Happy to hear your honest response today. If the end result is closer to the sound of music then I’m a happy guy.

Very educational thanks

Michael Jackson’s ‘Thriller’ Celebrates 40th Anniversary With Double-CD Set Mastering the anniversary package from the original analog master tapes, Mobile Fidelity will also make the original Thriller available as a 33rpm LP, limited to 40,000 numbered copies, as well as a hybrid super audio CD (SACD). An UltraDisc two-LP set of Thriller will be released at a later date.

🤗GREAT PROGRESS IS BEING MADE AND WE LOOK 👀 FORWARD TO IT …everyone can’t appreciate what they have NOT TASTED 🤔😍😍😍

I know it isn't a quick upgrade but these claims could be really impactful if you included A-B sound comparisons. Nowadays there's been so many other, good comparisons published that any similar claims without example appear much more like snake oil. Whether the tests agree or disagree, the results would be extremely meaningful (if done properly), especially coming form a source like yourselves.

Paul has good ears Octave have the complete recording and playback system to do these tests in real time very very few people can do this !

I agree with most of what Paul has to say. I can't comment on the Zepher because we don't have one. I completely agree that recording to DSD and converting to DXD is a sonic dissappointment. I very much agree that the DA or DAC that is playing the audio makes a huge difference in the sonic quality of any file. There is a process called "rendering" that has not been discussed. RENDERING a file is much different than converting a file. If editing is required for a DSD file in the Pyramix, the file is "converted" to DXD to do the editing. But here's the thing.... think of the DXD editing as a plotting a roadmap to get to your destination. After you've made your edits (or whatever) in DXD, you RENDER the file back to DSD... it's not a conversion. RENDERING applies changes in only the places needed - like small edits for splicing in a new take of a song. This is how it's been explained to me by the crew at Merging Technologies (the company behind Pyramix). It's pretty obvious that when the file is RENDERED back to DSD it sounds WAY better than its DXD counterpart. You don't want to listen to the DXD after the DSD has been rendered from it. Again, at Blue Coast Records, we MIX (add efx, volume changes, pan, etc) in analog, but we do very small edits at the front and end to avoid popping your speakers. On occasion we'll make small fixes with editiing between two takes of songs. The RENDER from DXD to DSD keeps the DSD the same and only converts the very small milliseconds of the edit. The resulting RENDERED DSD256 sounds WAY better than the DXD. At Blue Coast Records, the source file and best sounding we sell is the DSD256. All other files we sell are made from that source file. Blue Coast Collection 4 is a good example of recording to DSD256 and working in this way. bluecoastmusic.com/blue-coast-collection-4 Enjoy your music!

Happy 17 May from norway!

Only way to do it correctly is to mix in Realtime and record a live band straight to DSD. Then put that recording on SACD, never touching pcm. Takes time to mix live but it's the right way.

If the befits are mainly while recording and it's possible to keep PCM in the rest of the chain maintaining the higher quality - I hope you understand that Zepher filter is a golden egg. I'm sure all the big guys in the recording industry like Apogee, Antelope, Lynx, RME and Avid will get in line to get a license.

Is the Zephyr filter available on the market?

Just wait when the super duper dapper DXD Codec comes out. You will be able to hear the people in the audience breathing. 👍

I use to like the scotch adverts with the skeleton did you ever get them over there probably on yt

It sounds like whatever the conversion "process" (from Sony) for DSD to DXD is the problem. If this Zephyr ...filter is essentially doing the same thing (DSD -> DXD) but at better quality, then that brings into question how Sony is doing the conversion. Is it some magic proprietary chip that only Sony can see into (a la SACD DAC chips in SACD players)? "DXD" isn't *the* problem; it's just the medium. It's all PCM in the end: Sony ouputted DXD or Zephyr outputted DXD. As Paul eludes to, the D to A / A to D conversion absolutely depends on the quality of the hardware (or software). Same goes for the process to convert DSD to PCM. And I get that if Pyramix is/was the only game in town, then that's all you have. That doesn't mean it's the best way to do things, though.

What is the Zephyr filter? Can you point us to some info please?

Either Paul misunderstood the question or doesn't want to answer. Here's his answer. I'm stubborn and like dsd.

The greatest-sounding albums in my high-resolution collection are my DSD256 and DXD albums. Now, are they equal? That depends on the listener, in my humble opinion.

