Hi Paul, Thanks for the videos. I have been swirling in digital and analog for a long time as well. It seems that DSD or PCM is not really the issue. I think the issue is likely that if something is not recorded, mastered or mixed well it’s gonna sound not so good. I have a long long list of 16bit CD recordings that sound amazing…and hang just as good with my vinyl or DSD,SACD, FLAC, WAV etc. The issue is that the mixing/mastering of modern times doesn’t focus on hifi. It focuses on portability and “good enough” sound. It seems to me DSD may be better than the PCM paradigm but aren’t we splitting hairs? I think if we went into your listening room there and played the same mastering on vinyl, cd, hi res file, needle drop recording…you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. You may have a preference of one or the other. But doubt you would pick DSD necessarily. I have been doing needle drop recordings with a friends sugar cube and I gotta say this may be the sweet spot. Digital recording of the vinyl record is one solution that seems to maintain the digital version of the analog mastering. You don’t have young ears like me so, at our ages sound is different too. Remember whether vinyl, tape, cd, whatever its production process is skewed by the people who touch it and playback, speakers, amplification they used to develop the product for sale to the masses . Mics to boards to compressors, to limiters to tape to digital to cd pressers etc. The sound is no where near pure by the time it reaches the consumer. So, what I think I am trying to say is that DSD is great but the end solution? Probably not. I have been scouring the record stores for years looking at dead wax markings to find the best mastering/pressing etc and I say this does matter. Not all pressings, digital files etc are equal. Ok you know that. I have 8 versions of Led Zeppelin I, analog and digital sources, masterings etc. I prefer my 1977 reissue vinyl because who ever cut the lacquer and the printing plant did some good work. But which one is best? Well I suppose it depends on when, where and how you listen to it. I seem to be going back to vinyl these days. Why? Well, there is something about a mechanical needle tracking a piece of plastic. There is an amplification or coloration that adds depth to the music that closer simulates to what we would hear if we were listening in open air of a live room etc. I suspect the vibration and inertia of the arm, cartridge and stylus sum up to a wave form that is then amplified to pleasant and vibrant. Digital inherently can’t produce that sound (yet) because it’s all done with 1s and 0s. No electro/mechanical pickup and stylus scraping into a groove. I have some absolutely amazing sounding 24bit DVD Audio disks (remember that?). I have ripped most of those because many of the masterings were superb. I find the modern compression is a lot of the problem. Compressed to the hilt so you can get more volume out of these portable devices. Mastering mastering mastering is the name of the game IMHO. So, I don’t think splitting hairs on DSD nor PCM is the solution. Get more Bob Ludwig’s and Bernie Grundmans. Vinyl is a great medium but not super efficient. Lots of oil, paper and machinery used to create something to be shipped by boat, car or airplane. The carbon footprint of a vinyl record must be atrocious. Ok, I would love to come talk to you some day. Unfortunately I live far away from you. I appreciate your videos. But for me…the best sounding version of music is not whether digital or analog. It is which one sounds best to the observer on their equipment and ears. The variability in someone’s hearing is a huge factor. Mastering and the recording process is the largest part of this. Next the production process that delivers the music to you. Btw, recording directly to DSD is fine and good. But what about the 125 years of music created before? We need a system that unbake the cake of these classic recordings and figure out how to reproduce them in the best way. These 1step, UHQR releases coming back into the biz is a good thing IMHO. Cheers. Keep the videos coming. Love to visit PS Audio some day.
@5:32 "Let's say I was playing my turntable. To then convert it to DSD? To get better sound? The answer is 'no'" But you would have a copy that would never wear out, and you would have the convenience of playing your music without having to get up to change records. But as Paul said, you would not have better sound. In fact, it would degrade a bit, because nothing will sound better than the source it was derived from. Chuck, in Omaha, Nebraska: In a different video, Paul replied to one of my comments and wrote that he uses "Ed Meitner custom converters" (in his studio). Note that DSD does not make any recording better. It simply does the least harm in capturing analog sound. So DSD is ideal for the initial capture of sound.
Paul keeps banging on about the very high sample rates used for DSD compared to PCM. The implication is that the higher the sample rate the better the audio quality. This is a total misunderstanding of how digital recording works and the two formats cannot be compared in this way. Unlike PCM, DSD produces stair steps in the output waveform and very high sample rates are required to make this distortion inaudible. Well recorded PCM and DSD music will be audibly indistinguishable.
@@angelwars3176 Of course DSD samples at regular intervals. Both DSD and PCM are "quantized," meaning numeric values are set to approximate the analog signal. Both DSD and PCM have quantization errors. Both DSD and PCM have linearity errors. Both DSD and PCM have quantization noise that requires filtering. In other words, neither one is perfect.
