Which is pretty much all of us, unless the either of them has faults and adds stuff that wasn't there in the recording to begin with. I can pretty much guarantee that Octave Records productions will be mixed and mastered using PCM. And it will be fine. DSD creates more problems than it solves in terms of music production. Well designed PCM implementations are already totally transparent to our ears, even at a low price point.

@@jaydy71 I'm curious of these problems that you suggest DSD creates in relation to what it solves. Please list them.

caveat: im not being snarky (hard to believe right?) i'm geniunely intrigued and would appreciate a folllow up.

@@ericbrammer3845 Paul does hint to the problems of DSD editing in his video

@@ericbrammer3845 I suspect DSD limits you a lot in what kind of DAWs you can use, because all the usual ones (ProTools, Cubase, Logic etc) are PCM. The same goes for the used audio plugins, which are all PCM. If there is a DAW that supports DSD and that allows using 3rd party plugins, then I suppose the recorded DSD will be internally converted back-and-forth between PCM and DSD, at which point you could ask yourself why use DSD in the first place? In my humble opinion there's no real benefit in recording in DSD format instead of PCM. DSD however can be useful in for example streaming music over the internet (it's good at dynamically optimizing quality for the available data bandwidth, without switching between static sampling-rates and such).

💄 🐷

Huh????? Wtf????

Lol that’s right

too bad the song is weak

@@roverwaters3875 you spelt week wrong

@@johnheenan5147 weak = not strong. Week = 7 days.

@@ericbrammer3845. 😂 😂 😂

@Nicholas I suppose I should consider myself fortunate for not being as gifted ! Saves me a ton of $$$ !!!! :)

Not really - sounds like you need to read up on what DSD means.

There's a very simple rule behind blind tests: the bigger the difference in the two formats/standards being tested, the easier it will be to detect that difference. The more you understand how the digital world works, not just in audio, but in video and even photo as well, the more the above rule becomes a universal law. High-res audio needs to be orders of magnitude higher in sample rate and bit rate compared to what we've had as standard in the past few decades (aka CD PCM - 16bit/44.1 kHz audio) for the difference to just overwhelm anyone undergoing a blind test. What we have with blind tests in the present is quasi-high-res or lite-high-res vs standard res audio. If we were to compare something like DSD 1024 or its PCM equivalent versus CD audio, the difference would be astonishing to anyone undergoing a blind test - on a sound system capable of fully resolving the high-res version, of course. Gonna be a while though, before that can happen.

Blind testing can only determine what people are conscious of, which turns out to be 1% of what they experience. There are techniques to make them more aware of experience, and thus more conscious, but they require a psychological saavy that the jihad-objectivist types who champion AB testing, happen to be the worst personalities in the world for having any competence in understanding.

Hi Stephen, will you share which programs you use to upsample?

@@MrArildskov DB poweramp

I use a conversion program as well and in the middle of converting all my PCM files (mostly FLAC) to DSD256. Love it!

@@YnotNomis do you know how to actually convert and what frequency to use?I use 2x rate and it’s beyond amazing 🤩 I use 32x176.4kghz and then convert to 128mhz and then back to 256mhz and the difference is night and day apart from 128 which is Greta but I love the wide sound stage of 256mhz and I’m not using more space either

I actually agree with your assessment. The only PCM albums that I have that sound just as good or even a tad bit better than DSD are the DXD albums I own. Namely, the Master of Puppets album by Metallica

@@TStephens21274 where can you find DSD albums?

flac is just pcm...

ABX test results?

ABX will tell if they are different, not really which is better. Seeing as the would come from different masterings or via DIY file conversion...I am not sure you would learn anything new since thwy will probably be different anyway.

In Paul's case, I believe him that his DSD recordings really do sound better than his PCM recordings. If you listened, I suspect that you would hear the difference, too. I suspect that the difference is not subtle. If we go with the assumption that what Paul said really is true, then... ...the question is why? Why are Paul's DSD recordings better sounding than his PCM recordings? Until Paul provides a list of all of his associated gear, the answer to that question remains a mystery. There could be any number of reasons why Paul's DSD sounds better than his PCM. It could be that he uses different transports, or different interconnects, or different analog to digital converters. Paul said @3:43 that he records both DSD and PCM at the exact same time. Does Paul have two of every box needed for that purpose? -- Two of the exact same microphones? -- Two of the exact same digital to analog converters? -- Two of the exact same interconnects? -- Two of the exact same power conditioners? Etc. And has Paul switched them around, to see if, perhaps, two supposedly identical pieces of gear really are identical in their sound quality? Did Paul purchase two of everything at the same time? Or did Paul purchase one set, and later a second set, leaving the possibility that changes were made by the manufacturers, resulting in different sound quality? When Paul plays back the DSD and the PCM, is he using the exact same equipment to compare the two? As it pertains to the above: Who knows? Paul knows that all of this is key, and yet he completely ignores the topic. Until Paul lays out the answers to the above, I am not buying his assertion that DSD is better than PCM. Maybe it is? But until I have affirmative confirmation, by way of having all of the above answers, I will not accept Paul's generalized statement. For all we know, Paul might not even realize that he has a mismatch in his gear when he does the comparisons.

