Interesting report/news DSD vs. SACD at a German studio (1 Viewer)

[John Kotches]

A participant at Audio Asylum posted his own translation to an article appearing in a German Studio Technology magazine (Production Partner... http://www.production-partner.de ). The post on Audio Asylum is located http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/dvda/messages/7851.htmlhere[/url]


The post with translation is as follows

The September, 2003 edition of "Production Partner", a German magazine for studio technology (http://www.production-partner.de), has a fairly interesting interview with Rainer Maillard, head of the recording service department of Emil Berliner Studios (http://www.emil-berliner-studios.com). They do most classical recordings for Universal's Deutsche Grammophon label, and also seem to be owned by Deutsche Grammophon.
For two of the most recent SACD productions of DG, the studio did a parallel recording in DSD and PCM (96/24) technology, and made extensive comparisons between the two digital audio formats. One of these recordings is the SACD production of Gustav Mahler's 2nd symphony, played by the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, directed by Gilbert Kaplan.
If you have this SACD, you may have noticed that be booklet says: recorded in PCM 96 kHz/24 bit.

As I find this interview quite interesting, I have tried to translate those parts relevant to the never-ending SACD- vs. DVD-Audio/PCM discussion. Here we go:

**********
[About audible differences]
"When comparing the parallel recordings [i.e. DSD vs. PCM], several things need to be considered. One example: when I compared the main microphone [tracks] of the Mahler Surround Production in DSD and PCM, there was a notable difference. Later I discovered that the sensitivity of the D/A converters in conjunction with the monitoring unit had a certain tolerance, which was about 0.3 to 0.6 dB. When playing back through five speakers, this was audible. After adjusting the levels of all channels, the difference was practically inaudible."

[About blind tests]
"We did A/B/X blind tests, which again and again without mercy showed the difference between reality and imagination. To most of our colleagues and guests it was impossible to notice a difference and thus make a judgment. I think that's a positive result. It shows that DSD is positioned on a very high quality level."

[About parameters for high end recordings]
"The question is not about format. To produce a high end audio recording, completely different parameters have to be considered. How do I select musicians, recording venue, instruments, positioning, microphones, cables, converters, mixing desk, outboard equipment etc.? How do I combine these elements? If I move a microphone just one inch from it's location, the differences will be greater [than between DSD and PCM]. I could hire a different piano tuner, then it will sound different again, or change the room temperature. To me that's fascinating."

[About DSD's impulse reproduction]
"Because DSD uses 64x oversamling as compared to the CD, measurement results for impulse reproduction are very good. But such a measurement signal will hardly ever be encountered in practice. "

[About DSD artefacts]
"A one bit data stream by itself has a s/n ratio of only 6 dB. This noise energy, by means of noise shaping, can be moved into a frequency range where it no longer interferes. As a result, you get good s/n ratios of about 120 dB in the human hearing range. We took a closer look at the increasing noise above 20 kHz, and we are not sure if this noise can be seen as an artefact or effect, possibly even as a positive sound effect. [...] One very revealing experiment was playing back a 30 kHz sine wave with varispeed at one tenth of the original speed. By using this trick, you can hear the artefacts at 3 kHz, which otherwise wouldn't be audible to us. Here, a difference between DSD and PCM showed itself, and this also can be measured."

[About archive media]
"With regard to our archive, the answer [derived from these experiments] is clear: on a master recording, there is no place for noise, as it cannot be removed later. So we have decided to use high resolution PCM with 96 or 192 kHz sampling rate as our archive medium."

**********

Interesting reading, but since I neither subscribe to the magazine, nor read German I have no idea of how accurate the translation is.

Regards,

 

[Rachael B]

I bet lee is fluent in German for this one!

 

[Mike Broadman]

Thanks, John. This post/article simply confirms what I, the Great Mike Broadman, Audio Genius of the Universe, have been saying all along: it's not about the freakin' format, it's about the people behind knowing what they're doing.

 

[Phil A]

Mike, I think you hit it on the head. Some CDs sound really good and others are poorly recorded as well.

Rachael, I believe Lee will be back shortly from Octoberfest to comment on this.

 

[Rachael B]

LOL, Phil! haltzen vita mah-sheen, nein shitezen!

 

[Scott L]

Thanks for the info John. I love it when educated sources are willing to take their time & resources to make studies like this. However this is the only publication I have read that has favored PCM over DSD. The ones on American soil seem to advocate DSD because it's newer tech.

I look forward to seeing someone else with the resources to make another comparison. This particular article seems to have a limited review panel.. wish they gathered a bunch of white-bearded, LP loving audiophiles and got their opinions as well.

 

[DanFe]

We are talking about Deutche Grammaphone here. Not exactly one of the better places out there making SACDs or CDs for that matter.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

However this is the only publication I have read that has favored PCM over DSD. The ones on American soil seem to advocate DSD because it's newer tech.

What American publication has reported on blind A/B/X tests involving high-res PCM and DSD?

 

[Justin Lane]

Thanks for the info John. I love it when educated sources are willing to take their time & resources to make studies like this. However this is the only publication I have read that has favored PCM over DSD. The ones on American soil seem to advocate DSD because it's newer tech.

I have seen no such things in the United States. PCM is the standard today and the forseeable future. Sony themselves still put out the vast vast vast majority of their discs in PCM, and many times when a SACD is made, covert the PCM to DSD. A large portion of the recording community also views DSD as simply a royalty maker for Sony.

Thanks for the translation John. Many of my friends in the engineering community (EE's that is, not many of the so-called audio engineers who can be bought and sold), feel the same way about the differences between DSD and PCM as was noted in the article above. DSD when done right comes very close to 96/24 PCM, and really is left hanging when it comes to 192/24 PCM. Still, it is better than redbook CD, and if Sony insists on having a new stream of income, DSD is better than nothing. I just wish Sony would stop using PCM to DSD tranfers so much, and switch completly over to DSD if they are so behind their own invention. The audiophile community frowns at every extra unnecessary conversion which alters the original master.

J

 

[John Kotches]

Justin,

It was an interesting read, but I can't vouch for the accuracy of the translation.

BTW, I thought one of your comments was contradictory with my personal experience... don't take it personally

The audiophile community frowns at every extra unnecessary conversion which alters the original master.

Yet some in the audiophile community praise all things DSD, including SACD releases which have come from relatively low resolution PCM sources. Strange but true.

 

[John Kotches]

Scott,

You need an upgrade to your translation algorithm

It isn't a publication which selected PCM over DSD, it was Emil Berliner Studios, which is owned by (or affiliated with) Deutsche Gramophone. It was part of an interview with a person from these studios.

Note how careful they were in their comparison, finding a .3 to .6dB in convertors causing imbalances in playback levels. Once these were accounted for, the differences became practically nill.

I can understand why this would be disconcerting for some. It was done in their studios, with their equipment, and zero vested interests either way.

Regards,

 

[Scott L]

I was referring to Home Theater Mag. HT Mag had this big article on DVD-A vs SACD, and technical-wise SACD won out. They didn't do any listening tests. :frowning: I wanted to make the point it was refreshing to see such an in-depth comparison between the two, from everything I've read it seems DSD is more preferred. But I'm still confused after reading this thread. I guess I'll just buy whatever player has the format of a Hi-Res album I really want (none are out yet). Can't lose either way, if they can't tell the difference how could I?

 

[John Kotches]

Scott,

Universal players are a wise investment at this point. For most purchasers neither format has a lock on titles of their choice.

I have both players in my main system, and have them precisely for that reason.

I'm on the lookout for a competent, though not as pricey, player for my 2nd system.

Regards,

 

[Phil A]

There actually have been quite a few posts, some of them amusing, on Audio Asylum related to the above topic such as:

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/dv...ages/7865.html

As consumers we can't control what Warner or Sony or anyone else chooses to release on a particular format so like many I have both formats. Separate machines in the main systm, a universal in the bedroom and when the basement gets done another universal player as well. The woes of declining sales in the music industry and potential mergers or buy-outs make it nearly impossible to predict whether either of the 2 hi-rez formats will become more than niche and last for a bit.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I think its good that studios are making their own comparisons for archival purposes. It is interesting to note that DG has been only (as fara as I know) issuing SACDs which may speak more to the end market potential.

24/192k is a great format as well, but I still prefer DSD. The mastering makes a big difference as does the quality of the analog to digital converter.

Hopefully the declining price of universal chips will enable both formats to be established as standards.

Sorry it took so long to weigh in. I have been busy at work.