Kinda disconcerting that some people think analog is a music format liken to mp3, PCM, ect. Analog by it's self is just the a term for the world of real life physics. To talk about the shortcomings needs context like, analog "tape". Even then, what kind of tape is relevant. If say you were talking about analog as in a live performance, you will NEVER get "better" sound than that analog. Where analog can sometimes loose noticeable quality is in the storage medium. I'd be very curious to hear a direct comparison between direct to vinyl (cut withOUT a digital delay) and DSD. With such a high sample rate, it sounds like DSD would be pretty good but not knowing the details of the technology, I can't say for sure till I hear it.
Paul’s voice is very soothing to listen to and doesn’t appear to be typical in the way Americans generally speak. In the UK we consider Americans as ‘loud’ and its a result of not mixing breath with the raw vocal cord sound. It has to be a cultural thing as we’re all built the same! A good contrast which illustrates this is to listen to Joanna Lumley and then to Kate Bolduan. The breath fader is all the way down on the latter. 😄
Do DSD's PDM signals need a special IC chip to convert from PDM to analog? I feel current PC systems follow the route like PDM-PCM-anglog. an extra PDM to PCM convertion alway takes place...thus complicating the audio quality..
So, Chuck from Omaha wants to play a record, run that record into an ADC which spits out DSD, which runs into a DAC to turn it back into analogue again, which then feeds the amp/speakers???? Just play the darned record straight into the amp, Chuck... you goose! 🤣 The only time you'd want to 'record' your records to DSD is to create lossless copies of them for archive and playback. Then you'd never need to play the physical records again. 👍😎
His digital recording will not wear, dust, use needle hours. It is a good solution, and I know a guy who works this way (he's a professional who does remastering from lp when tape masters are lost). He'll play the lp into his ADC, remove scratches etc, and use that copy.
My gold standard in digital is a DSD128 from a 1/2" 15 ips R2R tape of DSOM. Hear detail I'd never heard from my MFSL lp. Personally I think they are throttling back the quality to sell formats that inch it for commercial reasons after reselling the music time and again. Not in the best format they can. Master into dsd128. Leave the mix ad it was. My 2 cents worth.
A transfer from an original tape master into DSD is the most accurate capture of that original recording you can own and play in a format that is robust and will not deteriorate. That is why Sony originally used DSD to archive their gradually deteriorating tape master library for future use.
@@angelwars3176 as far as DSOM ....much has been said about the quality of the master dating back to the 70s....so I do not know how the current re mastering is dealing with those issues
DSD = Direct Stream DIGITAL. Why have we got to this situation that people think it's analog? It's DIGITAL and it also has quantization errors thus any translation from analog to DSD (Digital) and back to analog is lossy. Still, as Paul explains, DSD is awesome for capturing analog audio and preserving it to the DAC is the best way to get digital music to your system.
@@angelwars3176 DXD = marketing term coined by Philips/Merging Technologies to hide the fact that all digitally mastered DSD music is a lossy transcoding from PCM named as DXD.
@@ThinkingBetter There is a CZcams video somewhere of the guy who arrived at the monika 'Digital eXtreme Definition', amusingly explaining it was a last minute thing he came up with (from memory possibly alcohol influenced but don't quote me!) for Phillips to use. An increasing amount of specialist/classical music is actually being recorded directly into, mixed, mastered with the final edit master in DXD. The only logical reason I have been given for recording into DSD THEN converting this material to DXD is that as it is not now a direct 'on the fly' capture the conversion is more easily handled by the processors giving a better DXD end result, plus they have the original capture streams as DSD for possible future release without conversion - don't shoot the messenger please!
@@angelwars3176 People get confused about this topic. The issue is that you can't digitally mix (cross-fade, EQ etc.) using DSD as format so any digital mastering must be done in PCM. Perhaps some day someone can invent a new 1-bit based math to do those things in, but today PCM samples are what is used to calculate the sound curves in a digital mixing process. To make the least lossy digital mastering, you want to use a high sample rate and resolution PCM format such as DXD (352.8kHz 32 bit PCM). This will help give you the most precise math. The end-result of DSD digital mastering is therefore ALWAYS PCM and any output to the customer will therefore ALWAYS become a lossy transcoded DSD version, if DSD is to be chosen. Even better is to distribute the actual native PCM (e.g. DXD) as it would not have any lossy transcoding added. Capturing the recorded individual (non-mastered) tracks in DSD to begin with is of course still great, but unless you want to master on an analog mixer, PCM is the highest quality output.
