DSD or FLAC

Well, some albums in CD (Genesis 1st pressings for example) for my ears sounded more entertaining and real than DSD remasters. I wanted to like DSD versions, but it was just no contest. CD was more engaging, airy, you name it. Plus it not took 5x more space. Other DSD albums proven to be shockingly awesome though, or just as great alternatives to already great CD/HiRes PCM versions. To change sound without keeping it bit perfect are other ways, like DSP filtering, equalisers and stuff like that. It may be easier and less time/space consuming way rather transcoding.

The Genesis remasters which also came out on SACD?

Absolute shit. You can't blame it on DSD. The CDs sound shit too.

Bowers posted:

I would like to challenge you to transcode some of your own music to dsf, have a good listen in your set-up, and share your experiences.

I am not wedded to the bit perfect Holy Grail either - happy to listen to any music - I don't own a capable DSF encoder - I did have a cheap/free one but it wasn't up to much- and decent ones don't appear free - but happy to comment on any you are able to share.

Simon, thx for your reply.

My raspberry is running Asset as UPnP server for one year+ now and always preferred the sound by transcoding (on the fly) all flac and mp3 files to wav streaming (to ND5 XS).

Cannot hear any difference between the stream of a wav file and the stream of a flac that is transcoded to wav.......

Recently tried a test version of AuI audio converter (see google) software and transcoded several files to dsf. (it's free so you get a 3 second silence in the middle of your transcoded track included)

Since the daily listening to these dsf files I try to convince myself the sound is not as good as I feel it is.  

But think this is really good !

Take the challenge, get the free software, do the test and try to convince yourself the music sounds better (or worse)

Peter 

Harry posted:

The Genesis remasters which also came out on SACD?

Absolute shit. You can't blame it on DSD. The CDs sound shit too.

Well, DSD sounded dead, but CD way better. For sure not "shit" in absolute scale, nor affected by loudness wars (DR value over 12, if I recall now correctly). Sure, DR value is not single factor for quality, but when many "remasters" on HiRes bluray or downloaded PCM/DSD have value like 5-6 makes me wonder how competent those engineers are. So again no, genesis isnt THAT bad on CD, as some rock/metal/whatever else albums, which are completely flat and lifeless. 

The remasters sound awful compared to the original UK CD releases. I don't think it's a good starting point for an objective or subjective analysis of the strengths of DSD. The material is just not of good enough quality to begin with. I can hear audio distortion at 16/44 which was not audible on the previous CDs. In my world that's shit. But it's all relative.

Agreed, you can't turn crap into gold, the music is good but the recordings are awful

If you like classical Music and you really would like to have great material for a FLAC / DSD comparison, I would like to point to the website of Channel Classical  Music: http://www.channelclassics.com

They record in DSD and with great care. There is a free sampler with all the different formats available for comparison: http://www.channelclassics.com/try-it-now

If that is too limiting and you would like to listen to big orchestral music, I can recommend to listen to the Mahler 9 recording of the Budapest Festival Orchestra. Not only a superb performance, but also an amazing sounding recording. It is available in both DSD and FLAC, so if you buy both you have the same recording and you can compare.

Bert Schurink posted:

Interesting contributions, thanks for this, it gives a good insight. I will have a listen myself and hope that one of the tracks which I have in DSD is also available on my NAS in FLAC format - that would give me a good comparison.

While the concensus seems to be that DSD is better.

Hoi Bert,  any news on what is your opinion on DSD ???

Mike-B posted:

Bert Schurink posted:

Interesting contributions, thanks for this, it gives a good insight. I will have a listen myself and hope that one of the tracks which I have in DSD is also available on my NAS in FLAC format - that would give me a good comparison.

While the concensus seems to be that DSD is better.

Hoi Bert,  any news on what is your opinion on DSD ???

Clean natural tone, but also missing a certain rawness I would say. So I think ideal for chamber music, voices, chamber jazz...etc, looks to me less suited for rock music (while I haven't seen DSD for rock yet).

Hi Bert,

I think your opinion is the same as what my ears tell me;

The "certain rawness" in your ears though, is an irritating distortion in mine and not suited for any music.

My experience with PCM v DSD is that you cannot truly say one is better than the other, as it depends on many factors. One issue is whether it is a "true" DSD recording and not simply up-sampled. Hence suppliers such as Native DSD and Channel Classics, in which the recordings are made using DSD technology, do tend to sound very good. However, as these and other similar companies clearly take great care with the venue and the recording process, it is actually not surprising they sound very good! One earlier post commented on the availability of test files from Channel Classics. This is well worth investigating to try and give as true a picture of comparative quality. I have tried a few, for example the Rachel Podger recordings of Vivaldi and Bach. To my ears at least, "24 bit" has advantages over "16 bit", but I was struggling to truly hear much difference between 24/96, 24/192 and DSD. Downside though is higher cost and larger file size. To be honest I also have CD's from Channel Classics and they sound very good indeed. Again, down to the care and attention in choice of venue, set up and recording process.

So you pays your money and takes your chance! What is frustrating though is that to us the buyer, identifying whether we are purchasing "true" hi-res/DSD or simply up-sampled versions is very difficult, if not impossible. I recently noticed that Hi-fi News on their web site compare a number of recordings and run tests to establish "true" bit/sampling rate, which can help. Finally I have read on a few sites that if music has been up-sampled to DSD then it can actually sound worse than the original PCM version...and that came from a supplier of DSD music!! So buyer beware!!       

