Thats exactly the answer for audiophiles i think

You can test it yourself if you find natively recorded DSD, which are hard to come by

agreed, but.......want in one hand

@@googoo-gjoob Why? DSD64 is twenty years old.

@@angelwars3176 , there arent enough people who know how, want to do it, will pay to buy it. very limited supply...even less demand.

As long as Pro Tools, Ableton Live, and Logic Pro still becoming industry standards, we need to set our expectations down Unless, Apple engineers know better about how to support DSD natively and edit DSD files in Logic Pro without downconverting it into ultra high sample rate PCM

Or mix and master in analog, then use dsd for distribution and storage

The Sonoma System they have can mix in DSD

@@michaelrovner4165 I’m pretty sure that system has to convert DSD into PCM before mixing. No computer program can mix in 1 bit format, which is what DSD is.

mp3 is neither bad nor good, it’s a compression tool, as you said if the mastering process is done correctly, it can sound really good

DSD can be sampled at a much higher rate - 1 bit at 64 times CD sample rates. To me this is the optimum way to capture music / sound waveforms as it has the ability to capture the very fast transients. I don’t see your analogy of a sneak peak of 1 bit as being near the same as DSD running at 2.8 MHz. The key to DSD is the fast sampling rate - not the one bit. CD’s are essentially raw lossless music (in WAV format) and FLAC is the same exact music but losslessly compressed so easier to store. MP3’s you may know are lossy compression meaning they throw away music using a algorithm. ALAC is Apples’ version of FLAC. Can you hear the difference? Don’t know but I would not pay for more than CD quality unless you want too

@@justinpenn9250 You need to understand PCM vs PDM. DSD does not sample, it's a different process i can't be bothered to explain again. Look at nativedsd.com and read the faq's/blog sections - you'll come out understanding what DSD actually is.

I kind of think Paul just likes delta sigma ADCs. He certainly likes that flavor of DAC. Perhaps because he has a DSP software development team, he can make a better "black box" to go to PCM than is commercially available.

No you have to find out...

@@angelwars3176 Back when we would buy the actual CD or (a)vinyl, (the term "a vinyl" still makes me laugh) the liner notes would often have that kind of information. Remember DDD, ADD, AAD etc on CDs? I suppose an element of trust would alter one's level of anxiety somewhat for better or worse.

In native DSD website they indicate the recorded sample rate and format.

No, and the most hires shit is nothing else than adjusted bass and treble so audiophiles can hear a difference :-)

Will, please review the Blue Coast collection recordings. They were captured in DSD and available on Qobuz 24/192. This proves Paul's findings independently. These recordings are stunning. Absolutely stunning.

"CD" isn't a format. CDs generally hold 44.1 KHz/16-bit PCM.

@@TheGamerUnknown yes, I know CD is a medium but everyone here knows that when you say CD you mean PCM 44,1/16 but it's easier to say or write, right?

@@nunofernandes4501 You say "a great mix on this sounds better than a mediocre mix on the other". Wouldn't it be more correct to say whether a great mix on this is better/worse or equal, than a great mix on the other? Apples with apples. Not with oranges.

@@Yiannis2112 you didn't understand. I mean that great sounding recordings and masterings will sound great from CD onwards whereas a crappy recording will sound bad even on SACD or DSD. So, to make it clear, the most important is the recording and mastering, not the format or the medium because the humble CD is already capable of great sound.

@@nunofernandes4501 I didn't understand you say, but what you posted was apples and oranges.

Here's the thing, Beta failed as a consumer format. But it did not go away. In fact, Sony evolved it into Betacam, and that was the goto format for TV news until digital video formats came along...with Digital Beta being a key replacement.

I don't think he knows; as clued by some words he stated. You would have to record both simultaneously (equipment for both). And look up how to 'subtract'/find the difference through whichever (audio file supported) program you're using. Audacity doesn't support WV/WavePack. Or look up videos/audios with such examples present.

it seems to me he is saying the opposite of your 1st sentence. i hear him saying if the original capture is pcm, then you convert that to dsd, there will be almost no difference. file 'A' captured in PCM then converted to DSD. file 'B' captured in DSD converted to PCM. comparing 'A' to 'B', 'B' will sound better. thats what i take from this vid. no?

