| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
August 25, 2008 - 5:00pm
#1
GQ on Vinyl Resurgence
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
In the words of Penny Lane "It's all happening!"
When I can walk into Target and buy a vinyl LP then I will admit that there is a resurgence. Until then I have to say that this is an underground push-back, a result of the "mp3 revolution".
Furthermore, I'm sure that most of these new vinyl releases are sourced from digital masters so where is the advantage in that? Is there really any point in buying an LP that has been derived from a digital master? I never thought so. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about this? If I were into spending the big money on buying new releases on vinyl this would be a very important issue for me.
Good points, LM2940. I agree with you that this 'vinyl resurgence' has partly been a 'push-back' reaction against the mp3 surge. But if you think about it, what kind of resurgence ISN'T a reaction against something? Here we have a form of media that was all but given up for dead, and now we have Time Magazine, GQ, CNN, CBS, Washington Times, LA Times all, relatively at the same time, noticing. Sure it's not "buy your record at Target" kind of big, but let's not kid ourselves. It's still a minority preference. But it's still big and significant enough that these mainstream, indifferent press machines have noticed. And why is it a resurgence only if you can buy it at Target? If it's not mass-distributed along with old Britney Spears CDs, is it not a meaningful resurgence? On that count, I disagree with your criterion. Plus, these labels like Matador and Sub Pop do not rely primarily on Target, etc. for distribution, nor do many other innovative labels anyway. That model is pretty much beaten to the ground. But a lot of passionate, young, discriminating music lovers are buying these new LPs by new artists in significant numbers, that more albums by new artists are released on LPs. (Only if the classical music industry would take such a step!)
Another thing: I also agree that a lot of the digitally remastered LPs are pretty much insufferable. Most of my crappiest sounding records are digitally remastered (I mentioned this briefly in one of my posts, about the Jessye Norman's Strauss' 4 Last Songs...) But there's something about the best of these new LPs being cut... they simply sound gorgeous. The Fleet Foxes LP, The Black Keys LP, etc. I think other people can answer to the mastering process, b/c I don't have that background. But I can say that the sound engineers for a lot of these LPs have done a great job. The recording producer of The Black Keys LP, for example, recorded the album using a 1973 recording console he handbuilt with his dad. What does this all mean? If nothing else, that there is a demand for the quality of the analog sound, and that there ARE great engineers and producers who are still passionate about reproducing that quality, no matter how young/old they are, and that their passion is genuine. Frankly, I only hear what I hear, and if what I hear is golden, I'm not going to take out some kind of a barometer and ferret out how digital or undigital the master is. The only proof is in the recording, and most of my new music purchases on LP have exceeded my expectations.
Not exactly LPs at Target, BUT this post at A'gon shows progress:
"OK, so I'm blasting through the local (quite small) Sears as a short cut to another store in the mall, and what do I spy out of the corner of my eye? A really nasty/cheap Sony, direct-drive turntable! Clear evidence that the tide has turned..." per Twoleftears
There's a thread over their if anyone wants to follow it.
Dave
Hi
Albums might not be back at Target, but they are in Best Buy.
There is a simple engineering fact that music is analog, by sampling and digitizing you lose a percentage of the music. This is because no matter what bit rate and sample speed you use you can only obtain a single value for that sample, analog music contains numerous complex harmonics, this is the analog sound that people are being drawn back to. Yes there are pops, scratchs etc on albums that are frustrating but the overall warmth and detail of analogue over digital is the driving factor.
This is not a short term fad, albums will continue to grow for the next few years. If I had the money a record pressing plant would be a great investment around now !!!
Alan
Why don't you guys embrace the reel to reel decks the same way you embrace vinyl? It seems to me that if analog technologies are what you seek, the reel to reel is a much better option.