@@NoEgg4u Spot on. The difference in conversion alone can be enough to prefer one over the other. Using the same exact signal chain and identical converters I haven’t been able to tell the difference, and I’m a full time mastering engineer monitoring in a fully built mastering room. The math suggests the same as both sampling methods should capture everything in the audible spectrum (assuming that the sampling method is correctly set up for the material). Coincidentally, all of the mastering engineers I know (including the absolute best of the best in the industry like Bob Ludwig and Bob Katz) are more than happy with PCM and don’t give a damn about DSD.

@@NoEgg4u Oh I think his recordings *do* sound good - I own the Zuill Bailey release from Octave Records, it's lovely. But that's because they're well-recorded, and/or the chain for DSD recording or PCM recording is different - not because DSD is inherently better than high-res PCM.

@@davegbro Thanks, I was going to post a comment asking if Paul thinks Claude Shannon's mathematical proofs about digital audio were wrong but apparently they are still valid.

Roons DSD upsampling is poor tbh , try HQ player that’s some beefy DSD upsampling , makes some stuff a lil soft i use it. mostly for poor recordings as it can take glare out , although on well mastered stuff it can be very nice but depends on filters and PCM on well recorded stuff can be amazing too

@@RossKyle95 Thanks. I am a newbie to HQ Player and always thought that it's very complicated to settle on one profile. Is there a generally limed setting in HQP that most people prefer that I can set up and try HQP? Also, is the difference between HQP and Roon DSD upsampling as noticeable in speaker setups as in headphones? Thanks

DSD sounds fantastic compared to mainstream PCM (a la CD quality). You don't need much in terms of a DAC and AMP to hear its qualities - relatively entry level ones will suffice in fact ($100 dac/$100 amp), but your speakers should preferably have at least 50 kHz of sound resolving capabilities - I mean in terms of total amount of vibrations they're capable of in the 20Hz-20kHz range, not in the sense of having tweeters capable of producing 50 kHz soundwaves.

@@edfort5704 DAC chip is important as ESS for example converts to PCM internally whilst chips like BB and AKM do not

Just focus on the music. Philips' and Sony's engineers knew what they were doing. CD format is all you'll ever need. The rest is just extending the product/technology lifecycle to make a couple of extra bucks.

I listen mostly to rock and it's difficult to find a cd where the cymbals sound reasonably natural. Mostly it sounds like a compressed saucepan lid. But I think a lot has to do with the recording and mixing of a cd, cymbals need a lot of headroom. Listen to the album Heritage by Opeth. Great cymbal sound, you can even hear it at low resolution on Spotify. And the music is good, I don't just listen to the cymbals ha,ha😆

@Lloyd Stout Yeah, some remasters sounds better in the bass. But then they turn up the recording levels so much there is no dynamic headroom left for the sounds that need it.... It becomes a big "moosh" a.k.a. Deep Purple/ Made in Japan. I don't really get it.... why? Music without dynamics is boring. It's not remasters we need, it's remixes😉

@@rob_66 I think it is better to avoid remasters from the peak of the loudness war era. No dynamics and a lot of clipping.

Never buy a remastered cd ! They are all piece of junk. Only some jazz remastered albums sound ok.

Did you watch the video? He said 176kHz PCM, which really, is high compared to what most other studios in the world probably still use, a la 24bit/96kHz.

@@edfort5704 I'm aware most other studio's run at 24bit/96kHz. I run one myself. However, most times I've seen DSD compared to PCM, it's usually against the 384 bit rate. BTW, It's okay to provide an answer without being a smartass.

sucks to be you... my dreams feature Marilyn Monroe

@@googoo-gjoob should be Manson

@@alexander_mmm , _ick_

@@alexander_mmm or maybe Charles Manson...

Do you mean up sampling?

@@maxcardenas8257 For example, the playback is in flac file, and then playback with the built-in dsd mode. (You can switch the dsd on or off on your DAC player)

Flac is still comprised format, should be using wav instead tho it takes up more space for higher uncompressed lossless quality audio.