@@jorgerodriguez6042 The host "Amir" from audio science is a fraud. In his review, he talks a mile-a-minute. Like a fast-talking politician, he uses misleading language, peppered with technical lingo, and it makes him sound smart. And perhaps he is smart. There is no shortage of smart, yet devious people in our midst. He starts off his review with taking cheap shots at the product. So you immediately know that he will be bashing the product. A reputable reviewer saves their cheap shots for summing up the product. And the proof of his deception is: He never listened to the product that he is reviewing. That is insane. It is a product designed for listening to music, and he never did a listening test. And he gave excuses for not doing listening tests, and his excuses were 100% BS. He made true statements that were 100% unrelated to the subject matter, and pointed to that as though there is a correlation to the power plant. Con artists commonly scam people by way of making true statements, and their "mark" concludes that the subsequent statement is, therefore, true. That is the scam, that statements #1 and #2 are true, and then the lie follows as if it were also true. He spent hours doing test measurements (assuming he really did them), and he spent hours recording and editing his video for youtube. Then, he states he does not see why he should waste time doing a listening test, because he already knows the results from his measurements. He had all the time in the world to create a Broadway show of measurements, scripting for his video, filming his video, recording screen shots for his video, and on and on and on. Yet, he does not have 10 minutes to confirm that he did not make any mistakes with his measurements or miss any measurements, etc, by simply doing a listening test. His "act" is to prey upon the minds of people that make fun of quality audio gear. He knows that people are looking for reasons to bash quality audio gear. They do it all the time. There is no shortage of people that bash quality audio gear that they never listened to, and Amir knows that. So Amir created a youtube channel where he is able to take advantage of all of those people, as well as sincere people that are looking to learn. Even if Amir was correct, that there is no point in listening... If he did do a listening test, then he could honestly include that in his video, and put to rest people accusing him of doing a review without listening. Amir takes more time making excuses for not doing a listening test than the time it would take to do a listening test. Amir lies by misdirection, and he lies by omission. Amir is a fraud. I suggest that you do not use him as a reference for rating any products. It looks bad when you use a con artist as a reference.
@@jorgerodriguez6042 There are hundreds of comments and questions posted in Paul's videos. He usually answers a few. If you want to know his reasoning for which ones he answers and which ones he does not answer, then you would have to ask Paul that question (and hope that he answers). But I will take a guess at why Paul does not answer Amir's BS review: Amir's subscribers are probably not Paul's customers, and are not into high-end audio. I suspect that Amir's subscribers are in their own "bash high-end audio" bubble. Paul could probably run circles around Amir. But to what end? I do not think that it will help Paul's business. It would be a waste of Paul's time. There is likely no one that is considering Paul's power plant that will decide not to make the purchase, because of Amir's video. Many high-end dealers will loan you their equipment, to try before you buy. Maybe Paul does that? If you are a regular customer, then they might just hand you the box and trust you to return it. If they do not know you, then they will probably put an authorization through on your credit card. If you return the loaned box, then you never get charged. If you disappear with the box, then that authorization will turn into a normal charge. If PS Audio does loan out equipment for try-before-you-buy, then you do not have to rely on Amir or anyone else for the answer whether the box works. And if you borrow the power plant, and you discover that your stereo sounds better, then you will know which reviewers to trust. But only borrow boxes that you are intending to buy (assuming you like the sound quality). The store is lending out their gear to potential buyers (not to people with no intention of making a purchase). And stores that lend their gear do so because they know that the gear is great gear. They know it will likely result in a sale. They will not be lending out poor sounding gear or gear that makes no difference. That would be wasting everyone's time.
I think it depends on how the music is mastered and what source is used. Take Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, for example. They master from the original analog master tapes. The claim that “any sonic artifacts present are a product of the master tape” is probably incorrect because I read elsewhere that analog master tapes don’t sound like they include any sonic artifacts - but like well-mastered Compact Discs. However, trying out a Dual-Layer SACD copy of Carly Simon’s Hotcakes album that was remastered by Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, I noticed a lot of distortion on the SACD layer compared to a clean-sounding CD layer.
Hi Paul, I haven't stuck my oar in for a while and I know you will disagree with me but i find it really hard to believe after all these years and continuous debate folks still equate DSD as some super fast rate PCM or just a variant digital format over PCM. DSD/PDM is not digital. DSD/PDM captures the incoming analogue signal as densities of 1's and 0's bits that 'mirror' the changing amplitude of the signal. It does not use any value based 'codes' one of the reasons it cannot be mixed/altered and why folks prefer PCM (which is value based codes so truly digital) and can be easily manipulated. The best way to describe DSD/PDM is as an analogue capture of the original signal. The fact that it is 1's and 0's bits gives it the hugh advantage of being storable in computers and able to be moved through a 'digital network'.
