• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Why Not DSD64?

lizard84

lizard84

Abider
Why are a lot using DSD128 vs DSD64?

DSD seems to add euphoric distortion that is pleasing to the ear, one could argue much like using a tube preamp like I am using, looking at the wave forms 64 seems to have the most so why 128 or 256?

Just curious, I'm still not sold on converting of PCM to DSD but I do see some DSD downloads out there, one site, Acoustic Sounds has a good bit of DSD 2.8MHz/64 that is just not obscure classical or ensemble. http://store.acousticsounds.com/index.cfm?get=results&searchtext=dsd

Anybody deal with them, are these company's converting from masters?

I ran across David Elias's site, he is recording his folk in DSD64, I downloaded some samples and like his music and it sounded great

Bottom line, this is another format that I want to add to the library even if I don't do a whole-scale conversion of my PCM content.

Please take this opportunity to school me in all things DSD.

My real name is Bob by the way, looking forward to hearing from you.
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
As far as answering why the content is PCM->DSD64 conversion is twofold.

1. Back when SACD's first came out, labels were scrambling to jump on the new format bandwagon. They didn't have the time nor money to go back into their archives and re-do everything in DSD64, so they just took all their PCM files and up sampled them to DSD64fs and put the converted PCM files on SACD.

2. Also, many studios don't have the money to sink into a new format. Back in the 80's and 90's, Avid/Pro-tools flooded the market with digital audio workstations. Everything in a Pro-tools system in proprietary, so if they want to jump on the format bandwagon, they would have to change out thousands and thousands of dollars worth of equipment and start from scratch. Until recently, getting into DSD recording is expensive. Now anyone can do it with a Korg or Tascam unit. If a studio wanted to really get into DSD recording/mixing/mastering, it's still a tough pill to swallow. A Sonoma or Pyramix rig these days can total over $10k.

3. So, the reason you see more DSD64fs content is because the labels don't have the money to go back and do all their library in DSD128fs. They just take the already up sampled DSD64fs material and offer it for download. For HDtracks, we ripped over 5000 SACD's for labels so they could offer downloadable content. Also, like I said, for labels to go 128s, they would have to sink thousands of dollars into a Pyramix rig and these days, it's not cost effective. Remember also, DSD128fs is more bandwidth/storage and DSP's pay/charge a lot of money for that.

Hopefully I've shed some light on the questions.
 
Bruce B said:
As far as answering why the content is PCM->DSD64 conversion is twofold.

1. Back when SACD's first came out, labels were scrambling to jump on the new format bandwagon. They didn't have the time nor money to go back into their archives and re-do everything in DSD64, so they just took all their PCM files and up sampled them to DSD64fs and put the converted PCM files on SACD.

2. Also, many studios don't have the money to sink into a new format. Back in the 80's and 90's, Avid/Pro-tools flooded the market with digital audio workstations. Everything in a Pro-tools system in proprietary, so if they want to jump on the format bandwagon, they would have to change out thousands and thousands of dollars worth of equipment and start from scratch. Until recently, getting into DSD recording is expensive. Now anyone can do it with a Korg or Tascam unit. If a studio wanted to really get into DSD recording/mixing/mastering, it's still a tough pill to swallow. A Sonoma or Pyramix rig these days can total over $10k.

3. So, the reason you see more DSD64fs content is because the labels don't have the money to go back and do all their library in DSD128fs. They just take the already up sampled DSD64fs material and offer it for download. For HDtracks, we ripped over 5000 SACD's for labels so they could offer downloadable content. Also, like I said, for labels to go 128s, they would have to sink thousands of dollars into a Pyramix rig and these days, it's not cost effective. Remember also, DSD128fs is more bandwidth/storage and DSP's pay/charge a lot of money for that.

Hopefully I've shed some light on the questions.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your response!

If i get what your saying the HD track Flac and ALAC downloads are sourced from SACD rips?

What's your opinion of the up sampled DSD64fs available for download on the net vs the common PCM versions?
 
I think I'm going to take the plunge at Acoustic Sounds and purchase 3 or 4 dsd downloads to test the waters.
 
lizard84 said:
Thanks for your response!

If i get what your saying the HD track Flac and ALAC downloads are sourced from SACD rips?

What's your opinion of the up sampled DSD64fs available for download on the net vs the common PCM versions?
Click to expand...
He likely talks about DSD downloads. Most mixing and mastering is in PCM anyway simply because you cannot do non-linear processing in DSD at all. If you do all analog mastering, then DSD output comes naturally, but this is very rare case. As to DSD128 - if mastering was done in high sample rate in PCM, you better use that high nitrate DSD if you do not want to loose much in conversion from PCM.
 
Selection at Acoustic Sounds is killer.

1st downloads

Holly Cole's Temptation, a wonderful recording I'm very familiar with.

Norah Jones Come Away With Me

Dave Brubeck Quartet's Time Out

The Alan Parsons Project's I Robot

A good start toward a dsd catalog, as an aside, Holly Cole's Temptation and Dave Brubeck put their hooks into me first by me streaming them on Tidal and Deezer Elite. Viva lossless streaming!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom