Is MQA good enough to get Analog Guys to enjoy it? Or still cause Digital Fatigue?

[Fiddle Faddle]

I found an interesting article by Mojo Audio.They seem to be saying true DSD recordings don't exist.

Here is an informative thread from Bruce's forum about DSD editing software as well:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18413-DSD-Editing-software

I only mention that because the existence of pure DSD recordings for the end-user is really a matter of the technology used to record and particularly master. That said, I do agree with the author that there are many recordings out there that are packaged as DSD for the end user but started life as PCM. And the other way around too (I think Bruce, for example, may have done some Mercury reissues as high res PCM but the masters were native DSD, for example).

But as other users have intimated, DSD is arguably over-hyped in some people's mindset and there is a lot of consumer jumping onto that DSD bandwagon. You only have to look at the higher end portable music players to see that DSD capability is a headline marketing tool. But after I read about ABX tests that Emil Berliner studios did between PCM and DSD (no statistical difference), I more or less lost interest in the format as a consumer option (at least for me). That was several years ago though. Today, I might have plumbed for DSD myself if I were starting from scratch, not because I think it is better but because it has garnered such widespread acceptance amongst serious music listeners who want something better than CD quality that there are a huge number of titles to choose from.

I was only reading Chad Kassam's latest magazine this morning and his DSD download sales are way out of proportion (very high) to the number of DSD titles he actually has available. Even just 5 or 6 years ago if you wanted high quality in the classical genre your best choice was vinyl. Now your best choice is DSD64 and DSD128.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

I only mention that because the existence of pure DSD recordings for the end-user is really a matter of the technology used to record and particularly master. That said, I do agree with the author that there are many recordings out there that are packaged as DSD for the end user but started life as PCM. And the other way around too (I think Bruce, for example, may have done some Mercury reissues as high res PCM but the masters were native DSD, for example).

But as other users have intimated, DSD is arguably over-hyped in some people's mindset and there is a lot of consumer jumping onto that DSD bandwagon. You only have to look at the higher end portable music players to see that DSD capability is a headline marketing tool. But after I read about ABX tests that Emil Berliner studios did between PCM and DSD (no statistical difference), I more or less lost interest in the format as a consumer option (at least for me). That was several years ago though. Today, I might have plumbed for DSD myself if I were starting from scratch, not because I think it is better but because it has garnered such widespread acceptance amongst serious music listeners who want something better than CD quality that there are a huge number of titles to choose from.

I was only reading Chad Kassam's latest magazine this morning and his DSD download sales are way out of proportion (very high) to the number of DSD titles he actually has available. Even just 5 or 6 years ago if you wanted high quality in the classical genre your best choice was vinyl. Now your best choice is DSD64 and DSD128.

PCM (especially float point formats) to DSD conversion is not scary. If used qualitative sigma-delta modulator. Such conversion by loses comparable with sample rate conversion.

By all information what is available for me, native DSD editing (without conversion to PCM) is impossible.

Ecxept sequiential merging two DSD-streams. However there may be DC issue.

Comparing PCM and DSD is technical impossibly (incorrect even), because there used different playback tools or different modes of same tools.
Hence compared not formats as itself, but implementation.

Also samples that used for comparing is not identical each other.
If PCM converted to DSD then compared DSD-modulator.
If analog signal recorded in parallel on PCM and DSD ADC, there used different devices. And we compare devices again.

If take noise floor as base, currently I recommend use D128, or above. Because D128 is close to PCM 24 bit by level of noise.

D64 placed between 16 and 24 bit PCM.

Sample rate of DSD guarantee nothing. Quality (noise/artefacts) defined by used DSD modulator.

In my opinion, ideal case is purchasing master and converting it to "the best sounding" resolution (mode/sample rate/bit depth) for used apparatus.

Though studio or online store may use pro-audio converters for providing range of resolutions.

 

[Al M.]

Here is an informative thread from Bruce's forum about DSD editing software as well:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18413-DSD-Editing-software

I only mention that because the existence of pure DSD recordings for the end-user is really a matter of the technology used to record and particularly master. That said, I do agree with the author that there are many recordings out there that are packaged as DSD for the end user but started life as PCM. And the other way around too (I think Bruce, for example, may have done some Mercury reissues as high res PCM but the masters were native DSD, for example).

But as other users have intimated, DSD is arguably over-hyped in some people's mindset and there is a lot of consumer jumping onto that DSD bandwagon. You only have to look at the higher end portable music players to see that DSD capability is a headline marketing tool. But after I read about ABX tests that Emil Berliner studios did between PCM and DSD (no statistical difference), I more or less lost interest in the format as a consumer option (at least for me). That was several years ago though. Today, I might have plumbed for DSD myself if I were starting from scratch, not because I think it is better but because it has garnered such widespread acceptance amongst serious music listeners who want something better than CD quality that there are a huge number of titles to choose from.