Well, as for me, I'd like to try reel-to-reel one day to record my LPs. My buddy loves his Revox A77, and he's sure I'd love it. But still, the vinyl infection is really about the software. Going into those record stores in downtown NYC, or in some smalltown USA, and coming out with a small load under your arm. Nothing beats that, for me, and it's an experience that you can't get with reel-to-reel. I don't think of myself ever seeking "analog technologies" as you put it, AlexO, because I never think of it that way. I just like what I hear, the quality of sound that's absent in most (not all) digital recordings, that is more tactile, immediately present and lifelike. I can care less if the specs do not measure up, some dynamic frequencies being this or that...
So, are you in it for the experience or the sound? If it's the ultimate sound quality that you're looking for, then I would assume that would take precedence over the experience. However, if it's the experience you want, then the sound quality becomes secondary or tertiary and then you may as well play with the $3k Meridian radio with its Ferrari red paint.
So, I guess the question to ask is: What is your first and utmost priority? The type of priority for which you're willing to sacrifice everything else?
I was editing my post as you put up the question. It should be clear that it's the sound quality AS WELL AS the experience. With analog, the musical reproduction in my system gained tactility, complexities in harmonic textures, more lifelike color. Everything is more immediate. I also heard Platine Verdier measured against Zanden's top-flight digital system in A-B-A. I preferred the Platine, by far. It was as if the music through Zanden had a haze.
Interesting point
In the UK, FM radio with a good antenna is considered the best possible form of music. Is that the same in the US ?
Alan
I figured this would be the answer, that's why I phrased my question the way I did. If you had to choose ONE, which would you choose?
I don't think you can have any decent experience without some level of music. If your ears are bleeding, you're not having a good time.
In other words, I think SQ has to be part of the experience. It is a separate question of what level of SQ has to exist before you have a good time. If the sound is mediocre, but the music is good, I'll have a blast.
First of all, if you chose one over the other, I don't think I'd consider myself really in it for the love of music. I'd shoot myself for being a complete gear weenie.
But for the sake of the argument, I'd go along with your inquiry and say I'd choose the sound quality. Because I do clearly prefer the analog SQ over digital. As mentioned, I A-B'd the similarly priced analog set-up vs digital set-up (actually, Zanden costs more) and I preferred analog, no contest. And here's something, too: why do you think it's become a common compliment in reviewing CDPs or DACs when reviewers mention that it "sounded analog"? Not only in this mag but in other mags or webzines. In forums, too. It's almost as if the paragon of the sound-model is analog even for digital players, and the more analog some digital gear sounds, the better it is. In fact, if someone said some CDP sounded "really digital", it'll probably be a dealbreaker for most. I'm sure you know I'm not making this shiet up. And I'm saying, what sounds more analog than analog, dude? Again, I'm not trying to proselytize here, but laying down my preferences & answering your questions.
New software is $300 a pop, so that's put a real damper on the RTR market. Still, it's alive in a small way.
Dave
Alan, I don't think that these problems are true for digital anymore, at least at the highest levels of the digital art. I'm hearing DSD recordings that are as natural as my best D2D LPs, probably nearing the original 30ips master tapes resolution. My 5.6mHz, single bit, DSD recordings are incredibly musical, dyanamic and organic. So, when you get the sampling rate high enough, digital starts beating analog in dynamic range AND SQ.
Problem is, I'm using a $15,000 CD/SACD player to equal (or beat) my $3000 LP system. Right now, I think price vs. performance still favors analog, but that gap is going to close really fast. In 24 months you'll probably be able to buy a CD/SACD player for $2000 that equals my $15000 player.
Dave
"I'm sure that most of these new vinyl releases are sourced from digital masters so where is the advantage in that? Is there really any point in buying an LP that has been derived from a digital master? "
Not all ARE digital- in fact many are analogue. Plus- in the end, it's the user's playback and the media that makes a huge difference. If it's recorded on ultra-high res digital and then goes to analogue, it's a much better product than down-grading it to Redbook CD.
Also- CD's often are mastered to sound "louder" by compressing the dynamic range (the thinking it's going to be for cars, cheap stereos, computer systems) and analogue/vinyl get a more careful, wider headroom mastering because it's assumed to be for a customer who cares more about the sound and has a better system. This aspect has been written about ad infinitum, even in the main stream press.