I won't disagree with you at all. You are correct though what we can debate is what to call it. It's clearly not analog-a continuous unbroken stream-and as you point out it's not digital. Maybe our challenge would be to figure out a new term to define it.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio Hi Paul, I agree the problem is the words digital and analogue causing such a blinkered reaction in people but I don't think we need to invent a new terminology here. English and US dictionaries can create confusion but the broadly accepted definition of digital is relating to fixed values/binary codes computer based 'stuff' these days.The confusion with DSD/PDM is the fact that it was marketed from the start as "64 times the sample rate of a CD!!" etc which is nonsense as it a completely different capture system to CD/PCM. It took me over three hours in conversation with a very well respected audio engineer for my digital brainwashed mindset to understand why DSD is not PCM and is not digital. The fact that DSD/PDM DOES use 1's and 0's bits to most folk immediately makes it digital and understandably so but they don't understand HOW those 1's and 0's bits are being used, that is the key here. I don't agree that because something is not continuous it is not analogue. Perfect example is old 35mm film. It captures separate frames/images that looked at by hand are purely that, single 'photographs' i.e there is a gap between the frames however small. When played back on a projector we have perfect moving images - is this digital or analogue? i would say 100% analogue but it is not a continuous image is it. If we video stuff on our phones is that digital or analogue - I would say 100% digital because each frame in this case is being captured as binary codes but it's not continuous either.
@@angelwars3176 I am with you but still struggle with the words. (I am not disagreeing with you as I have the very same vision as do you with respect to PDM). Let's try a different angle. What is analog?
@@octaverecordsanddsdstudios1285 Hi Paul, analog or analogue as I prefer to spell it has a wide variety of meanings if you consult the dictionary but for our purpose this would seem the best definition for our purposes (on-line Collins dictionary) Analogue technology involves measuring, storing, or recording an infinitely variable amount of information by using physical quantities such as voltage. Interestingly the example given is :'The analogue signals from the video tape are converted into digital code.' From this definition you could actually argue PCM is analogue, so I don't think trying to come up with new terminology is needed but just a better understanding of the actual process going on. In the context of music capture PCM can certainly be defined as digital as it uses digital code/words, PDM does not so I argue it's not digital. However they are both 'analogous' to the original music. At the end of the day if folks are interested in this stuff they need to just think out more clearly as to what is actually going on. Saying DSD/PDM isn't digital is not trying to rubbish PCM for being digital but emphasising that these are two differing processes going on. DSD/PDM is closest to the original incoming signal than the further process of conversion into PCM digital words (with all PCM's many advantages for manipulation) it's a complicated process that in a way does something very simple and maybe that's why it has a sonic advantage in basic quality over PCM? At the end of the day I don't accept DSD/PDM is digital, though I understand exactly why referring to it as analogue is causing issues but if it gets people thinking and understanding the process then I'm happy with that.
I have no way of playing DSD. I remember back in the early 80s when CD was 14 bit. It was absolutely horrible. Even when they went to 16 bit it sounded horrible. Not nearly as bad as 14 bit. In 1998, I was in a band and we wanted to record an album. I bought an ADAT. It was 20 bit to tape. I thought that sounded almost as good as analog. Now I record with 24 bit digital. I find that it still doesn't sound like analog but, I don't think it ever will. Recording engineers add distortion and saturation to all the tracks in most music to make it sound more analog. Unless you only listen to acoustic music, you don't need DSD. PCM is fine. I have been an audiophile since 1985. I have designed and build speaker systems since then. My high school wood project was to build a speaker system. I have been a drummer in almost every type of band since 1985. I could never play jazz, but pretty much everything else. I love analog, I still own my B & O turntable. I still own my CR1 and MR1 Nakamichi tape decks. I still have the cassette tapes and LP records that I had in the 80's. I have collected more very recently. New pressings. They sound cleaner but not better. I miss the DR. My point is, enjoy the music. If your system can't do a certain thing, so what. Final note: I have a system at this point, that I have heard nothing that can touch it. I have worked my life to achieve this system. I have listened to many, many, many systems. Not one has touched this one. Certainly over the years, I heard systems that would blow away my stuff. Not this time. Btw, sampling in PCM is to take care of aliasing when you are processing. This is the only reason why we use high sampling rates. We usually always convert down to 44.1
Excellent explanation thanks Paul. At last, I have a (basic) understanding of the 0 & 1 PSD (DSD) theory! thanks so much for sharing.
Hi Paul, Thanks for the videos. I have been swirling in digital and analog for a long time as well. It seems that DSD or PCM is not really the issue. I think the issue is likely that if something is not recorded, mastered or mixed well it’s gonna sound not so good. I have a long long list of 16bit CD recordings that sound amazing…and hang just as good with my vinyl or DSD,SACD, FLAC, WAV etc. The issue is that the mixing/mastering of modern times doesn’t focus on hifi. It focuses on portability and “good enough” sound. It seems to me DSD may be better than the PCM paradigm but aren’t we splitting hairs? I think if we went into your listening room there and played the same mastering on vinyl, cd, hi res file, needle drop recording…you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. You may have a preference of one or the other. But doubt you would pick DSD necessarily. I have been doing needle drop recordings with a friends sugar cube and I gotta say this may be the sweet spot. Digital recording of the vinyl record is one solution that seems to maintain the digital version of the analog mastering.