Think we are only talking about two different issues here. One is the quality that is in the recording and there is nothing we can do to change this except to get us another  one. The other issue is the quality of your own audio system to demonstrate this quality of the recording. Transcoding a PCM file to a DSF file will not (or only minimal) change the quality of the recording. I prefer the sound (in my set-up) of DSF to WAV and WAV to FLAC while these three are the same recordings and it is the (insufficient) quality of my audio system that's introducing the audible difference. After reading several reviews of the Hugo (thanks to forum members)  this might be my next step to maximize the quality of my audio system and minimize the audible differences between formats.

2 weeks later,

Connected my new Hugo into the chain...........

All of a sudden the original PCM formats now do sound better than the transcoded DSD files in this new set-up. (sorry

Simon,  please forget the challenge )

Think that a (sometimes exciting but mostly fatigueing "digital") distortion has vanished and in return I hear a very organic and detailed sound.

Bert, for me, a general DSD vs. PCM format discussion has become a non issue; Just pick the format that fits best in your current system including your ears....

Another vote for Hugo 

Bowers posted:

2 weeks later,

Connected my new Hugo into the chain...........

All of a sudden the original PCM formats now do sound better than the transcoded DSD files in this new set-up. (sorry

Simon,  please forget the challenge )

Think that a (sometimes exciting but mostly fatigueing "digital") distortion has vanished and in return I hear a very organic and detailed sound.

Bert, for me, a general DSD vs. PCM format discussion has become a non issue; Just pick the format that fits best in your current system including your ears....

Another vote for Hugo 

 

We always should choose what our ears tell us. However so far I have never had the possibility to compare DSD with PCM. That would be a nice workshop for the next high end in Munich, to just be able to compare it like for like. The other topic is that DSD is just in limited numbers available and that we are also currently limited to 64....., so I will keep following the debate and keep my ears open for new music coming on the market in the formats. But mostly it will then still not be a choice as most material is only available in pcm....

I haven been using the files from the test bench of the Norwegian label 2L: http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html?

I have dowloaded DSD 64 and Flac 24bit/96Khz files

I have been playing from a USB stick in the ND5 XS over the Nait XS2 (AudioPhysics speakers).

A few observations are immediate and consistent: DSD files sound far more 'laid back' and 'civilized'. Flac is far more 'in your face' and 'raw'. The DSD files sound far more natural, i think due to more acoustical information. I have the feeling the soundstage is wider overall, but the music is 'smaller'. With Flac you are far more zoomed in on the music. 

When Marianne Beate Kielland sings 'Come away, death' on the DSD representation, I think 'that's a nice performance, she can sing!". If I listen to the Flac file I hold my breath and hope Death will leave her for now.

Of course, that is very personal taste thing. I presume from what my ears are telling me a good DSD recording is superior in its reproduction, much more stable, with more acoustical information and natural sounding instruments (more dynamic range?). One thing though: I have the feeling the output volume of DSD is consistently lower than the Flac variant. I haven't got an instrument to measure it. A more equalized output level (from the speakers) would be better.

But the best take away: I have heard some great new music and recordings. Going to check out the catalogue of 2L

"I have never had the possibility to compare DSD with PCM"

Bert,

It's quite easy to do such a test at home. Google AuI converter, get things up and running and transcode some PCM files to dsf format on your PC or MAC.

Start streaming and listening....... 

Hi JM,

IMO your FLAC/DSD experiment is proof that your current system converts the DSD format with less (anoying) distortion than the FLAC format.

Transcoding the 24/96 FLAC files to WAV format will give you probably a more sophisticated sound in your set-up but stil not comparable with DSD. 

I had the same experience in my system (also with ND5 XS) until I got the "H" thing. 

Peter

Peter,

You are probably right, but it loses some transparency in DSD, individual players are less separated. And no, I'm not going to upgrade  

jmtennapel posted:

Peter,

You are probably right, but it loses some transparency in DSD, individual players are less separated. And no, I'm not going to upgrade  

The players should be together - not separated. everything that separates the players more is worse!

ATB from George

George,

When listening to an orchestral piece I can hear the different instrument groups better on PCM than DSD. If that is better or not is again a personal thing, but the PCM represents better what I hear when I'm in a hall or playing in an orchestra myself.

Though no longer a player in professional orchestras, my experience is both from within the orchestra as a bass player, and also in the audience.

I suspect that an awfully large number of people listening to classical music replayed have minimal experience of what a real performing ensemble sounds like from a good seat in a great concert hall!

But that does not stop their opinions being expressed as a sort of replay gospel.

ATB from George

I am using the Sound Liason test disc and find the DSD far preferable

BUT 

the volume of the DSD is far lower so have to increase this on the preamp. Not sure how valid a comparison this is. 

If you get the volumes for each system right, then there is no reason why this should not be a valid comparison.

ATB from George

R.K posted:

the volume of the DSD is far lower so have to increase this on the preamp. Not sure how valid a comparison this is. 

I can't see how its possible to compare DSD to PCM with regard to volume. DSD has no (or very little) compression,  this means there is a greater volume control range between the quietest to loudest than with PCM.  With DSD somewhere on every track there is level close to peak & unlike PCM it can go over 0dB without sounding unpleasant.     That said,  to me one of the pleasures in DSD is those significant volume variables compared to PCM,  the soft quiet passages mixed with big crescendos, the startling dynamics, the power in a drum skin,  all are so much more with DSD