I was only reading Chad Kassam's latest magazine this morning and his DSD download sales are way out of proportion (very high) to the number of DSD titles he actually has available. Even just 5 or 6 years ago if you wanted high quality in the classical genre your best choice was vinyl. Now your best choice is DSD64 and DSD128.

I don't see a reason for DSD. The best digital that I have heard is PCM, and it sounds very convincing.

DSD is an audiophile niche product, and always will be.

 

[Rodney Gold]

I think MQA is also a niche product .. the youngsters and general music buyers of today are not interested in better quality .. all they want is free or ultra cheap music..128kbs is fine...
My daughters 22 yr old boyfriend surprised me as he is into vinyl .. but he is a hipster of note and plays back on a cheap and nasty usb crossley tt , so despite him being into analog , quality doesnt matter to him either.

 

[Al M.]

I think MQA is also a niche product .. the youngsters and general music buyers of today are not interested in better quality .. all they want is free or ultra cheap music..128kbs is fine...
My daughters 22 yr old boyfriend surprised me as he is into vinyl .. but he is a hipster of note and plays back on a cheap and nasty usb crossley tt , so despite him being into analog , quality doesnt matter to him either.

Fortunately the standard Redbook CD format, when implemented correctly, is most definitely a high-resolution format.

Even on solo violin and massed strings. And nylon-stringed acoustic guitar (very hard to reproduce convincingly too). And so on.

 

[FrantzM]

I don't see a reason for DSD. The best digital that I have heard is PCM, and it sounds very convincing.

DSD is an audiophile niche product, and always will be.

Hi

MOE (My Opinion Exactly)

As for MQA, I haven't heard it but its most formidable obstacle for adoption by analog-loving audiophile is not its performance however good they might be but the known fact that it is lossy. Clever way to lose less but lossy nonetheless ( I had to write this ) .
People listen with more than their ears however much we debate on that. Some will go beyond the prejudice and listen. Many will remains forever on the sideline. Admitting that a lossy codec is as good as analog will be too much for many to bear.

 

[Al M.]

As for MQA, I haven't heard it but its most formidable obstacle for adoption by analog-loving audiophile is not its performance however good they might be but the known fact that it is lossy. Clever way to lose less but lossy nonetheless ( I had to write this ) .
People listen with more than their ears however much we debate on that. Some will go beyond the prejudice and listen. Many will remains forever on the sideline. Admitting that a lossy codec is as good as analog will be too much for many to bear.

Good point.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

As for MQA, I haven't heard it but its most formidable obstacle for adoption by analog-loving audiophile is not its performance however good they might be but the known fact that it is lossy. Clever way to lose less but lossy nonetheless ( I had to write this ) .
People listen with more than their ears however much we debate on that. Some will go beyond the prejudice and listen. Many will remains forever on the sideline. Admitting that a lossy codec is as good as analog will be too much for many to bear.

Very probably, what correct blind test show that loses of MQA are invisible for ears.

 

[microstrip]

I don't see a reason for DSD. The best digital that I have heard is PCM, and it sounds very convincing.

DSD is an audiophile niche product, and always will be.

Fortunately we have DSD. Some of the music I really appreciate is available in DSD (SACD) and in my system sounds better than the equivalent redbook. Yes, I changed my mind concerning DSD sometime ago, IMHO only donkeys never change their minds!

IMHO high-end is based in niche products, it is in part why it is so rich. In an ideal world all music would be available in DXD and there will be almost no digital debates ...

 

[Ken Newton]

Hi

MOE (My Opinion Exactly)

As for MQA, I haven't heard it but its most formidable obstacle for adoption by analog-loving audiophile is not its performance however good they might be but the known fact that it is lossy. Clever way to lose less but lossy nonetheless ( I had to write this ) ...Admitting that a lossy codec is as good as analog will be too much for many to bear.

Are you suggesting that analog, vinyl or tape, is not lossy?

 

[Al M.]

Fortunately we have DSD. Some of the music I really appreciate is available in DSD (SACD) and in my system sounds better than the equivalent redbook. Yes, I changed my mind concerning DSD sometime ago, IMHO only donkeys never change their minds!

Sure, I have changed my mind many times too. Yet so far I have seen no reason to do so on DSD . Perhaps that time will come, who knows.

BTW, the better sound of DSD to the equivalent Redbook may also simply be a matter of mastering. The very first review of SACD (a DSD format) by Martin Colloms in Hifi News & Record Review in 1998 showed different frequency plots for the SACD and CD layers. Proof of different mastering.

There are also reports in some cases of better sounding CDs over their equivalent SACD counterparts. Again, mastering.

 

[asiufy]

While I do agree that mastering is partly the reason some DSD discs sound good (better than redbook/PCM), now you have to ask yourself: if I like music (and the best reproduction of it), why shouldn't I *also* have a DSD-compatible player, if some of the music out there will be best experienced in that format (due to mastering or technical reasons) ?