And for a interesting side comment, I'm listening to an LP of Kraftwerk, right now. The title is 'Computer World'.
The point? The LP is AAA.
The synths were not digital at the time. almost wholly analog synth, was all that was available in 1980, when it was recorded (released 1981).
As for lyrics, talk about prescience.
Lyrics for the title track, 'Computer World?'
"Interpol, and Deutsche Bank.
FBI, and Scotland Yard.
Computer World.
Business.
Numbers.
Money.
People.
Computer World.
Time.
Travel.
Communication.
Entertainment."
For some perfectly obvious reasons Alex- but I'll spell 'em out for a friend. No source material - at - ALL! Period.
Plus reel-to reels never had the support of the industry, the tapes wore much faster than records and the players never caught on. Same reason why I never jumped on SACD or DVD-A. The selection sucks, and the packaging is lame like CDs.
I am not sure the vinyl resurgence is due to a Push back on MP3s. Most of us into vinyl have been doing it long before MP3s, but there are many who have become hooked on the mechanical aspect of playing an LP and have come to find out is sound is amazing, smooth, and remarkable.
FM used to sound good. Usually in most major cities you had one or two station owners and engineers who really cared about putting out a quality, less compressed signal than most. Often you could count on the PBS affiliates to be among them, but others with the desire could as well.
As ST mentioned it is prabably going to be internet radio that takes over. I know that I am the only one in my knowledge that uses a FM only antenna in our community, 30 miles from Atlanta. You will not pick up much without one. I am looking to try the omni Magnum Dynalab antenna and see how it does here.
Due to their directional signal I have a 50,000 watt AM station in Atl. (am 750) I can barely pick up during the day. I am directly west of Atl. Go figure. What used to be clear channel stations, like WGN 720 am in Chicago, you now have small local 10,000 watt stations on the same freg. with poor programming hindering the DXing many of us liked to do at night. The times have changed.
I thought I read somewhere in Phile that even the BBC signal is of lower quality these days. I think it is a sign of the times. I think many colleges seem to put out a decent quality signal.
"In 24 months you'll probably be able to buy a CD/SACD player for $2000 that equals my $15000 player."
Why do you say that? Is there some major advancement taking place right now?
I think so. I think that the top DACs have solved the CD glare, glaze and uglyness problems; however, in my experience (there may be exceptions that I'm not aware of)those machines cost $9000 and up. There are now lots of digital designers out there that will be opening up Emm and Playback Designs boxes and figuring out what's going on. I think it's a matter of short time before someone like Marantz or Rega comes out with a $2000 player with zero jitter and a wonderful upsampling program that's right there with the top players.
That's purely conjecture, but it's within the grasp of a lot of people now. Someone with lots of capital and the desire to produce top-shelf CD playback can now copy some really great examples. (Oh, how 'bout Oppo. Maybe I should revise down to a $400).
BTW, I own an Oppo, it's no where near the ultimate levels now, at least for CD. (It's pretty good with SACD).
I'm convinced that if you get the DAC right, then with a cheap transport and cheap chassis, you can get about 90% of the ultra machines' performance on CD.
Dave
Dave
What exactly do you mean by 5.6 Mhz single bit sampling ?
I can understand and would agree that if the sampling rate and resolution is high enough you could indeed reproduce analog correctly, but unless you are creating your own recordings at a suitable rate how does that help with commercially available CD's which are still sampled at 44.1 khz.
Alan
The new studio standard for top mastering studios is DSD @2.6mHz, which is also the SACD standard, roughly. 5.6mHz is available on my little Korg MR1000 and I use that and it's 130dB of dynamic range for my best-quality recordings.
The "word length" is 1-bit, rather than 16, 24 or 32-bit. The short word length is made up for by the high sampling rate. Of course, debate rages, but no one disagrees that things are way better than the old 16/44.1
If you buy a SACD of something recorded and mastered in DSD, say San Francisco's Mahler 6th directed by Michael Tilson Thomas, then you'll hear an astounding recording with organic life and musicality AND huge dynamics.