@@googoo-gjoob no. He said captured in dsd converted to pcm almost as good. So what’s the point of dsd at all? Just capture everything in dsd and convert to pcm for the public as it’s way more compatible

@@vitorfernandes651 bro thats exactly what he said xDD

converting any format or compression is useless. u cant upgrade a song by converting.. the bitrate sample rate frequency all will be the EXACT same if u convert to dsd... what u r hearing is power of suggestion. no real difference for converting music or even video.

From my experience Ps audio doesn't really like mqa. It isn't lossless. Watch golden sounds video on mqa

@@pangbangdang3672 makes perfect of sense. However I am still very impressed of how the same albums I have in CD sound considerably better in MQA even though it is a compressed format, hence my interest.

@@NeonluxDJWorks If you watch Goldens sounds critique video you will find out why. It literally alters the sound and frequencies. This is why most audiophiles doesn't like it. It's more like flac combined with eq.

@@pangbangdang3672 beat me to it 😂

if you like Tidal...... you should _LOVE_ Qobuz. i had them both for a year. i found e v e r y a/b i performed, i preferred Qobuz. ive canceled Tidal.

I haven't heard of DSD. Could you help me find something recorded in DSD that's free just to hear Amazing. I think, I just might like Amazing. Unlike fun, I had fun once and hated it .

But upsampling from 16 to 24 doesnt give u any benefit. It is just adding zeros. So what you hear is just a placebo. Even if you got 2 the same songs (from source, not upsampled) you wouldnt notie diffrence between 24 bit and 16 bit. Evene better it is very possible you wouldnt notice diffrence between 8bit and 16 bit. It is all about dynamic range and 16 bit files got 96 db of dynamic range which is more than enough. You can notice diffence in sample rate, for example 44.1khz in compare to 96khz. For me the only possible adventage from using 24bit flacs is that these files may not be dithered

@@Red-kc9ee I've read adjusting volume of 16-bit file with set to 16-bit output's software volume control or spdif output is better be avoided and 24-bit ouput setting is recommended.

@@Red-kc9ee thats what Im saying actually. Upsampling the sample rate of the 24-bit flac file could make an audible difference rather than the 16-bit version regardless of the sample rate. Im upsampling 44.1khz/48khz 24-bit flac files straight up to 384khz and theres an obvious change in the overall timbre. So...no, I dont think its a placebo effect. The changes is very noticeable. Also when I upsample mp3/aac files, theres no difference. I only hear significant changes in 24 bit flac files.

@@Y0HJorCh Yeah it is true. Thats why i am using analog volume control

@@loonation2185 Im saying that placebo effect is when you increase bit depth from 16 bit audio file to 24 bit. Because it is adding zeros. And i dont see any point in upsampling to 384khz. What kind of resampler do you use? Because resamplers are usually messing audio quality. It all only makes sense whe you are using Hi Res from source, not upsampling. I am producing music and there are huge benefits in using 24 bit and 96khz for example. But when you use CD quality file and upsample that your resampler has to ,,guess" what should be in place for those samples. The only benefit is that many dacs works better in higher res

spoken like a true non audiophile :P

Ain't you old man Flinn's boy

this is the issue i know many who still record in 16bit 44.1 even today and that's a big shame sure getting into recording Native DSD might be expansive but if studios don't make the jump then Audio quality will stagnate... people are so focused on getting top of the line graphic cards and 4k /8k TV's for visuals and then sit with onboard (motherboard) soundcard / Soundbars coz company's say "that's all you need" sure to get sound that is all people need but its also a flat out lie because a soundbar will never even compete in terms of sound quality compared to dedicated speakers. Money talks as long as Native DSD recording is expansive and devices that play DSD is fairly expansive it will never "bloom" and therefore will never become a new norm

Agreed!

Anology or analogue?

hahahahahaha true

Yup, even a well mastered recording can even sound good in mp3

You got that right! It’s all in the mastering. A well mastered CD still sounds darn good.

Yeah no... If you have a medium to high priced stereo, you can hear the difference as clear as night and day. DSD is always more detailed, transparent and full range. Record the performance as DSD, then playback and convert to "live analog" for mixing and mastering, while recording back to another DSD recorder(or bunch of DSD recorders).

@@christophero1969 I do have what I consider as mid-fi as my setup is probably somewhere in the $20K range. Yet I can’t seem to tell the differences between DSD and PCM. I can easily tell between Vinyl and digital for sure with the exact / identical recording. Maybe my ears are failing me.