Morning Michael

Morning Bob

Morning vintage X

@@bobclarke5913 morning Bob

I'm recently downloading sacd iso albums, and just discovered how good they sound, more detailed warmer and with more texture. Plus, there's a vast catalog of popular artists in sacd. And I'm just using the chord mojo dac/amp and HD 660s headphones. 👍

Ignorance can be bliss...until it's no longer :)

I believe that Paul has said the best results come from recording in DSD.

It's not a dumb idea. That's exactly what they can do for *editing* DSD: Convert it to 352.8kHz / 24bit PCM. Otherwise known as "DXD".

Yeh, if you're listing on an iPhone or somethign, it's only going to be PCM anyway. To me, DSD seems to be a bit of an elitist thing.

@@michaelturner4457 Sure but so is high end audio. PS Audio doesn't cater to the Walmart crowd. :-)

@@bigbirdwpg The other major issue I have with DSD, is there's really nothing I want to listen to in this format. It's really only what PS Audio's Octave Records puts out on DSD, and that's it?

@@michaelturner4457 Super audio CD (SACD) contains dsd files in it, and there's a vast catalog of popular albums that has been released in SACD. 👍

Unsuitable for manipulating audio in the studio, but the most suitable for capturing sound in all its exquisite nature, including for the most complex sounds, of orchestras and instrument concerts.

@@edfort5704 Recording engineers all over the world disagree. DSD is far less stable than PCM and much more susceptible to artifacts caused by clock jitter. While the artifacts can be avoided to an extent, the clocking accuracy required needlessly complicates the recording system with no real benefit. A PCM system with the same clock as a DSD system will always be more accurate and have higher fidelity. I think that the idea of DSD being more “natural” comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of how digital audio sampling works. I don’t mean to be confrontational, I’m just tired of hearing audiophiles complain about PCM as if the people making records for a living wouldn’t move to DSD if it had a real benefit

@@davegbro Recording engineers, for the most part, have a dog in the PCM vs DSD race. At gigantic sample rates (into the Megahertz) DSD and PCM may prove to have identical sonic qualities but, the way things are now with PCM standards set in place decades ago and having gospel status, DSD is a pioneer standard that help push down the old, false paradigms that are still peddled as truth: like the one claiming 16bit/44.1kHz covering all you can ever hear or need to hear. DSD is easier to work with in the giant paradigm shift that the audio world needs. Working with PCM means just hitting the wall of stuborness and refusal to evolve that the audio industry displays, such as the engineers you referred to.

@@edfort5704 I’m one of the recording engineers you speak of (with a background in electroacoustic engineering as well) and I’d switch in a heartbeat if there if there was any demonstrable advantage to DSD. I have yet to see it in practice and in theory. If you think that Nyquist, Shannon, and Whittaker were wrong about sampling (and the 16bit 44.1kHz standard that came as a result) please write a legitimate challenge to their work and publish it in the AES. You’d be a legend in the audio engineering community from that alone, assuming you could propose a real challenge. Contrary to what many audiophiles seem to believe, the people designing audio hardware know what they’re doing. Most of us actually went to school for this stuff and had to learn the theory and science behind it, and we use the science and theory on a daily basis to make a living. 16bit/44.1kHz will absolutely capture everything in the audible spectrum and do so while leaving some headroom at the top (22kHz ceiling in 44.1kHz sampling vs the 16kHz ceiling of the average adults ears). Higher sampling rates and bit depth do not increase the amount of resolution in the audible spectrum. That’s an old myth based on a serious misunderstanding of how quantization works in sampling. Unless you’re listening to music with information above 20k (that you can actually hear) 44.1k is more than enough. I do prefer to record at 24bit 96k, but that’s because of the options it opens for heavy audio manipulation, not because of “higher quality”. The only point I can concede in regards to 44.1kHz is that some old, very low quality converters really didn’t do well with 44.1kHz because of how low their anti-aliasing filters had to be, causing a noticeable reduction in high end clarity and detail due to the premature cutoff. Those converters were long gone by the 2000s though, so it’s a moot point in 2021. Here’s a question for you: what is your listening room equipped with to correct for room issues like resonance, reflections, etc?

