Understanding SACD and DSD

[@ThinkingBetter]

If I keep watching these videos I'll start having dreams about DSD.

[@Yu-Fei-Hung]

I already did and bought a Shenling UA2 ...because the DSD 😒

[@ThinkingBetter]

@@Yu-Fei-Hung I actually know Shanling well. I’ve had dinner with their CEO and visited their Shenzhen R&D facility and done some listening in their quite high-end listening room. Not bad.

[@ematcion]

Peter Frampton SACDs just announced last week, and today MoFi announced SACD of Dire Straits’ “On Every Street”.

[@charlesludwig9173]

SACD is not limping along, it's the Defacto High Resolution Medium and thus audiophiles have supported the medium for now over 20+ years. For me, after listening to 5.1 SACD, going back to stereo from any medium is like going back to a Coke gone flat, no fizz. At any rate, today an audiophile can buy a very inexpensive Sony UBP-X800Mk2 and deliver DSD from stereo and 5.1 SACDs via HDMI connection to a modern DAC, like the DACs found in Marantz Receivers, AVRs, and Pre-Pros for truly great sound. The bottom-line is SACDs are now so easy to accommodate sales of them is increasing.

[@alvarocoutinho3103]

I’m a huge fan and consumer of SACDs.

[@johnmarchington3146]

Acoustic Sounds have quite a big range of SACDs: much of it jazz, and I note that Gus Skinas is frequently involved in their production. Analogue Productions (part of Acoustic Sounds) do a brilliant job in producing them.

[@CopperleafCLC]

Thanks Paul. I’ve learned a lot here in this brief video. 1. About SACD format and how it works. And 2. That it’s designed for middle aged audiophile farts who are trying to get that extra level of quality out of Pink Floyd and Steely Dan. Resulting in 3. Me having zero interest in this format lol. I appreciate you breaking it down and the comments section here has saved me a TON of time not going down this rabbit hole. 🙏

[@SwoOopy]

2:15 3:15 I think Paul might not be totally correct about DSD data stream. When there's signal, he used term 'tighter cluster' & 'looser cluster' during low signal. As if there's no 0 and 1 where no signal presented (zero amplitude) and when there're signals the groups of 0 & 1 are presented tight/densely (like 11111 00 0 0 0 1 111 1). Actually during 'perfectly' no signal, the DSD streams 01010101 (zero-one-zero-one) continually without spaces (no blank bits).

[@charlescoleman5509]

As much as I’m interested in advancements in audio technology, in the end, it all depends on the engineer. Because without a good engineer, the technology doesn’t matter.

[@DalKangh]

Paul. I recently ordered some of your SACD’s as i like to own the media. I notice you offer the option to purchase downloads. Why don’t you offer free download if you purchase the physical media?

[@steveodian6008]

Paul, about a year ago I was talking to Scot and I asked him if PS Audio would produce a CD transport more in line with the Stellar series pricing. I got the impression that was going to happen. Might that transport be part of that? I’d love to take advantage of the I2S connection. Thanks

[@octaverecordsanddsdstudios1285]

Indeed, we will be introducing a low cost transport though while it will play DSD and output DSD from that format it will not be SACD compatible. SACD transport mechanisms of the kind we need are wicked expensive.

[@googoo-gjoob]

im thinking this vid is another re-run. that drive looks too big to fit in a Stellar chassis. so im guessing that drive is in the current DSMP.

[@steveodian6008]

@@octaverecordsanddsdstudios1285 Thanks. Looking forward to seeing it😄

[@daniannaci3258]

Paul, I hope Octave Recordings will be make all their releases available on SACD. Yes?

[@octaverecordsanddsdstudios1285]

Yes, sir. You bet we will and do! Have a look at our catalog here: HTTP://octaverecords.com

[@mickschnabel]

My Sony 4K bluray player (the model number escapes me) luckily will play SACD's, and was VERY affordable compared to what I see dedicated SACD players go for. I'm building a library slowly, since the costs of some of these OOP discs have gotten quite high over the years. My question is, if it's a digital signal like DSD, then why would one player (like mine) cost only around $150 vs some others I've seen that are hundreds?!

[@charlesludwig9173]

That's a great question and if answered truthfully there is no divergence in sound delivered from expensive or inexpensive transports via HDMI to DAC. But even if one is convinced of better sound from an expensive transport/player, none of today's expensive transports/players deliver 5.1 SACD. It's why OPPO-205's are selling used for 2 to 3 times what they sold for back in early 2017 and why the inexpensive Sony UBP-X800M2, which plays stereo and 5.1 SACDs via HDMI, is so appreciated.

[@montynorth3009]

I remember many years ago when the search for an improvement to the standard 16/44.1 CD started. There were 2 systems which started a format war, those being the SACD from Sony/Philips, and DVD audio (DVD-A) which was high-res PCM up to 24/192 backed by most of the rest. The general consensus from what I have read was that the 2 systems were not only indistinguishable from each other, but also from regular CD's which I find astonishing given all the hype at the time.

[@mickschnabel]

I can certainly hear the difference when I listen to a SACD vs regular CD. I also have one DVD-A that for whatever reason will NOT play on my Sony 4k bluray player (that plays SACD's also) BUT it will play on the xbox one. I thought that was interesting.

[@SimonSezSo]

Here's where I keep getting lost. For PCM, the sampling rate encodes the frequency, and the bit depth encodes the amplitude. I get that. For DSD, the density of the pulses encodes the amplitude. I get that. But what encodes the frequency? Seems like a 1 kHz sine at 10 dB would be identical to a 10 kHz sine at 10 dB because they're both 10 dB. The same amplitude, so the same density of pulses. Where am I going wrong?

[@spacemissing]

The sampling rate of PCM is constant, not a representation of the frequencies recorded. That is done in a different way. The actual signal in PCM is highly complex: It has 'frames' (for CD, the rate is 17 per second, if my memory is any good) within which the data is presented; the data is not time-sequential --- instead, it is re-ordered in what is called Cross-Interleave Reed-Solomon Code (CIRC) to make it more robust in case of data loss or errors; and it is stored twice within the whole data package for the same reasons. I've always meant to get a copy of "Principles of Digital Audio" by Ken Pohlmann to learn the rest, but so far I haven't. The book is readily available in various editions; the latest will of course be the most inclusive of newer codecs.

[@SimonSezSo]

@@spacemissing Thanks, David. But even if I have a misunderstanding of PCM, it's my ignorance of PDM that I'm really inquiring about. I get how amplitude is represented, but how is the frequency represented in DSD?

[@harrievanhaaren2942]

Pentatone was a sub-label of phonogram. Phonogram was the record-label of Philips Eindhoven/ The Netherlands

[@dannytse8767]

Pentatone was purchased by the San Francisco Conservatory of Music.

[@randomtube8226]

Optical sacd drive vs ssd for playback of dsd? Is one better then the other? Pros or cons? For example, noise and jitter.

[@1697djh]

DSD will not require any error correction like SACD and CD’s need, so a DSD file will always sound superior. What about PCM conversion to DSD? That changes the sound, is it better? I think so.

[@Ricky-cl5bu]

Great question I was wondering that thanks paul

[@brucetouzel6484]

Listening to how DSD looks on a scope, this looks similar to FM ?

[@SPAZZOID100]

Most people fail blind tests when hearing SACD vs redbook CD.

[@birgerolovsson5203]

I'm sad that SACD for "normal music" has died and we can only buy classical music in that format. Well, I buy as much SACDs I can anyway but I'm a bit "cheap" so I want "Nice Price" on the classical SACDs I buy.

[@dannytse8767]

What's "normal music"?

[@birgerolovsson5203]

@@dannytse8767 Pink Floyd, Kiss, Cara Dillon, ZZ Top, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Mike Oldfield, hope you understand how I mean.

