Yashu
03-20-2008, 02:00 PM
Troy, I hate to say this, but I am going to have to agree with what you have said earlier regarding DSD as a digital format.
I have researched the technology and I see that it is superior to PCM when given the same data size. I understand why SACD, disregarding how Sony has basically doomed the format by keeping it closed, as a digital format using DSD, would be a definite improvement over standard redbook PCM, or even PCM at 24/96.
Technically, either format can reach the same limits, but it seems that DSD is more efficient, as it needs less space to do so. DSD audio recorded onto a CD as media, would be superior to PCM. It would take many times more data to hold a PCM encoded RAW .wav to match the same dynamic range.
There is one thing, however, in favor of PCM... this is regarding the processing and recording of PCM data... using noise shaping, one can essentially push the dynamic range of a 16bit PCM disc to close to 20bit or more, however, this involves modification of the sound, the music itself. There are arguments that the human ear wouldn't notice, because it pushes this noise outside the general understood range of hearing, however, as we all know, everything matters.
If Sony would have played their cards right, they could have taken this superior format and opened up the ability of anyone to record or press in DSD, and I think that if they did that, SACD would have taken off in the same way that DVD took off and ended the use of VHS for almost every application. Sony has not done this. They have kept the ability to use the format tightly controlled, and so limited the adoption of DSD as a standard.
I think, Troy, that you are right, DSD is a very good audio format, using 1bit, and sometimes several 1bit DACs to recreate a better, more natural analog signal that easily surpasses the 22.5khz limit of the redbook CD. After doing my research, I am almost angry at the industry for not allowing the wide adoption of DSD, because I think the only thing holding it back is the extreme limitations that Sony has put onto the format - SACD.
I doubt that the difference between PCM and DSD would be as dramatic with 24/96 PCM, but that takes several GB, where DSD can get the same dynamic range out of the space on a standard CD. Knowing this, it is clear that Sony has shot themselves in the foot, or they just don't want the world, or more importantly to them, RIAA labels, to mass release in a format that matches the original master recordings. Either way, we, the music listeners, music lovers, are the ones left to suffer, as artists continue to use PCM because it is an open format with no restrictions, therefore anyone can use it.
We disagree on the *why* or *ifs* about SACD, but I couldn't go on without saying that I, at least agree, that DSD is a very good format, and I wish that it was widely adopted and easy for any artist to use, and easy for any artist to get pressed.
I think that the future is still bright for DSD, as Sony will not tightly restrict it's use forever. Eventually Sony will either give up their battle against consumers and just allow DSD and SACD to be used and made by everyone in an open fashion, once it becomes something that Sony no longer makes money on, but how long that will take is beyond my guess.
The blu-ray/HD-DVD format war can give some insight to what may happen, and it doesn't look good (look into Sony's war wounds and implications to other studios). SACD may very well fail as a next gen audio distribution media, but DSD encoding is certainly the future.
I have researched the technology and I see that it is superior to PCM when given the same data size. I understand why SACD, disregarding how Sony has basically doomed the format by keeping it closed, as a digital format using DSD, would be a definite improvement over standard redbook PCM, or even PCM at 24/96.
Technically, either format can reach the same limits, but it seems that DSD is more efficient, as it needs less space to do so. DSD audio recorded onto a CD as media, would be superior to PCM. It would take many times more data to hold a PCM encoded RAW .wav to match the same dynamic range.
There is one thing, however, in favor of PCM... this is regarding the processing and recording of PCM data... using noise shaping, one can essentially push the dynamic range of a 16bit PCM disc to close to 20bit or more, however, this involves modification of the sound, the music itself. There are arguments that the human ear wouldn't notice, because it pushes this noise outside the general understood range of hearing, however, as we all know, everything matters.
If Sony would have played their cards right, they could have taken this superior format and opened up the ability of anyone to record or press in DSD, and I think that if they did that, SACD would have taken off in the same way that DVD took off and ended the use of VHS for almost every application. Sony has not done this. They have kept the ability to use the format tightly controlled, and so limited the adoption of DSD as a standard.
I think, Troy, that you are right, DSD is a very good audio format, using 1bit, and sometimes several 1bit DACs to recreate a better, more natural analog signal that easily surpasses the 22.5khz limit of the redbook CD. After doing my research, I am almost angry at the industry for not allowing the wide adoption of DSD, because I think the only thing holding it back is the extreme limitations that Sony has put onto the format - SACD.
I doubt that the difference between PCM and DSD would be as dramatic with 24/96 PCM, but that takes several GB, where DSD can get the same dynamic range out of the space on a standard CD. Knowing this, it is clear that Sony has shot themselves in the foot, or they just don't want the world, or more importantly to them, RIAA labels, to mass release in a format that matches the original master recordings. Either way, we, the music listeners, music lovers, are the ones left to suffer, as artists continue to use PCM because it is an open format with no restrictions, therefore anyone can use it.
We disagree on the *why* or *ifs* about SACD, but I couldn't go on without saying that I, at least agree, that DSD is a very good format, and I wish that it was widely adopted and easy for any artist to use, and easy for any artist to get pressed.
I think that the future is still bright for DSD, as Sony will not tightly restrict it's use forever. Eventually Sony will either give up their battle against consumers and just allow DSD and SACD to be used and made by everyone in an open fashion, once it becomes something that Sony no longer makes money on, but how long that will take is beyond my guess.
The blu-ray/HD-DVD format war can give some insight to what may happen, and it doesn't look good (look into Sony's war wounds and implications to other studios). SACD may very well fail as a next gen audio distribution media, but DSD encoding is certainly the future.