You don’t have young ears like me so, at our ages sound is different too. Remember whether vinyl, tape, cd, whatever its production process is skewed by the people who touch it and playback, speakers, amplification they used to develop the product for sale to the masses . Mics to boards to compressors, to limiters to tape to digital to cd pressers etc. The sound is no where near pure by the time it reaches the consumer. So, what I think I am trying to say is that DSD is great but the end solution? Probably not. I have been scouring the record stores for years looking at dead wax markings to find the best mastering/pressing etc and I say this does matter. Not all pressings, digital files etc are equal. Ok you know that. I have 8 versions of Led Zeppelin I, analog and digital sources, masterings etc. I prefer my 1977 reissue vinyl because who ever cut the lacquer and the printing plant did some good work. But which one is best? Well I suppose it depends on when, where and how you listen to it. I seem to be going back to vinyl these days. Why? Well, there is something about a mechanical needle tracking a piece of plastic. There is an amplification or coloration that adds depth to the music that closer simulates to what we would hear if we were listening in open air of a live room etc. I suspect the vibration and inertia of the arm, cartridge and stylus sum up to a wave form that is then amplified to pleasant and vibrant. Digital inherently can’t produce that sound (yet) because it’s all done with 1s and 0s. No electro/mechanical pickup and stylus scraping into a groove. I have some absolutely amazing sounding 24bit DVD Audio disks (remember that?). I have ripped most of those because many of the masterings were superb. I find the modern compression is a lot of the problem. Compressed to the hilt so you can get more volume out of these portable devices. Mastering mastering mastering is the name of the game IMHO. So, I don’t think splitting hairs on DSD nor PCM is the solution. Get more Bob Ludwig’s and Bernie Grundmans. Vinyl is a great medium but not super efficient. Lots of oil, paper and machinery used to create something to be shipped by boat, car or airplane. The carbon footprint of a vinyl record must be atrocious. Ok, I would love to come talk to you some day. Unfortunately I live far away from you. I appreciate your videos. But for me…the best sounding version of music is not whether digital or analog. It is which one sounds best to the observer on their equipment and ears. The variability in someone’s hearing is a huge factor. Mastering and the recording process is the largest part of this. Next the production process that delivers the music to you. Btw, recording directly to DSD is fine and good. But what about the 125 years of music created before? We need a system that unbake the cake of these classic recordings and figure out how to reproduce them in the best way. These 1step, UHQR releases coming back into the biz is a good thing IMHO. Cheers. Keep the videos coming. Love to visit PS Audio some day.
Good question, but a Great Answer. Thank You Paul.🤓😎😇
@5:32 "Let's say I was playing my turntable. To then convert it to DSD? To get better sound? The answer is 'no'"
But you would have a copy that would never wear out, and you would have the convenience of playing your music without having to get up to change records.
But as Paul said, you would not have better sound. In fact, it would degrade a bit, because nothing will sound better than the source it was derived from.
Chuck, in Omaha, Nebraska:
In a different video, Paul replied to one of my comments and wrote that he uses "Ed Meitner custom converters" (in his studio).
Note that DSD does not make any recording better. It simply does the least harm in capturing analog sound. So DSD is ideal for the initial capture of sound.
Please check Oactave Records release of Otis Taylor's Hey Joe/Red Meat songs 11-20 are DSD conversion of 45 RPM vinyl.
Yes you would have a copy that would not wear out.
Paul keeps banging on about the very high sample rates used for DSD compared to PCM. The implication is that the higher the sample rate the better the audio quality. This is a total misunderstanding of how digital recording works and the two formats cannot be compared in this way. Unlike PCM, DSD produces stair steps in the output waveform and very high sample rates are required to make this distortion inaudible. Well recorded PCM and DSD music will be audibly indistinguishable.
DSD/PDM doesn't 'sample' anything, it is the modulation of a bit rate carrier stream. What 'stair steps' - don't get you at all on that one?
@@angelwars3176 Of course DSD samples at regular intervals.
Both DSD and PCM are "quantized," meaning numeric values are set to approximate the analog signal. Both DSD and PCM have quantization errors. Both DSD and PCM have linearity errors. Both DSD and PCM have quantization noise that requires filtering. In other words, neither one is perfect.
DSD has very high noise which is a huge problem.
@@geoff37s38 PDM does NOT sample - i've just explained that!
@@geoff37s38 it's not a big problem you just filter it out!
Kinda disconcerting that some people think analog is a music format liken to mp3, PCM, ect. Analog by it's self is just the a term for the world of real life physics. To talk about the shortcomings needs context like, analog "tape". Even then, what kind of tape is relevant. If say you were talking about analog as in a live performance, you will NEVER get "better" sound than that analog. Where analog can sometimes loose noticeable quality is in the storage medium. I'd be very curious to hear a direct comparison between direct to vinyl (cut withOUT a digital delay) and DSD. With such a high sample rate, it sounds like DSD would be pretty good but not knowing the details of the technology, I can't say for sure till I hear it.
What’s Paul know anyhow. 😂🤣 just kidding thanks for the great videos and info.