[@dannytse8767]

@@birgerolovsson5203 Michael Jackson's "Thriller" is being reissued on SACD by Mobile Fidelity later this year. David Bowie, Kiss, Mike Oldfield, Pink Floyd, Eagles, Foreigner, Styx, The Doobie Brothers, Dire Straits, America, Chicago, Asia, Yes, Genesis, The Grateful Dead, The Rolling Stones, Queen, Deep Purple, The Beach Boys, Genesis, Roxy Music, Elvis (both of them), Little Richard, Roy Orbison, The Police, The Who, John Lennon, Steve Winwood, Santana, Billy Joel, and many others have seen their outputs appear on SACD.

[@birgerolovsson5203]

@@dannytse8767 Yes but that's re-releases of old music and I mean new music done today. I want new music on SACD and not just old "reruns".

[@dannytse8767]

@@birgerolovsson5203 You're in the minority if you want new music on SACD. You're not going to see new music on SACD because for vast majority of music consumers, streaming fits their lifestyle. The music released on SACD appeals to the demographics that buys these discs.

[@spacemissing]

Years ago I turned down the gift of a CD/SACD player primarily because I doubted I could get it home safely --- I was riding a bicycle, not driving my pickup. Oh, well...

[@bibeglimbu1648]

Is supporting a dsd in a dac requires specific hardware or it's just a matter of firmware and licences

[@markymo32]

What is the highest rate of DSD on SACD?

[@Paulmcgowanpsaudio]

64f or DSD 1

[@Yu-Fei-Hung]

Question: is there a way to have portable SACD players like Walkmans?or should I go better for a DAP or DAC for DSD files?

[@dannytse8767]

No portable SACD player was ever marketed....although a prototype was shown in public at one point.

[@Yu-Fei-Hung]

@@dannytse8767 too bad!

[@yanni5848]

Great Video. So your DACs are converting PCM to DSD? And a new SACD Transport is coming up?

[@kaybhee6]

recall the good old laser disk.. l d,, days,,, no compressions,, etc

[@MyJ2B]

I am not sure that Sony "invented" CD's. Philips Medical Systems (Netherlands) had developed this optical technology for storing large 3D medical image data sets. Not sure of the dates (1980's?). Perhaps Sony perfected CD's for music applications.

[@AllboroLCD]

Would make sense for Octave to publish a book/audio companion allowing a layperson to discern the wonders of DSD with some A/B comparison tracks, just a thought : D Apparently in the world of optical media, weve really got just Pioneer & Panasonic left manufacturing the actual disc drives. Id be flabbergasted if that transport mech paul is holding is made by anyone other than those 2.

[@NoEgg4u]

Paul has yet to verify that DSD sounds better than PCM, other than a single hardware test that he has repeated (meaning with the same hardware -- specifically, a single real-time analog-to-digital converter). Like testing with only one CD player, and making a blanket conclusion on how CDs sound compared to vinyl. That is neither a proper nor a conclusive test. And when you factor in that PCM files have virtually the same sound quality as DSD files (when the PCM files are derived from DSD files), then that points to the problem not being with the PCM format, and that the problem is with Paul's real-time analog-to-PCM converter. DSD might very well sound better than PCM. But that needs to be confirmed by evaluating more than a single real-time analog-to-PCM converter. As to the scope, that is meaningless (to me), since we have no idea what it represents in terms of sound quality. If we are to go by scopes, then no need to listen to audio gear before we buy. Just find out how the gear looked on the scope. @3:24 "You can almost directly play that into a set of speakers into an amplifier without any kind of DAC involved" What does that mean? Why the adverb "almost"? I almost won the lottery. How is that relevant? PCM is 100% digital. DSD is 100% digital. Which one sounds better is at the mercy of how the files were created, and the hardware and the software used for playback. I want to believe that Paul is correct about DSD sounding better than PCM. But in other videos he has sung the praises of how PCM is DSD's equal, when a PCM file is created (converted) from a DSD file. So I cannot shake loose that PCM sounds as good as DSD when the PCM file is properly created. That, combined with the fact that Paul has tested one, and only one, analog-to-PCM converter, makes his conclusions insufficient for my standards of verification. Paul is also heavily invested in DSD. Is that influencing his refusal to test real-time high-end analog-to-PCM converters? Paul is a straight shooter. I agree with nearly 100% of everything he discusses in his videos. I write "nearly", because this time he has fallen short, due to his lack of testing with other real-time high-end analog-to-digital PCM converters. Cheers!

