'm still happy.

Today it's the Way Out West album via a DSD256 transfer from an unnamed analog tape source that was then post-processed in DXD to alleviate some gremlins Bob Witrak felt he needed to address. Might it sound better in the original DSD256 flat transfer? Oh, yes, if the tape had been perfect (as some are), it would have sounded even more open, more transparent. But did this sound good? Yes! In fact, it sounded great!

So, I'm just in a happy place at the moment realizing how much wonderful music is available today in such excellent sound quality. I hope you are finding music that is pleasing you.

 

[microstrip]

Musing here... As I listen the the HDTT release of Sonny Rollins' Way Out West in the DXD mastering of the tape transfer HERE, I was prompted to think about what different listening experiences they are between media. Listening to vinyl (which I did for decades) is one experience, listening to reel-to-reel tape another. And now, listening to ultra-high resolution digital is yet another. Can anyone say that one is better than the other? No, I'm not willing to say this. They are different. Qualitatively, subjectively, they are different listening experiences for me. I can thoroughly enjoy the best of one. Then the best of another. And I am entirely happy in the moment.

View attachment 156850

So now, in the digital medium era of my audiophile life, I find myself being entirely happy with my all-digital listening. Of course, I am happier when I can listen to the best that digital has to offer. And when listening to lower resolution digital I know I am "slumming" just to immerse myself into a recording that is not otherwise available in some level of better digital sound that could be. But, I'm still happy.

Today it's the Way Out West album via a DSD256 transfer from an unnamed analog tape source that was then post-processed in DXD to alleviate some gremlins Bob Witrak felt he needed to address. Might it sound better in the original DSD256 flat transfer? Oh, yes, if the tape had been perfect (as some are), it would have sounded even more open, more transparent. But did this sound good? Yes! In fact, it sounded great!

So, I'm just in a happy place at the moment realizing how much wonderful music is available today in such excellent sound quality. I hope you are finding music that is pleasing you.

Do you know what were the gremlins? Are the prices exclusive - if we want to listen to the DSD256 and the DXD we have to buy them separately?

 

[Rushton]

Do you know what were the gremlins? Are the prices exclusive - if we want to listen to the DSD256 and the DXD we have to buy them separately?

Are you asking about the music files or the DACs? As to the music files... For most albums, HDTT provides both the DSD256 and DXD files when you purchase the DSD256. (And all lower resolutions, too.) Native DSD separates PCM and DSD, so you have to buy the DXD separately from the DSD256 file. I wish they'd adopt the HDTT pricing structure.

CORRECTION: As Tailspn pointed out to me, NativeDSD appears to be following the HDTT pricing model if you have Club Membership and purchase the DSD256 version of the file. I see a recent order of a DSD256 that also includes the DXD.

As to the DACs... Today's DACs will process both DXD (which is PCM 352.8kHz) and DSD256. Some will additionally handle up to PCM 768kHz and DSD512 (or DSD1024). Your choices from a cost standpoint start at around $230 at the very bottom end, to $1,000-2,000 for reasonably good sound, then as much as you are willing to pay beyond that. As with analog, all will sound different.

The real gremlins have to do with the choices used to store your digital files, select your music, and then feed to the DAC. Some DACs will allow you to plug a USB thumb drive directly into the DAC and then navigate your files via a screen built into the DAC. But, for most options you will be feeding via a USB cable from a computer using software on the computer. At this point, your choices will depend on whether you are using Mac or Windows. I use a mini-pc with Windows 11 and JRiver Media Center (not an easy piece of software to learn, but highly customizable).

 

[Audiocrack]

There are numerous recordings of Beethoven’s five piano concertos. The high resolution recordings with Hannes Minnaar on piano and engineered by Bert van der Wolf have always impressed me: they are - in my view - beautifully played and gorgeously recorded:

Beethoven: Piano Concertos | Complete Edition (3 DISC Download)

Ludwig van Beethoven: Piano Concertos | Complete Edition The Netherlands Symphony Orchestra Hannes Minnaar Jan Willem de Vriend Challenge Classics / HQ|NORTHSTAR Catalogue CC72763 Read Download Booklet PDF Download Booklet DISC 1 PDF Download Booklet DISC 2 PDF Download Booklet DISC 3 PDF...

spiritofturtle.com

I listen (mainly) to the dxd / 24 bit format which I prefer to the dsd 256 version (I have both available).