Good morning amigos..coffee and cigarettes ending scece...have a great Day Paul!
Great explanation
I think Paul and Biden go to the same "whisper" coach.
Paul’s voice is very soothing to listen to and doesn’t appear to be typical in the way Americans generally speak. In the UK we consider Americans as ‘loud’ and its a result of not mixing breath with the raw vocal cord sound. It has to be a cultural thing as we’re all built the same! A good contrast which illustrates this is to listen to Joanna Lumley and then to Kate Bolduan. The breath fader is all the way down on the latter. 😄
Do DSD's PDM signals need a special IC chip to convert from PDM to analog? I feel current PC systems follow the route like PDM-PCM-anglog. an extra PDM to PCM convertion alway takes place...thus complicating the audio quality..
So, Chuck from Omaha wants to play a record, run that record into an ADC which spits out DSD, which runs into a DAC to turn it back into analogue again, which then feeds the amp/speakers????
Just play the darned record straight into the amp, Chuck... you goose! 🤣
The only time you'd want to 'record' your records to DSD is to create lossless copies of them for archive and playback. Then you'd never need to play the physical records again. 👍😎
His digital recording will not wear, dust, use needle hours. It is a good solution, and I know a guy who works this way (he's a professional who does remastering from lp when tape masters are lost). He'll play the lp into his ADC, remove scratches etc, and use that copy.
@@amitraam1270 He just said that...
PS Audio PowerPlant P12 AC Regenerator shame one you
PDM = Paul Daniel McGowan
My gold standard in digital is a DSD128 from a 1/2" 15 ips R2R tape of DSOM. Hear detail I'd never heard from my MFSL lp. Personally I think they are throttling back the quality to sell formats that inch it for commercial reasons after reselling the music time and again. Not in the best format they can. Master into dsd128. Leave the mix ad it was. My 2 cents worth.
Where do we get said version of DSOM ??
@@jonsingle1614 torrent site in Russia is where I came across it.
@@steveaustin7306 is the source of the master known ?
A transfer from an original tape master into DSD is the most accurate capture of that original recording you can own and play in a format that is robust and will not deteriorate. That is why Sony originally used DSD to archive their gradually deteriorating tape master library for future use.
@@angelwars3176 as far as DSOM ....much has been said about the quality of the master dating back to the 70s....so I do not know how the current re mastering is dealing with those issues
lets discuss a live stream with Amir
What about when you’re recording these videos are you doing any of this DSD stuff?
DSD = Direct Stream DIGITAL. Why have we got to this situation that people think it's analog? It's DIGITAL and it also has quantization errors thus any translation from analog to DSD (Digital) and back to analog is lossy. Still, as Paul explains, DSD is awesome for capturing analog audio and preserving it to the DAC is the best way to get digital music to your system.
Hello again. DSD = marketing term coined by Sony/Phillips for 1bit PDM.
@@angelwars3176 DXD = marketing term coined by Philips/Merging Technologies to hide the fact that all digitally mastered DSD music is a lossy transcoding from PCM named as DXD.
@@ThinkingBetter There is a CZcams video somewhere of the guy who arrived at the monika 'Digital eXtreme Definition', amusingly explaining it was a last minute thing he came up with (from memory possibly alcohol influenced but don't quote me!) for Phillips to use.
An increasing amount of specialist/classical music is actually being recorded directly into, mixed, mastered with the final edit master in DXD. The only logical reason I have been given for recording into DSD THEN converting this material to DXD is that as it is not now a direct 'on the fly' capture the conversion is more easily handled by the processors giving a better DXD end result, plus they have the original capture streams as DSD for possible future release without conversion - don't shoot the messenger please!
@@angelwars3176 People get confused about this topic. The issue is that you can't digitally mix (cross-fade, EQ etc.) using DSD as format so any digital mastering must be done in PCM. Perhaps some day someone can invent a new 1-bit based math to do those things in, but today PCM samples are what is used to calculate the sound curves in a digital mixing process. To make the least lossy digital mastering, you want to use a high sample rate and resolution PCM format such as DXD (352.8kHz 32 bit PCM). This will help give you the most precise math. The end-result of DSD digital mastering is therefore ALWAYS PCM and any output to the customer will therefore ALWAYS become a lossy transcoded DSD version, if DSD is to be chosen. Even better is to distribute the actual native PCM (e.g. DXD) as it would not have any lossy transcoding added. Capturing the recorded individual (non-mastered) tracks in DSD to begin with is of course still great, but unless you want to master on an analog mixer, PCM is the highest quality output.
pall what going on whit you power plant can you talk abut the latest review is really bad
Who did the review?
@@NoEgg4u it cam from audio science
@@jorgerodriguez6042 The host "Amir" from audio science is a fraud.
In his review, he talks a mile-a-minute.
Like a fast-talking politician, he uses misleading language, peppered with technical lingo, and it makes him sound smart. And perhaps he is smart. There is no shortage of smart, yet devious people in our midst.
