Is DSD better than 352khz (DXD) PCM?
- Thread starter brubin
- Start date
There isn't any one size fits all answer to this question. Lots of moving parts there.
In terms of the recordings themselves, while some classical pieces recorded in the last 20 years were done in pure DSD, there are relatively few such examples compared to the many others that were either recorded to analog tape and then transferred to digital, or recorded digitally but with PCM and not DSD.
So right there you have a variety of factors to consider with the recording itself, and they will vary, so there isn't always a situation where 352.8kHz DXD is used to create some other version of PCM, or DSD like you said.
What I think you might be referring to there is the typical need for DSD to be converted to PCM for easy editing, and that is typically done at the DXD sample rate, though there are now at least two editing suites that allow the recording engineer to skip the PCM conversion, but they aren't in widespread use to my knowledge.
Others like the way upsampling sounds, and that's a playback issue likely slightly different or unique to one's specific subjective preference, and also the specific DAC is use. Some DACs seem to have a sweet spot or sound better at a particular sample rate, and that may vary for PCM or DSD. Some DACs may really excel at PCM playback, while others may seem to sound better reproducing DSD.
Lastly, what you end up preferring is almost always going to be more a function of the source tape quality (in the case of analog recordings) and also the mastering, much more so than any particular format or sample rate. For instance, I like the Redbook CD mastering of CSN 77 done by Steve Hoffman for Audio Fidelity better than the Atlantic Records 24/96 download. Hoffman did a better job of mastering that album, and/or got his hands on a superior source tape. So even though it's "only Redbook", it sounds better to my ears than the supposedly superior spec'd 24/96 does.
There are all kinds of examples like that, sometimes the SACD version of a particular album will be the best digital version out there, and other times not so much, especially with the older record label released SACDs, but not typically so with boutique reissue SACDs like those from MoFi, Analogue Productions, Impex, or Intervention Records.
But circling back to the thread title, yes, DSD is better if the original capture was pure DSD in the first place, either the recording itself or a transfer of an analog tape. If DSD was the native sample rate, there is no way that a conversion to DXD can be "better" as all DSD-PCM conversions are at least somewhat lossy and not bit perfect, even if perceptually they can be pretty much indistinguishable, you wouldn't just convert it for no reason, and the converted result can't be "better".
My 2 cents but there is no simple or one size fits all answer to the question you've posed, and it isn't clear if you are referring to playback only, or actual conversion of the file for archiving purposes.
In terms of the recordings themselves, while some classical pieces recorded in the last 20 years were done in pure DSD, there are relatively few such examples compared to the many others that were either recorded to analog tape and then transferred to digital, or recorded digitally but with PCM and not DSD.
So right there you have a variety of factors to consider with the recording itself, and they will vary, so there isn't always a situation where 352.8kHz DXD is used to create some other version of PCM, or DSD like you said.
What I think you might be referring to there is the typical need for DSD to be converted to PCM for easy editing, and that is typically done at the DXD sample rate, though there are now at least two editing suites that allow the recording engineer to skip the PCM conversion, but they aren't in widespread use to my knowledge.
A generalization there, what they are saying is the theoretic S/N ratio and dynamic range of 24/96 is similar or equivalent to DSD64, but so what? That doesn't mean you'd convert everything to 24/96, my own preference is to leave everything at it's native sample rate, both in terms of archiving the files, and playback too. I think it sounds best that way, even if very high quality software based sample rate conversion is fairly transparent, I see no need to convert the sample rate at all, but certainly not from a saved file perspective.
Others like the way upsampling sounds, and that's a playback issue likely slightly different or unique to one's specific subjective preference, and also the specific DAC is use. Some DACs seem to have a sweet spot or sound better at a particular sample rate, and that may vary for PCM or DSD. Some DACs may really excel at PCM playback, while others may seem to sound better reproducing DSD.
Lastly, what you end up preferring is almost always going to be more a function of the source tape quality (in the case of analog recordings) and also the mastering, much more so than any particular format or sample rate. For instance, I like the Redbook CD mastering of CSN 77 done by Steve Hoffman for Audio Fidelity better than the Atlantic Records 24/96 download. Hoffman did a better job of mastering that album, and/or got his hands on a superior source tape. So even though it's "only Redbook", it sounds better to my ears than the supposedly superior spec'd 24/96 does.
There are all kinds of examples like that, sometimes the SACD version of a particular album will be the best digital version out there, and other times not so much, especially with the older record label released SACDs, but not typically so with boutique reissue SACDs like those from MoFi, Analogue Productions, Impex, or Intervention Records.
But circling back to the thread title, yes, DSD is better if the original capture was pure DSD in the first place, either the recording itself or a transfer of an analog tape. If DSD was the native sample rate, there is no way that a conversion to DXD can be "better" as all DSD-PCM conversions are at least somewhat lossy and not bit perfect, even if perceptually they can be pretty much indistinguishable, you wouldn't just convert it for no reason, and the converted result can't be "better".
My 2 cents but there is no simple or one size fits all answer to the question you've posed, and it isn't clear if you are referring to playback only, or actual conversion of the file for archiving purposes.
Not "how well" the recording is, but what kind of recording it was in the first place. I mentioned there are some recordings that were done in pure DSD, so a digital recording that was never PCM. There's a big distinction there, but typically those are only classical and certain other more esoteric genres, not a big selection of popular recordings, but the point being they were captured to DSD originally, so a native DSD recording.
In other words upsample it on playback, either to DSD128 or greater, or high sample rate PCM. You be the judge there, there isn't a one size fits all answer for that, it amounts to your specific subjective preference, and which DAC you are using and whether or not that DAC excels at a particular sample rate better than it does with others, or not. The digital filtering will also play a role there, assuming the DAC has selectable digital filters, or software such as HQ Player that offers the same.
Once again that would be apples to oranges unless you knew the 44.1 Redbook content came from the same exact source and was the same mastering as the DSD64, you can't directly compare some random Redbook mastering that you've upsampled to the ripped SACD as DSD64... well you can of course but it's apples to oranges, no conclusions can be made about the formats per se, just a simple comparison of those two particular disc versions you have on hand. I gave you the example of a Redbook mastering of CSN 77 I have that I prefer to the 24/96, that does not mean you can conclude that 24/96 isn't technically "better", just that with that particular source and mastering, the Redbook compares favorably. Additionally, thats without any upsampling of the Redbook on playback, it's still better than the 24/96, but that's a single album example and my own subjective opinion of such.
In terms of upsampling on playback, that too varies depending on whether its hardware or software based (software is generally accepted to be "better"), and with which exact software, i.e. is it JRiver, Audirvana, Roon, or Roon + HQ Player? Then even with any given software, its also a question of CPU load and other factors as to whether or not that level of upsampling can be done comfortably, or is it pushing the limits of what that CPU is capable of, potentially creating thermal based concerns or actually harming the sound quality.
For what it's worth, one of the best sounding cds I've ever heard, was a 16/44 standard Redbook. Of course it was off some fantastic quality 50's tapes, and all mastered by Steve Hoffman. It actually defeated the best analog versions of the same album, played back through a $30k Avid based analog front end.
Safe to say it did not require any upsampling to 352.8kHz DXD to hear it that way?
Nope. It was a not inexpensive Luxman CD player, so there might have been a bit of tweaking, but it was just a pretty, gold, DCC CD.
Similar threads
