Can anyone explain what would be the benefits of recording dsd / 768khz, and their differences, in a technical way ?
Right now I'm just recording at a standard PCM 192 khz without thinking twice about it, but my new converter is capable of going to dsd and 768 khz and I would like to know what I would gain / lose from doing that ?
(This is for high fidelity classical recording on location, I want to extract the best out of my gear)

dozens of threads on this topic here on gs...



[i was into double and quad sampling (and even dsd) at the time but i gladly went back to standard rate for all of my work as imo there's zero evidence that high sampling leads to better results.]

To my ears, DSD sounds much. much better than any PCM.
If you are recording classical music on location, it would seem you may not have the need for editing.
I would try it and listen.
Be well


- Jack

What you gain is more noise and HF information that you can't hear. It may lead to extra distortion if your playback system isn't designed for the higher frequencies. Of course, you are already getting that at 192 kHz.

Any theories as to why?

I think there have been tests where a 16/44.1 PCM A/D/A loop was inserted in a DSD playback chain and no differences were found (blind, of course). I'm open to the idea that there might be a difference, but wondering what would cause DSD to be "much better" than PCM.

It is a different way of converting audio - I know only from listening to SACD vs CD. the two formats are radically different to my ears. SACD is much closer to analog than PCM - unfortunately, it brings up the full cast of subjective words that the science people dislike - it is warmer, deeper and more three dimensional - drums sound like they are in a room and not in a strange two dimensional realm.........

The MOFI scandal brought me to DSD and SACD and I am a convert. I have bought more SACDs in the past two years than I have bought vinyl..............
I wish more things were in released in this format. I also bought a used Tascam DSD recorder but it is still at my sister's house in the USA. must be shipped here and sent to Tascam UK to have a new power supply installed.

This forum loves PCM in all of its iterations, so, I am sure many will tell me that the CD sounds just as good as the SACD, or perhaps it sounds even better.............

Be well


Jack

What converter are you using?

Good DSD is great.

But when it goes wrong the black noise cloud will ruin your life.

Basically you cannot edit DSD like PCM. Very annoying.

Assume you are doing some nice acoustic music rather than electronica?

Which converter out of interest are you getting??

Did you consider they might be differently mastered versions?

This is the RME Adi 2/4 pro SE

OK, should read page48 of manual regarding going above 192 pcm, and interesting info about DSD “clicks” because of lack of silence between tracks when recording

Capturing with DSD is a beautiful thing.

The problems come when ya start doing editing/jiggery-pokery, etc...

When you do that, you have to convert it.

...So now that we've "busted that cherry" (in order to get it into a format that we can use) we have now become saddled with the responsibility to treat it as well as we possibly can.

It is a long tortuous journey that unfortunately (usually) ends with a pair of earbuds.

That was my thought too. Some commercial releases have different masters on each layer, which would render any comparison on the formats useless. The only way to be sure would be to convert the DSD to PCM yourself.

nope: one can use the interface's analog outputs (once for the playback from dsd, once from pcm) and record back into another interface via analog inputs...

The jiggery-pokery is what they pay me for...

I don't know how to respond. The differences are far greater than what happens in mastering. Completely different type of digital - completely different sound.



Be well


- Jack

The high end presentation in DSD sounds different than PCM. If you like DSD you say it sounds smoother and more analog like. If you don't like DSD you say it sounds less precise than PCM.

No problem with that.

Its just that one must understand that there is a penalty involved in converting to PCM.

...Not that it ain't worth it. (In fact, you'll have a tough time getting it to your audience unless you do.)

I have a hard time accepting the "completely different sound" of DSD vs. PCM without being able to do proper AB testing. Split the mic signals to two of the same model ADCs: one set to PCM and the other DSD. Do minimal edits in a native-DSD supporting DAW only to trim and level-match. The listening comparison would be easy enough to set up with foobar2000 using the DSD/DFF decoding plugin and the ABX tool. You would also have use a DAC that supports native DSD.

I still haven't heard anything to convince me that DSD sounds any better than 24/96 PCM.