@@davegbro If you, especially as an audio engineer, claim there is no demonstrable advantage to DSD over current PCM standards like CD 16bit/44.1 kHz, then you either have: - never heard a DSD recording or a good Vinyl transfer to it; - or you've not compared DSD and PCM on a system that does not manipulate or tamper with the original sound in any way by upsampling or other tricks; - or you're being disingenuous. To answer here early and expand a little on your question at the end, I have the following audio system: $80 DAC, $120 amp, $275 speakers that can resolve 50kHz of sound resolution, as claimed by the manufacturer. My listening room is my bedroom and does not have any special sound modifying features from a normal living bedroom. On my entry-level audiophile system, DSDs sound phenomenal compared to anything PCM (CDs, Flac, nevermind MP3s) - not perfect, but a huge increase in sound quality from old PCM standards. If you say you have never seen or heard DSD being better than PCM in practice and theory, then I pity you, because what I've heard with many DSD recording is just eyewateringly great by comparison to PCM. Here's why the audio industry's favourite sampling theorem does not apply to real life audio as it is being claimed to: In simple terms, the audio establishment has claimed for decades, based on the Nyquist sampling theorem, that in order to capture all 20 thousand or so frequencies that humans can hear (roughly and relatively speaking), that is 20Hz-20kHz, you only need to sample at twice the rate of the highest frequency in the range, so 2 X 20Khz = 40kHz, plus some headroom until 44.1 kHz for sonic-ultrasonic interaction and some filtering. The fundamental misconception about this is based on the false assumption and subconscious claim that we could only hear one sound frequency at a time, which is fundamentally false. Our ears and our bodies can hear and perceive multiple different sound frequencies happening at the same time. Any properly-designed speaker can also produce multiple sound frequencies with the same diaphragm.A mid-range woofer can produce multiple mid-range tones concurrently. A tweeter can produce multiple high-frequencies concurrently. The same with a sub and its low frequencies. And that's what music and real-world audio is made up from: multiple sound frequencies happening at the same time. For us to capture with digital audio what goes on in real world audio, we actually need to apply the Nyquist sampling theorem (2 x sampling) to EACH individual soundwave that happens at a given instant in time, so that the actual sampling necessary to capture sound in its entirety is the sum of Niquist samples applied to each concurrent soundwave that we can hear - and we can hear and perceive a lot of soundwaves going on at once! As an example, picture an instant of time in a real-life song that has these frequencies happening at once: a 100Hz, an 800Hz, a 6000Hz, a 12000Hz and a 16000Hz. Our ears could hear something of this sort and we would need digital audio to sample each sound wave and add them together in a sum of their samples in order to capture the full sound happening in that instant of time. So you would need a sample rate of 2x100Hz + 2x800Hz + 2x6,000Hz + 2x12,000Hz + 2x16000Hz = 69,800Hz sample rate, which exceeds the PCM CD standard by quite a lot. And it may be entirely possible that we could perceive a huge amount of soundwaves at the same time - maybe all 20 thousand or so soundwaves in the audible 20Hz-20kHz spectrum, if not all instantly, then at least by tuning our ears to different smaller sets of frequencies happening in the same instant - studies need to be done in this area. If it will someday be proven that we can hear and perceive all the 20thousand(ish) soundwaves of the audible spectrum hapenning concurrently, either together at once (though unlikely) or, more likely, by tuning/focusing our ears&hearing to different smaller sets of frequencies happening at once, then we may need samples rates that equal the Nyquist rate of the sum of all the soundwaves in the audible spectrum, which would be 2(Nyquist) x 200Mhz (the sum of all soundwaves in the 20Hz-20kHz audible spectrum) = 400Mhz - an enormous sample rate compared to the measly 44.1kHz in CD PCM. Standard rate DSD has 2.8 Mhz, still not enough if it turns out we can perceive the full 20Hz-20kHz audible spectrum at once, and I can definitely hear limitations in it as well, but at least it's a huge increase and progress from CD PCM. Now do you get it? As a side note, it's funny you suggesting that I write to some guild of audio engineers about these issues on 44.1kHz Nyquist sampling being inadequate for capturing sound in its perceivable entirety. These issues are so simple to get once you understand how digital audio works, that I believe most of them probably know or suspect my claims are true, but would prefer not to talk about them much given their huge technical requirements. Professional guilds of any sort have a history of being less than open to innovation, competition and free discussion of new ideas that challenge established dogmas. Their aim is more to create standards within their industry and enforce rules and acceptance of them by the people in their field. Read about the history of mercantile professional guilds in Europe, as it's an interesting one, quite ugly but funny - I recommend reading Frederick Bastiat's works on this. TLDR: DSD rules over established PCM standards like CD 16bit/44.1kHz because it captures more soundwaves in the audible 20Hz-20kHz range that we can actually hear and perceive, thus capturing more resolution and realism of real-world sound.

The higher DSD rates you'll hear (DSD 128/256/512/1024 etc.), the more superior they will sound, if recorded properly, compared to CD PCM.