You gotta have both (and vinyl) in order to experience the best out of every recording, as depending on the record, the best might be DSD, PCM, hi-res or even a good ol' LP. Unless, for your musical taste, everything is best at 16/44 PCM, which I find rare...

 

[dminches]

You gotta have both (and vinyl) in order to experience the best out of every recording, as depending on the record, the best might be DSD, PCM, hi-res or even a good ol' LP. Unless, for your musical taste, everything is best at 16/44 PCM, which I find rare...

That is the only solution. Of course, reel has to be on that list too!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

While I do agree that mastering is partly the reason some DSD discs sound good (better than redbook/PCM), now you have to ask yourself: if I like music (and the best reproduction of it), why shouldn't I *also* have a DSD-compatible player, if some of the music out there will be best experienced in that format (due to mastering or technical reasons) ?

You gotta have both (and vinyl) in order to experience the best out of every recording, as depending on the record, the best might be DSD, PCM, hi-res or even a good ol' LP. Unless, for your musical taste, everything is best at 16/44 PCM, which I find rare...

or get a server that can optimize both with HQ Player. HQ Player can receive either format at any resolution, but output whichever is ideal for your dac of choice. the SGM is designed around optimizing HQ Player.

then you can have any dac you like, and only feed it the optimal format from the server.

 

[Legolas]

Sure, I have changed my mind many times too. Yet so far I have seen no reason to do so on DSD . Perhaps that time will come, who knows.

BTW, the better sound of DSD to the equivalent Redbook may also simply be a matter of mastering. The very first review of SACD (a DSD format) by Martin Colloms in Hifi News & Record Review in 1998 showed different frequency plots for the SACD and CD layers. Proof of different mastering.

There are also reports in some cases of better sounding CDs over their equivalent SACD counterparts. Again, mastering.

The Mojo report I flagged up highlights the problem of drifting from the original sample pattern, so if it was recorded at 384K or 192K it needs to be 96K on the HD consumer release to keep the pattern and not generate unwanted noise in the audio band. Having said this, I have seen less HD tracks at 88.2 or 176.4K. Anyone know if this is as important as Mojo makes out? If it is, then many of the 'high res' releases not following that pattern may be compromised even though they should have more information in the data. And going further on that point, quite possibly the inconsistent quality of Redbook releases may be (impart, or in some cases) because of this basic fact?

 

[Al M.]

While I do agree that mastering is partly the reason some DSD discs sound good (better than redbook/PCM), now you have to ask yourself: if I like music (and the best reproduction of it), why shouldn't I *also* have a DSD-compatible player, if some of the music out there will be best experienced in that format (due to mastering or technical reasons) ?

You gotta have both (and vinyl) in order to experience the best out of every recording, as depending on the record, the best might be DSD, PCM, hi-res or even a good ol' LP. Unless, for your musical taste, everything is best at 16/44 PCM, which I find rare...

And why should I spread my resources thin? I'd rather get, for the money that I have to spend, the best out of a single format. And since for a few decades now PCM is the default format where 99.9 % of all music is found, concentrating on PCM is a no-brainer for me. Unlike some audiophiles I don't have vast amounts of money to spend on implementing and optimizing any and all formats in my system. Those who can afford it and feel the need should go for it. I'll stick with PCM.

 

[Al M.]

or get a server that can optimize both with HQ Player. HQ Player can receive either format at any resolution, but output whichever is ideal for your dac of choice. the SGM is designed around optimizing HQ Player.

then you can have any dac you like, and only feed it the optimal format from the server.

I don't see why I should strive to optimize PCM with HQ Player. The best digital playback that I have heard was PCM as PCM, and it beat what I heard with HQ Player. But then, I haven't heard the SGM server; not that I can afford it anyway.

 

[dminches]

I don't see why I should strive to optimize PCM with HQ Player. The best digital playback that I have heard was PCM as PCM

You don't have to convert PCM to DSD with HQPlayer. I don't. But playing back a 16/44.1 at 24/384 sounds better with my DAC.

 

[Yuri Korzunov]

Fortunately we have DSD. Some of the music I really appreciate is available in DSD (SACD) and in my system sounds better than the equivalent redbook. Yes, I changed my mind concerning DSD sometime ago, IMHO only donkeys never change their minds!

IMHO high-end is based in niche products, it is in part why it is so rich. In an ideal world all music would be available in DXD and there will be almost no digital debates ...

DSD have simpler demodulator (in DAC) than PCM.

 

[Al M.]

You don't have to convert PCM to DSD with HQPlayer. I don't. But playing back a 16/44.1 at 24/384 sounds better with my DAC.

My DAC already oversamples CD to 176.4 kHz (4 x 44.1 kHz). Its max. sampling rate is 192 kHz.