The SACDs of the old 30ips "Dark Side of The Moon" and "I Robot" are also astounding. You'll wonder how the master tape can be any better when you hear it on a great player. Radio Head's "In Rainbows" is another phase-play, mind-blowing manipulated recording (probably DSD-mastered, but I'm not sure) that is amazing on SACD and limited edition CD.
Dave
You raise a good point Alex and for me the formula works like: Sound Quality first + Availability (used can be key to stretch a budget) + overall Experience/Packaging/format Longevity = Vinyl Playback. That formula seems to work for Stephen, Ariel and many folks just getting into vinyl, and for those of us who already have large collections, it's kind of a no brainer to keep tilting our system and collection towards it.
But it still comes down to sound- the more I listen to my TT the less I want to hear my CD player. It's always a let down when I switch over. And lately the packaging designers just seem to be trying harder with the vinyl releases. The art is great- you get more stuff inside and the print quality is way up. And a good deal of the rock/pop releases have come out of the stratosphere and you now get 180gram releases for $13- that's some serious value.
But I can see digital getting re-tooled as far as resolution and playback and definitely being equal- it took a while but happened with HD film and video. It's just too bad you have this massive backlog of Redbook CDs out there. Up-sampling might help- my HD-DVD player does a nice job with my standard DVDs, although they still are not close to the real thing. Plus, even with better sounding CDs, you still have the experience and packaging aspects that are a minus. Convenience I guess would be equalizer to some degree for that... for some people.
I don't think I would choose Zanden as a representative sample of higher end CD players. Its price tag aside, it uses a DAC chip from the late 80's without upsampling or any other advances that have taken place over the years.
I think that it's become fashionable to do so. This hadn't been the case five years ago. Someone started doing it, and then everyone else picked up on it and started doing it too. It's herd mentality.
I'm with you if you say you're in it for the "experience". I might even be with you if you say that you prefer analog recordings played back on analog media. I'm even with you if you say that CDs are mastered differently, with greater compression from digital recordings than LPs. However, once you say that you're in it for the sound quality and UNEQUIVOCALLY prefer analog playback REGARDLESS of any other factor, that's when you lose me.
Dave
Im not sure on your technical background, so please forgive me if i sound insulting.
I can understand sampling at 5.6 mhz, but what the heck is a 1 bit sample ? by the very nature of PCM this doesnt make sense. A sample must have sufficient value to represent the scale of the signal, hence why 16 bit samples are superior to 8 bit. By saying 1 bit you are basically saying the signal is either +ve or -ve and thats it, it doesnt matter how fast you sample you have no amplitude to work with.
How does relate to the typical telecoms sampling for a T-1 line, ie twice the highest frequency x word size x channels or in the USA 8khz x 8 bits x 24 channels = 1.536 M/bits/sec.
I know it works, im just confused by the terminology
Alan
Alan, hope this helps: Wiki About DSD vs. PCM etc.
Dave
The EMMLAB DCC2 upsamples 2X DSD 5.6 is standard on the EMMLABS stuff. Plus it will decode RAW DSD on it's digital input for DSD I'm working on getting some out of the Tascam. And teh Tascam will do all kinds of sample rates, bit 16 24 all kinds of flexiblilty, unlike the 33 1/3 LP which spins at one speed, and teh stylus grinds out some music. The only analog that is worthy of listening too is teh 30 IPS maybe even 15IPS reel-reel but who has those machines at home, with digital, the reality of a super source, priced for this planet, and it works. Reel-reel tapes are like vanished as blanks, Quantegy even gave up more than once, digital memory is cheaper, flexible and keeps getting cheaper and cheaper, and better. A 1TB Iomega drive USB was well under $300...teh Vinyl LP still spins for 22 minutes, at 33 1/3 and grinds out some extremely limited music...it's as dead as any other dead format, there is no resurgence, it's a fad, of course teh mfgs are gonna sell stuff, why not, they will milk it till the cow is decalered MAD, and put to sleep. MF and his $100,000 TT is that the cheaper analog system you need to equal SACD. But he also liked teh sound of obsolete DAC in his $27K CD only player single disc, 16 bit 44.1, technology has moved on, and yet MF and Zander want the nudnicks to beleive the 25 year old crap sounds better. Why did Philips stop making the chip, cus it was obsolete, and replaced with NEW and then came DSD..i guess Philips/Sony don't "understand" only LP sounds good, Philips sold PolyGram too, biggest RECORD compnay in the world at teh time, cus''''maybe it was a dead business, what do they know about anything anyway.