[@daniannaci3258]

What Paul means when he says you can almost play a DSD signal into speakers means that all you need to convert DSD into a usable analog signal for amplification is a simple low pass filter. That’s why he pointing out the very-analog looking DSD waveform on his oscilloscope. Being that the DSD carrier frequencies are well into the megahertz range, that’s an easy task compared to decoding PCM. Of course there’s the typical buffers and things to make gear play well together, but considering the lengths necessary to make a good PCM DAC sound good, and they all sound different, that simplicity is a distinct advantage for good - and consistent - sounding DSD.

[@NoEgg4u]

​@@daniannaci3258 "...all you need to convert DSD into a usable analog signal for amplification is a simple low pass filter" Low pass filters work with analog signals. Digital files are not analog. DSD files are bits (zeros and ones) that make up bytes. There is no voltage; only zeros and ones. There is 0% of anything analog with a DSD file or any other computer file. None. Nada. Zero. It is 100% digital. In order to play a digital music file, something somewhere has to create sound from silence; sound from the complete absence of sound. That is what a DAC does. What goes into the DAC is 100% computer data, and what comes out of the DAC is 100% analog signaling (a wave form) -- electrical voltage. A DAC does for digital what a stylus does for analog. The stylus creates sound from the abyss, by rubbing against the groove of the record. "Being that the DSD carrier frequencies..." DSD has no frequencies. It is a file format. It contains zeros and ones. Perhaps with a 1990 20-mHz 386 SX CPU, that computer might struggle with PCM more than DSD. But not with any of today's computers, that are at least 100 times more powerful than that 1990 386 SX computer. "...but considering the lengths necessary to make a good PCM DAC sound good, and they all sound different, that simplicity is a distinct advantage for good - and consistent - sounding DSD." That does not make PCM a bad sounding format. If you take a DSD file and properly convert it to a PCM file, then they sound the same. Both the hardware and the software exist to play PCM files that sound as good as DSD files. The problem is not on the DAC side. The problem is not on the output side. The problem is on the ADC (analog-to-digital conversion) side, when performing that process in real time. The software and / or hardware that Paul used to capture the live, analog sound and convert it into zeros and ones is the issue. Paul did nearly no testing. Until he or some other reputable reviewer sits down with a ½ dozen or more real-time high-end analog-to-digital converters, that are designed to make quality PCM files, then DSD is not verified as having better sound quality.

[@charlesludwig9173]

@@NoEgg4u just a sidebar, I have retained my circa 1992 Sony PCM-7010F DAT Recorders because their ADCs are so good, yielding recordings indistinguishable from live performance.

[@kevinstaib715]

If they had made DSD easier to use for small productions or home users it probably would have been a bigger thing. I don't understand why it has to be so hard to work with.

[@octaverecordsanddsdstudios1285]

Because as a 1-bit format performing math on it is impossible. PCM, on the other hand, is a multi-bit system that it becomes easy to perform math on and then easy to change the numbers for controlling level and mixing together, something mathematically impossible with only 1 bit to play with.

[@harrievanhaaren2942]

You always speak that Sony invented CD and DSD. As I Know it’s invented by Philips nat lab Eindhoven. Philips and Sony put together the Systems on the market. Also laserlicht was a Philips invention.

[@preservedmoose]

They were too greedy. The price was crazy and people had just replaced their collections with CDs. If they had sold them at a reasonable price it would have taken off.

[@dannytse8767]

The early US Sony and Universal Music SACD titles were under US$20/disc at Best Buy. Where were you?

[@preservedmoose]

@@dannytse8767 Europe. They were at least twice the price of a CD.

[@kaybhee6]

u have to get great musicians to ur studio.... ro,,, move a mobile studio to musicians

[@spacemissing]

Years ago I turned down the gift of a CD/SACD player primarily because I doubted I could get it home safely --- I was riding a bicycle, not driving my pickup. Oh, well...