He starts off his review with taking cheap shots at the product. So you immediately know that he will be bashing the product.
A reputable reviewer saves their cheap shots for summing up the product.
And the proof of his deception is:
He never listened to the product that he is reviewing.
That is insane.
It is a product designed for listening to music, and he never did a listening test.
And he gave excuses for not doing listening tests, and his excuses were 100% BS.
He made true statements that were 100% unrelated to the subject matter, and pointed to that as though there is a correlation to the power plant.
Con artists commonly scam people by way of making true statements, and their "mark" concludes that the subsequent statement is, therefore, true. That is the scam, that statements #1 and #2 are true, and then the lie follows as if it were also true.
He spent hours doing test measurements (assuming he really did them), and he spent hours recording and editing his video for youtube.
Then, he states he does not see why he should waste time doing a listening test, because he already knows the results from his measurements.
He had all the time in the world to create a Broadway show of measurements, scripting for his video, filming his video, recording screen shots for his video, and on and on and on. Yet, he does not have 10 minutes to confirm that he did not make any mistakes with his measurements or miss any measurements, etc, by simply doing a listening test.
His "act" is to prey upon the minds of people that make fun of quality audio gear. He knows that people are looking for reasons to bash quality audio gear. They do it all the time. There is no shortage of people that bash quality audio gear that they never listened to, and Amir knows that.
So Amir created a youtube channel where he is able to take advantage of all of those people, as well as sincere people that are looking to learn.
Even if Amir was correct, that there is no point in listening... If he did do a listening test, then he could honestly include that in his video, and put to rest people accusing him of doing a review without listening.
Amir takes more time making excuses for not doing a listening test than the time it would take to do a listening test.
Amir lies by misdirection, and he lies by omission.
Amir is a fraud.
I suggest that you do not use him as a reference for rating any products.
It looks bad when you use a con artist as a reference.
@@NoEgg4u if he is a fraud why Ps audio doesnt reply to dose comment from audio science
@@jorgerodriguez6042 There are hundreds of comments and questions posted in Paul's videos. He usually answers a few.
If you want to know his reasoning for which ones he answers and which ones he does not answer, then you would have to ask Paul that question (and hope that he answers).
But I will take a guess at why Paul does not answer Amir's BS review:
Amir's subscribers are probably not Paul's customers, and are not into high-end audio. I suspect that Amir's subscribers are in their own "bash high-end audio" bubble.
Paul could probably run circles around Amir. But to what end? I do not think that it will help Paul's business. It would be a waste of Paul's time.
There is likely no one that is considering Paul's power plant that will decide not to make the purchase, because of Amir's video.
Many high-end dealers will loan you their equipment, to try before you buy.
Maybe Paul does that?
If you are a regular customer, then they might just hand you the box and trust you to return it.
If they do not know you, then they will probably put an authorization through on your credit card. If you return the loaned box, then you never get charged. If you disappear with the box, then that authorization will turn into a normal charge.
If PS Audio does loan out equipment for try-before-you-buy, then you do not have to rely on Amir or anyone else for the answer whether the box works.
And if you borrow the power plant, and you discover that your stereo sounds better, then you will know which reviewers to trust.
But only borrow boxes that you are intending to buy (assuming you like the sound quality). The store is lending out their gear to potential buyers (not to people with no intention of making a purchase). And stores that lend their gear do so because they know that the gear is great gear. They know it will likely result in a sale. They will not be lending out poor sounding gear or gear that makes no difference. That would be wasting everyone's time.
Seria ótimo se tivesse legenda em português.
Obrigado
I think it depends on how the music is mastered and what source is used. Take Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, for example. They master from the original analog master tapes. The claim that “any sonic artifacts present are a product of the master tape” is probably incorrect because I read elsewhere that analog master tapes don’t sound like they include any sonic artifacts - but like well-mastered Compact Discs. However, trying out a Dual-Layer SACD copy of Carly Simon’s Hotcakes album that was remastered by Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, I noticed a lot of distortion on the SACD layer compared to a clean-sounding CD layer.
Paul I have a few DDD CD’s am I listing to pure digital music
nope you are listening to an DAC , a lossy process
In a word yes.
Hi Paul,
I haven't stuck my oar in for a while and I know you will disagree with me but i find it really hard to believe after all these years and continuous debate folks still equate DSD as some super fast rate PCM or just a variant digital format over PCM.
DSD/PDM is not digital.
DSD/PDM captures the incoming analogue signal as densities of 1's and 0's bits that 'mirror' the changing amplitude of the signal. It does not use any value based 'codes' one of the reasons it cannot be mixed/altered and why folks prefer PCM (which is value based codes so truly digital) and can be easily manipulated.
The best way to describe DSD/PDM is as an analogue capture of the original signal. The fact that it is 1's and 0's bits gives it the hugh advantage of being storable in computers and able to be moved through a 'digital network'.