DSD is not PCM, holy moly, and yet these are listening idealogs?
Analog, maybe teh only correct way, not a needle grinding off some wiggles, not $100K either How come if MF is such into analog, he never does reel-reel? He needs to get some open rell machines, and make a reel analog come back. Lot more data on a 2" tape than a tiny wiggle grove. I wonder if i can upsample my reel-reel tapes through a AD-DA Since i only have 7.5 reel, I can upsample it to 10" 15IPS or 2X 15IPS to 30 IPS....Analog upsampling? http://www.tapeproject.com/machines/machines.htm
I figured you'd say that about Zanden, so I must let you know that I did get to hear dCS system as well. I guess it's become somewhat fashionable for many to claim analog sound is the paragon, even for digital sound. But I've heard & read too many great reviewers & audiophiles claim the same thing, so to brush that claim under the huge umbrella of "herd mentality" would be too simplistic & reductive on your part.
Mm, as for my preference for analog sound, I have no desire to win you or lose you. Whatever we prefer passionately, that's our own thing, as I've maintained. I'm answering your questions, which you formed as a hypothetical question: would I choose the SQ or experience? And I'll repeat, to separate the two would be stupid, but for the sake of the argument, I'd choose the SQ b/c I clearly prefer the analog SQ. My points also make clear, I think, that a lot of people regard the analog model of SQ as paragon (hence the digital players sounding really digital = really bad, under the common perception these days). I guess that's important to mention b/c somehow, a lot of the posts here try to peg the analog model of SQ as somehow inherently inferior & that it's purely based on nostalgic or experiential value. Which is BS, because clearly, many manufacturers, too - not just critics - strive to achieve a certain analog quality of sound with their digital systems. Clearly, they recognize certain qualities in analog sound that the digital systems cannot approximate, and they're trying to incorporate it, make it work. To dismiss such things - whether you see that as herd mentality or not - would be obstinacy & blindness.
Again: I'm not telling you to unequivocally embrace the analog god, dude. You're missing my point, I think. You asked me if I prefer analog for the SQ, and I gave my reasons why. And you refuse to accept that I can have a PERSONAL preference! That's just bizarre to me, and I find it kind of funny that you'd see ME as being unequivocal. Yes, without other factors involved, I clearly prefer the analog SQ better than digital. And yes, I'm not the only one, but one amongst many who feel this way. If you can't accept that for some weird reason, oh well. It's not my loss. As I've said before, I'm still very interested in cultivating good sound out of my digital source, and don't see this as a one way street. I do think certain members in this forum have lost the objectivity, however, when they adopt a weird crips vs bloods mentality when it comes to analog vs digital.
Well DUP - all your questions were already answered by yours truly earlier in the thread, but since I'm such a nice guy and can use copy/paste I'll answer the question again: "If all us analogue guys are so into "it" why not use analogue tape?"
For some perfectly obvious reasons - but I'll spell 'em out for a friend. NO source material - at - ALL! Period. And don't gimme that $200 an album tape company crap as if that's a viable option. Back catalaogue and used availability is a major factor for pretty much anyone getting into vinyl, as well as those who never left it.
Plus reel-to reels NEVER had the support of the industry, the tapes wore much faster than records and the players never caught on. Same reason why I never jumped on SACD or DVD-A. The selection sucks, and the packaging is lame like CDs.
The Japanese pressing of the LP for DSOTM still walks all over the SACD version, and the recent LP of 'I robot' is Still better than the SACD.