Paul, did you at one point in another video say pcm converted to DSD will sound better due to the simpler D to A converter process?

any difference you can hear between DSD and PCM can easily be shown on a FFT spectrum analyzer. the real question is ... what ARE those differences....?

So PCM is king - again....

What DACs and ADCs have Paul lissend too to dismiss PMC so hard?

I've never understood why mixing DSD isn't easy. Why the usual error distribution technique (noise shaping) is not enough. It would be just a dozen simple program lines. Can anyone help me?

Yes, DSD is closest to analog, DXD is PCM, the sound quality of DSD can be inferior to that of DXD, and yes it depends on the recording, mastering, and digital to analog converters. I have a question regarding this process, but my question doesn’t completely focus on the topic of this video, but it is about conversion from analog to PCM to DSD and back to analog. The question is this: Could electrical issues with analog mastering equipment, along with one bit delta sigma conversion be the reason for any additional sonic artifacts heard on the final product of a recording mastered from analog for DSD? I’ve read where Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab said that additional coloration or other sonic artifacts was not their intention and that the sonic artifacts heard were only a product of the master tape. Please enlighten me on this.

What are best software DSD players for windows ?

Omg Paul you’re so not wrong or right! I love the explanation… but… I think people are looking for resolution their systems don’t resolve. Trying to look for sounds they can’t get. I have a $5k+system British and am mooned with aptX cd quality sounds. I won’t lie and say I’m an expert finding online lossless music. I don’t see paying for it. Not enough content. The day will come. I’ll wait for it.

I'm so confused. We're talking about 1's and 0's. Whether they are captured 1 bit at a time or 24 bits at a time they are still just 1's and 0's so the issues in sound quality has to be in the conversion of those 1's and 0's back to what we hear. I know this is simplistic but think about it.

I'm not convinced that DSD is enough of an advantage over PCM. The equipment is going to add in a decent amount of distortion. Analog introduced a lot of noise and distortion. PCM through a good converter during the recording and mixing process allows for an insane level of resolution. Even at 88.2 KHz 24 bit you can hear details at half speed that tape would never be able to translate. I like using tape *because* of those distortions, but I digress. I'm also not sold on pure audio recordings (meaning no video aspect) being at 48/96/192. Correct me if im wrong, but isn't it the case that those sample rates are more likely to introduce more audible conversion artifacts than 44.1/88.2/176.4? Maybe my ears aren't as refined or my equipment isn't as expensive but my personal experience in the studio would seem to contradict some of what is said here. I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying I can't seem to square this circle. Something isn't adding up.

Hey Paul… please don’t discontinue the PerfectWave and DirectStream before i can pick ‘em up… or at least have sales contact me before you do. Thanks for investing so heavily in High Quality Digital

As I understand it, DSD is easier to convert to analog as literally all you need is a low pass filter, even just a good balancing transformer. Where PCM requires some fairly complicated integration to get even close. That is why the DAC is so critical in PCM and can completely make or break success. You talk about not hearing a difference? But you get to use the sam e DACs. Some guy at home as whatever in a DAC. So wouldn't the possibility of better playback be with DSD because of removing the variability of a PCM DAC? Just the big sonic difference between a generic RtoR and Sigma Delta.

Mofi now says they use DXD on many of their titles including the one steps. They made it sound like DXD is better than DSD.

Math matters in digital audio and poor math can make PCM poorly sounding.

In my opinion mixing and equalizing in digital domain doesn’t sound good. Analogue mixer if it’s good quality sounds way better. But good analogue mixing console is not cheap, its very expensive. Maybe I’m not an expert, but I always choose AAD early CDs and pure DSD SACD.

Funny, he used to claim that dxd or dop was identical to the dsd

"We can back it [superiority of DSD] up with all kinds of stuff" Oh really? You have NEVER offered any measured data either way. Would you please now?

Mean comment here

So the bottom line is that anybody buying a DSD (PDM) SACD is actually just getting a PDM conversion of a PCM file. It's funny how you lament the DSD recordings fidelity, but in the end, you slip in that there is some loss in the PCM to DSD (PDM) conversion and as a result, people who purchase your SACDs are not getting the same DSD (PDM) quality that you are touting in the recording process.

I still don't understand why after it's in PCM, you'd convert back to DSD. Just because you want it in DSD? If you're going for absolute clarity, you'd just keep it in PCM. It has to be a business decision, not a quality of clarity decision.