I won't disagree with you at all. You are correct though what we can debate is what to call it. It's clearly not analog-a continuous unbroken stream-and as you point out it's not digital. Maybe our challenge would be to figure out a new term to define it.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio Hi Paul, I agree the problem is the words digital and analogue causing such a blinkered reaction in people but I don't think we need to invent a new terminology here. English and US dictionaries can create confusion but the broadly accepted definition of digital is relating to fixed values/binary codes computer based 'stuff' these days.The confusion with DSD/PDM is the fact that it was marketed from the start as "64 times the sample rate of a CD!!" etc which is nonsense as it a completely different capture system to CD/PCM. It took me over three hours in conversation with a very well respected audio engineer for my digital brainwashed mindset to understand why DSD is not PCM and is not digital. The fact that DSD/PDM DOES use 1's and 0's bits to most folk immediately makes it digital and understandably so but they don't understand HOW those 1's and 0's bits are being used, that is the key here.
I don't agree that because something is not continuous it is not analogue. Perfect example is old 35mm film. It captures separate frames/images that looked at by hand are purely that, single 'photographs' i.e there is a gap between the frames however small. When played back on a projector we have perfect moving images - is this digital or analogue? i would say 100% analogue but it is not a continuous image is it. If we video stuff on our phones is that digital or analogue - I would say 100% digital because each frame in this case is being captured as binary codes but it's not continuous either.
@@angelwars3176 I am with you but still struggle with the words. (I am not disagreeing with you as I have the very same vision as do you with respect to PDM). Let's try a different angle. What is analog?
@@octaverecordsanddsdstudios1285 Hi Paul, analog or analogue as I prefer to spell it has a wide variety of meanings if you consult the dictionary but for our purpose this would seem the best definition for our purposes (on-line Collins dictionary)
Analogue technology involves measuring, storing, or recording an infinitely variable amount of information by using physical quantities such as voltage.
Interestingly the example given is :'The analogue signals from the video tape are converted into digital code.'
From this definition you could actually argue PCM is analogue, so I don't think trying to come up with new terminology is needed but just a better understanding of the actual process going on. In the context of music capture PCM can certainly be defined as digital as it uses digital code/words, PDM does not so I argue it's not digital. However they are both 'analogous' to the original music. At the end of the day if folks are interested in this stuff they need to just think out more clearly as to what is actually going on. Saying DSD/PDM isn't digital is not trying to rubbish PCM for being digital but emphasising that these are two differing processes going on. DSD/PDM is closest to the original incoming signal than the further process of conversion into PCM digital words (with all PCM's many advantages for manipulation) it's a complicated process that in a way does something very simple and maybe that's why it has a sonic advantage in basic quality over PCM? At the end of the day I don't accept DSD/PDM is digital, though I understand exactly why referring to it as analogue is causing issues but if it gets people thinking and understanding the process then I'm happy with that.
Awaiting reply.....
what turntable is that?
That is a VPI Anniversary edition.;
It is better to convert the digital to analogue then re convert it to digital again and then re re convert it analogue.
No
Analog is the best standard.Period.
DSD is analogue.
@@angelwars3176 Direct Stream Digital is Analog? LOL...
@@ThinkingBetter Yep.
@@angelwars3176 Nope. It’s as the name says 100% digital.
@@ThinkingBetter See discussion I've had with Paul.
I have no way of playing DSD. I remember back in the early 80s when CD was 14 bit. It was absolutely horrible. Even when they went to 16 bit it sounded horrible. Not nearly as bad as 14 bit.
In 1998, I was in a band and we wanted to record an album. I bought an ADAT. It was 20 bit to tape. I thought that sounded almost as good as analog. Now I record with 24 bit digital. I find that it still doesn't sound like analog but, I don't think it ever will. Recording engineers add distortion and saturation to all the tracks in most music to make it sound more analog. Unless you only listen to acoustic music, you don't need DSD. PCM is fine.
I have been an audiophile since 1985. I have designed and build speaker systems since then. My high school wood project was to build a speaker system.
I have been a drummer in almost every type of band since 1985. I could never play jazz, but pretty much everything else.
I love analog, I still own my B & O turntable. I still own my CR1 and MR1 Nakamichi tape decks. I still have the cassette tapes and LP records that I had in the 80's. I have collected more very recently. New pressings. They sound cleaner but not better. I miss the DR.
My point is, enjoy the music. If your system can't do a certain thing, so what.
Final note: I have a system at this point, that I have heard nothing that can touch it. I have worked my life to achieve this system. I have listened to many, many, many systems. Not one has touched this one. Certainly over the years, I heard systems that would blow away my stuff. Not this time.
Btw, sampling in PCM is to take care of aliasing when you are processing. This is the only reason why we use high sampling rates. We usually always convert down to 44.1
Might be worth finding a way to listen to pure DSD?