To be honest, not a bit !!! it speaks in technical jibberish and i cant relate it to anything. I think we are going to have to ask DUP to explain to us analog people in layman terms how DSD works in comparison to PCM. C'mon DUP write a technical response without the usual remarks
Alan
Sorry Welsh. DUP doesn't do "technical" responses. He does other people's web sites, when he is sputtered out, and his own peculiar gibberish.
Perhaps the Ewok with the white beard (a retired EE, with no particular experience with audio, and no particular references to what he plugs his irrelevant wires into...) can give us some technical guidance on these matters.
After all, it is the numerical measurements that determine the sound, eh?
Happy tunes. If you were in town, I would have several Hortinis, a nice Pomerol, and a pound of rib-eye to substitute for your appetite for numbers. But, alas, you are not. So I'll have to drink and eat it all myself, and wish you a tune-filled evening.
Bryston has a new CD player out at a reasonable price...
I'll try.
PCM assigns voltage/intensity values by picking one value among the range of possible values for each sample. For example, if there is 100 voltage values available, PCM assigns a value from one to 100 for each sample.
DSD works with 1-bit resolution does not have a pre-assigned range of values to choose from. Instead, it simply adds one, stays the same or subtracts one from the value before it. Thus if the volume is going down, the DSD encoder keeps subtracting one until the volume stops diminishing.
This is why DSD needs to sample at many more times per second than PCM. PCM can represent a change in value instantly between individual samples. DSD needs a number of samples to get to the new value.
DSD as used in SACDs is roughly equivalent to 24/96 PCM (it's actually a bit less).
Which leads to an interesting quirk. All DSD recordings are edited as 24/96 PCM. Depending on the editing system, either the entire file is transcoded to PCM for editing and then transcoded back to DSD, or only those sections that are edited are transcoded to PCM and back again. There are no pure DSD workstations as DSD is extremely hard to work with as a digital file.
Thus, when listening to an SACD you are actually listening to a recording that spent part of its life as high-resolution PCM. Ironic, yes?
Elk
OK, im extremely familiar with PCM and undertsand its concepts in detail.
What you saying I believe is that at the start of a piece of music a sample is taken, say its equialent to +121 on a 8 bit PCM scale, using DSD 121 single 1 ( assuming 1 is +ve ) bits are sent, the next sample would be say +102 on an 8 bit scale then DSD would send 19 x 0's to indicate the new value ?
It seems very clumsy, this would also make the signal between the two units now synchronus and not asynchronus thus opening up all sorts of jitter potential.
Alan
What SACD player are you comparing to what TT??? That makes a huge difference.
Dave
Huh?? Why is that directed at me, because I owned Bryston in the past? I don't have any reason to expect anything exceptional from Bryston in the digital world. Did they hire a great digital designer/engineer and I don't know it, or did they take a player off the shelf and simply install it in their chassis? I have no idea.
Dave
Self-divider, the Zanden has a seductive, beautiful, spacious sound. I loved it (a have a doctor friend in Salt Lake City who let me borrow it for about 3 weeks). However, as you know, it is hideously expensive. Although I could afford it, I don't trust its reliability.
I cannot "hear" music in the numbers, but I can smell future reliability problems, and JA's review of the Zanden led me to question how well it might hold up over periods of repeated use.
I am going to keep my dCS stack and the Esoteric player. They sound terrific and they have been wonderfully reliable.
I agree with just about everything you say about analog, as you probably have surmised. It is interesting that, when reviewers or manufacturers want to hype a CD player (or SACD, or combination of the two), they almost always praise its "analog-like" sound. You never hear even the hard-core digital advocates say, "Wow! This really sounds digital. I just love that digital music quality!"
Happy listening, and many happy turns of the platter...
Hi, Clifton. The Zanden did sound rather great, especially driven by those Zanden monoblocks & preamp. Very clear sound, definitely not tube-y/over-romantic at all, which is just how I like it. It was only in comparison to the TT that I could hear an added 'haze' to the music. But as I've said - and as I know you agree - great digital playback is a must, too, in a system, especially for classical music lovers, as there's virtually no new releases issued on vinyl. I don't really get analog-only classical music lovers b/c they're missing out on so many great releases. Once you decide to go TT only b/c of the sonic preference, I don't think you're in it for the love of the music any more IMHO.