In my world, DSD doesn't even budge the 80/20 rule compared to 24/96. The expense, the gear, the inflexibility of DSD does not come close to making enough difference in the final product to justify itself. That is my opinion of course and that and 5-bucks will buy you a Starbucks.

All I know is I have never had a client that said, "If only you had recorded in DSD, this project would have sounded better."

D.

Might this only just be because everything you've heard in the last few years has already been converted (at best) to 24/96 PCM anyway?

i have never heard a dsd converter that i thought would sound 'better' than a conventional pcm converter - maybe slightly 'different'...

I had some 8 track DSD recordings a year or two ago given to me to mix.

After scratching my head for a while I realised the best and only way to do it was maximum old school on a little analogue desk.

Was quite fun.

Sounded excellent.

I championed DSD, er...proably about 20 years ago, and did find it better than hi res PCM. However when it goes wrong it is a spectacular fail e.eg WYWH Floyd where you can literally "feel" the blackness hanging over some tracks. Always suspected a pressing error on that one as James G knows his stuff very well.

Is that the only way you can mix dsd, through analog gear, because you can't touch it digitally ?

Tony F. quit DSD.
I quit DSD twice.

DSD debuted in 1998 and survives at specialist classical labels who deliver it on SACD.

For casual use, it can be interesting to hear.
For commercial use DSD is a no go because it cannot be edited.

The last Sony editor has closed down.

DG did a test between DSD and PCM and concluded that, at 192kHz, no appreciable difference could be heard--so they abandoned DSD.

Now only for experimental use or for listening to recordings that are not edited.

Good for archiving of tapes and the like.

MOFI also makes SACDs of classic rock, pop, jazz titles. they sound great.
Chad Kassum at Acoustic Sounds and Classic Records also makes SACDs of all genres of music.


I have bought more SACDS than vinyl in these past two years since discovering SACD.
The provenance of vinyl is more often than not shrouded in secrecy. The SACD is a DSD copy of the master tape.
I guess people hear things differently - DSD and PCM sound completely different to me.
My friend Steve Rosenthal was very involved with DSD and SACD twenty five years ago when the format made its debut. (he did all of the early Stones Abkco transfers - their SAm Cooke catalog too ) He pointed out to me that ultimately, Sony's Hubris killed the format. Steve Rosenthal had a great bunch of talks with Steve Jobs around 98/99/2000. Steve Jobs loved DSD and SACD and wanted to put SACD IN EVERY MACINTOSH for free - Sony said no - the biggest mistake they made with the format. Millions of consumers would have bought one - just to hear - if no investment in a player was needed.

I am glad that MOFI and Classic Records still make them.
I have to trust my own ears.
I love them.

I am buying an almost new SECOND A827 this week.
New studio will have 2" 8 track and 2" 16 track locked - for those people who want to spend £700 on tape for 25 minutes of recording............

I have a used Tascam DA 3000 on its way. will be great to do DSD copies of 1/2" masters - much better for me than PCM...............


Be well


- Jack

I agree, many of the Mofi titles sound great. However, I think this is because of the master, not the format. I believe Mofi uses the same master for their CD and SACD layers, though I don't currently have a playback system to test. They use DSD masters for their vinyl pressings too.

The master used is so important, I would often take an MP3 version of a properly mastered title from the likes of Mofi over something high-res from an inferior source.

I'm interested in the theory of why DSD would sound so much better. It's not like PCM is "missing" anything; the sampling theorem is solid. In fact, hi-res PCM is already capturing higher frequencies than can be heard and potentially introducing more distortion.

I bought my first CD player in January of 1987.
I bought a DAT machine in 1992.
I bought a Tascam DA-88 in 1994
I bought a Pro Tools HD rig in 2002.


For my ears and thirty years of experience, PCM is "missing" spatial information. It is very two dimensional sounding compared with DSD/SACD/vinyl and 2" tape.
I have no theory.
Just a/b ing between CDs and SACD's - listening to the drums and space open up.

Be well

- Jack

i still fail to see the point of a format that doesn't have a single functional or audible advantage over pcm...

...which is probably also the reason why dsd has never been used (on a large scale) for what it is supposed to be so well suited for!

You don't hear a difference between an SACD and a CD ?