@@christophero1969 no

That depends on whether the whole track is converted to High-Res PCM for editing purposes or if it is just a little snippet of the track, say less than a few seconds. Doing it the latter way, which hardly anyone does for multiple reasons, you won't notice the difference. Getting it right in the first place with proper miking, maybe mixing in the analog domain, etc. is of course a prerequisite because otherwise you would have to make adjustments afterwards to way too long parts of the track and the conversion to PCM and back might/will be noticeable. There are of course also ways to edit DSD directly, but the limited resources, not to mention the lack of knowledge/skills to do so properly are the limiting factors. Despite the fact, that DSD cannot be greatly manipulated before the editing and artifacts become obvious... Recordings using proper miking, good gear+cables, perfect analog mixing and than a conversion to (hopefully at least double-rate) DSD with a few minor edits afterwards are very hard to beat. The only recording technique I could think of that, in my humble opinion, surpasses the before mentioned method, is a direct-to-disc one. Just my 2c...

@@markmywords9649 I would assume as better computers with even more raw power that are affordable or maybe running in parallel become available, files could be edited in DSD (one day). Thanks for the good information. Other than direct to disc or recording using two mics in a church (like Chesky Records does sometimes) and then NOT doing any post processing offers the best quality the format could deliver, yet we all know that mastering engineers and producers love to tweak things. Fortunately as you say, maybe that would be only one part of one track of a vocal or single instrument (if done multi-track), and then a short part too, such that doing the editing in PCM then converting it back to DSD would not result in any appreciable loss in quality. DSD seems poised to become the format of the future, offering the best of both analog (due to its high sampling rate) and digital. Time (and our ears) will tell.

@@rosswarren436 octave records uses the Sonoma mastering system, which is capable of some basic editing of DSD. The guy who developed Sonoma helped make most of the SACDs and he is working with octave records

@@graxjpg interesting. This stuff is good and should only get better over time.

@@rosswarren436 that’s my opinion too! I feel like we have only scratched the surface of what the implications of DSD will be in the future

"why ever bother with anything that is not compressed?" Because both the compression and decompression take time and incur complexity and cost. The vast majority of data transport in electronic systems (not just audio) is uncompressed for these very reasons.

@@trickyrat483 Many thanks for that clarification.

WAV and FLAC are equivalent in terms of the information - FLAC is lossless. You can always get the original WAV back from FLAC flawlessly. However, FLAC takes up much less space than raw WAV. So FLAC is purely better in the case of just listening. FLAC = WAV > Lossy (MP3/AAC/AIFF/OGG/WMA/etc) There is actually some variation between the lossy formats, but I don't think it's worth getting into. Modern storage is so plentiful that there's no reason to not just get FLAC.

@@TheGamerUnknown modern storage the way that it is, why don’t I just stay in WAV?

@@graxjpg There's no *disadvantage* to using FLAC vs WAV, so why use WAV, if FLAC takes less space?

@@TheGamerUnknown What would you recommend for converting a wav file to flac? I simply have not even given it the time of day.

@@graxjpg audacity should handle it easily, but you can use ffmpeg in the cmdline if you'd prefer that.

Flac is lossless so its sounds exactly the same as its PCM source.

Great question. FLAC is a lossless compression of PCM while DSD is PDM. PDM Pulse Density Modulation is far closer to analog than is PCM and sounds

@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio i'd love to see your channel discuss the different ways PCM and PDM converts analog signal into digital. I know Ted already did an explanation on DSD but i'd love to see Paul give it a go too

FLAC has several levels of compression and the least amount, where it is in its lossless mode (about half the size of the original file) will sound the best.

Thanks @@Paulmcgowanpsaudio! Always appreciate the help!!🤍

No. FLAC is a PCM container.

@@angelwars3176 yes but you don't need the PCM container should be able to just have it straight to FLAC with a bit of programming I would have thought bypassing the PCM

@@johnsweda2999 what did you not understand in lossless? FLAC is just compression optimized for audio like brotli is compression optimized for HTML

@@Harald_Reindl I know that but I'm just saying haven't dsd as a FLAC file without the PCM

Someone said "be whatever you want to be!" and Paul answered "ok, I want to be a recording studio!" :p

You'd think that's true but it's not. First off, and here's where it's difficult to grasp, making an original recording in DSD sounds remarkably different than the same in PCM. It's likely to do with the A/D converters, but still, it's a fact. Most people, including us, go DSD ->analog-> DSD. In the future we will likely go DSD ->Zephir filter to PCM -> DSD. The Zephir filter is remarkable offering no loss from DSD to PCM. Remarkable.