P.S. I'm from LA area myself, and when I visit, I'd love to crash your household with a bottle of something filthy & maybe we can listen to some tunes together!
I am new to this forum. There does not seem to be a general to all way to post aside from a new thread. I was not addressing it to you, just noting that Bryston has a new and very well rated player out there.
As I understand it, the second part is almost the case. DSD tracks the change in minuscule increments, one bit at a time, with a very high sampling rate.
Thus, between 121 and 102 PCM values there would be a bunch of DSD samples that together decrease the value to 102. There would not be 19 0's sent, but rather a sample value at each point in time at DSD's high 2.8 MHz sampling rate.
There are a bunch of samples because of the very high sampling rate. Depending on the wave form, some of these samples would show a decrease, some the same, some a decrease - but the start and end result would show an equivalent value to the PCM value.
I don't know about the first part of your sentence. That is, I don't know how the beginning value is set. Interesting question.
I don't think there is any sort of jitter problem. DSD ADCs and DACs are not synced to their analog equivalent, anymore than one would try to sync an PCM ADC at 24/88.2 with one at 24/96.
If you want to listen to an 24/88.2 file at 24/96 the file needs to have its sample rate converted.
To listen to DSD at 24/96 the file needs to be transcoded from the 1-bit 2.8 MHz data stream to a 24/96 data stream. Same info, different "language". Jitter is not an issue, it's a question of math.
It takes huge computing power to do the conversion. An hour of DSD takes hours to transcode even on an extremely powerful PC. Thus the editing work stations for DSD have lots of on-board CPU resources.
Elk
I still dont get the sample being one bit, you say a number of samples at a high rate that makes sense. Its the one bit thing that keeps on throwing me.
Alan
Selfdivider, it would be great to have you over and listen to a few tunes. And down a few. And eat a few.
Be forewarned. I am not married anymore. I have no incentives to clean up. I am, in short, a slob. I promise a clean shitter. That is about it. Life is too short to spend it looking for germs.
However, on the bright side, I have a little jazz, a little rock, and a lot of classical. On both CD's and LP's. And, as befitting my world view, a closet full of filthy booze.
It would be great to have you over. Give me 2 days' notice, to kill the roaches. I'll buy the New York strips, the charcoal, the corn on the cob, the Bordeaux, and the martinis. Bring your ears and an empty gut.
Cheers.
Yes, this is the hard part as it works very differently from PCM.
DSD uses a form of pulse density modulation; the amplitude and length of the pulses is constant, but the density of the pulses modulates with the analog input. The interval between the pulses is proportional to the input voltage in a fairly complicated way.
While there is pulse stream from an oscillator which is constant, how the pulses are arranged is determined by the length of the interval between the pulses. The pulses are bunched together at the peaks of the wave form and are separated by longer intervals at the troughs.
At least for me, understanding PCM does not help understanding how DSD works.
So that explains why DSD 'whites out' the sonics or micro-detail in a 1/F type-ish noise characteristic, when the signal gets busy.
An analogy would be the T-amps. They have similar issues.
Amplifiers with lots of output transistors and weak and/or poorly coupled (or poorly realized) power supplies (and/or circuitry-ie, too much feedback piled on top of the other issues) do a similar thing.
Yes, there is an issue with ultrasonic noise with DSD. There is quite a debate as to whether 24/96 or DSD is better, including a number of AES papers.
What I don't understand is the appeal of DSD/SACD because:
1) all DSD is transcoded to 24/96 for editing and production anyway, and
2) DSD is not capturing any more of the musical signal than 24/96 and is, in fact, capturing a bit less.
So why not stick to 24/96? It is easy to work with, well known, lots of ADCs and DACs which support the format, etc.
The only benefit to DSD/SACD is that there are a number of audio players which support the format in the field.
However, I like SACD and have a very good player. I also want SACDs to continue to be released. I just don't get the fuss over DSD.
Really? Why don't you ask DUP?
Pages