Agreed, Paul needs to offer a better explanation of WHY he is so passionate about DSD.

@@angelwars3176 And while Paul does that, perhaps he could also please show us the spectral plots of the exponential rise in DSD's noise floor -- starting even before 20kHz :)

Thanks, and I would have to reply that while we do focus on the technical aspects of what makes for a great recording, at the proverbial end of the day it's the quality of the final product that, like you, concerns us most. How did you enjoy the recording you purchased already?

@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio I'm sorry to say it wasn't for me at all. It was Don Grusin's Out of Thin Air. I don't want to comment on the music itself - that's too subjective, and whilst I didn't enjoy it, I understand others might. What I didn't like, at all, was the sound. There was no space in the recording, it felt like the microphone was either pressed up against the piano, or actually inside it - it was an album that I really couldn't listen to for more than a few minutes without having to pause and take a breath and shake my head to clear it. I presume as it was the first release maybe the mastering wasn't indicative of how subsequent recordings sound? And as I said in my initial comment, mastering and an inherent understanding of the music is absolutely key for me.

@@richardt3371 That's fascinating. Thank you for honestly sharing.

@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio You're welcome! Maybe I need a PS Audio system in my house to appreciate it (hint hint!). Seriously though, I am glad you've taken it as constructive, honest feedback, not just product bashing for the sake of it - I know how much effort goes into producing such recordings.

@@richardt3371 Indeed! I agree that the miking was a bit more intimate than I would have personally done, but overall on most systems I listen to it on it's one of the better "in the room" piano recordings I know of. But, you're not the first person to mention it's a little like the microphones are in the piano. Live and learn. The feedback is much appreciated.

Muhahaha

@@Harald_Reindl Mooha, Moooohaha ,mooomoohahahah

as an audiophile you don't care about the 50% the room makes, god bless I am Hifi and not High-End

"Moving a pot plant in the listening room will likely have more audible effect .." Yes, but which one? And where? Audio, always creating problems. :)

@@trickyrat483 not in a proper treatet room - without room acoustics all you highend-crap is useless

Hmm. No - you'd have to prove such a statement with blind listening and to my knowledge no one has ever done that - and I don't think anyone ever will. I particularly don't understand how you are upsampling music, particularly mp3, and claiming a better sound?

@@StephenBrennanGuitar Well, if you definatley think that no one would ever be able to prove it sounds better to you, than there isn't anything I can say to convince you. I just know, for me, the best format I've heard for digital music is DSD.

@@YnotNomis nothing you could say perhaps - but definitely something you could do. Record a blind listening test and let us know the results.

@@StephenBrennanGuitar But even a blind test would produce variuous results depending on the listeners. There are too many variables in how and what people listen for to be accurate. But all I'm just saying is for me, DSD format sound the best for what I want to hear in diigtal music. For others it may not.

@@YnotNomis but now you're saying you may not be able to identify the 'better' in a simple a/b test. (I appreciate there are certain time and event variables) And I appreciate you say 'for you' - i do appreciate that - but ultimately if you cannot identify it then what you're stating doesn't mean anything and has no application or value for anyone. Hd video has visibly more resolution than sd video - all the time. Everyone can see it. Wav files have more 'resolution' than 128kbps mp3 - almost always aurally noticeable. However 320mp3 makes the distinction harder aurally, flac removes it more or less. The inability of people to identify between high bit rates doesn't invalidate dsd - it just contextualises it more. It also contextualises the bit rates that are indistinguishable from it.

It’s a format, like mp3. It’s the format the actual digital song is stored in

A lossless audio codec that uses compression to make file sizes smaller without reducing actual fidelity.

Unlike ALAC, album artwork cannot be added to FLAC files. Not a deal breaker, just an FYI.

It's is not a "format" but rather is merely a "container" where the analog wave file as captured is compressed loselessly using a mathematical algorithm so it doesn't take up as much space on your hard drive or require the streaming of as much data. When properly "decoded" it should sound the exact same as the original file, no better and no worse. Apple has their similar ALAC which stands for Apple Lossless Audio Codec that pretty much does the same thing.

@@bema_seat You are completely wrong on this. FLAC stores the info and metadata including artwork. I have thousands of FLAC files ripped from my CDs containing all the data.

it is more or less the same as zip, 7z, rar and so on just optimized for audio - what goes in comes out, 100% identical without any "but"