CD sales are on the rise again, and for good reason. In fact, there are a lot of good reasons.
It’s 2024 and streaming makes up more than 84 percent of the music industry. But there’s still a lot of love for physical audio formats. Vinyl is in a huge resurgence, of course, with sales growing year after year since 2005. In 2023, more than 41 million LPs were sold in the U.S. alone.
As for CDs, well, you might be surprised that people are still listening to them. In fact, I’m one of them. After being in a steady decline since 2000, CD sales are actually rising. Last year, almost 37 million CDs were sold — up nearly three percent year over year.
Here are all the reasons I collect CDs and think you should, too.
1. CDs sound better than vinyl
One of the great myths in the audio world is that vinyl sounds better than CDs. It’s just not true.
Don’t get me wrong. I love vinyl’s warm analog sound, specifically its crackling and other imperfections. And there’s the visceral experience of actually dropping the needle on a spinning record.
But CDs are simply the best sounding physical audio format. Compared to vinyl, CDs are able to produce a wider dynamic range and more bass. Plus, they’re not going to skip (unless they’re scratched).
2. CDs sound better than streaming files, too
If you’re streaming music from the likes of Spotify, Apple Music or Tidal, you’re listening to a compressed music file. That means that the audio data is being stored in less space, which results in a loss of information and the music isn’t going to sound as vibrant or as complete. MP3, AAC, WMA are all types of compressed music files.
Most songs on streaming services are compressed files, meaning songs don’t sound as vibrant or complete.Photo by Henry Phillips
The best compressed digital music files are referred to as lossless because they don’t lose information, but only a few streaming services are able to play lossless or CD-quality audio — such as Tidal, Amazon Music HD and Apple Music — and those require a subscription and can be pretty expensive.
3. CDs are significantly cheaper than vinyl
If you’re looking for a superior audio format, CDs are the best deal you’re likely to get. To be frank, they’re cheap to buy. Audio shops and retailers are practically giving away used CDs, while new CDs are usually in the $12 to $15 price range.
If you’re looking for vinyl, on the other hand, a new record will likely cost twice as much as that. Also, there’s the resale value of CDs and vinyl. It might not be much, but you can sell your old records and CDs online or to record shops. If you buy a digital song, like an mp3 file, there’s no resale value.
4. CD booklets are underrated
In this streaming age, the album artwork seems to be more of an afterthought (to consumers, at least). Sure, you see a little picture of the album cover when you’re listening to a song, but you’re missing the story of the album.When you stream music, you lose one of the best parts about listening to a new album: diving into the booklet that comes with a CD.Cambridge Audio
The 12×12 album cover of a vinyl record is still the gold standard, but the little booklet that comes with each CD, highlighting some behind the scenes shots or interesting artwork, and showing the lyrics to each song, is a nice middle ground between having to rely on digital images and having to store giant vinyl records.
As a kid, I always enjoyed getting a CD and flipping through the booklet — something I still try to do. I think it makes you feel more connected to the music.
5. Artists still release CDs of their new albums
Yes, you can still buy the latest albums of modern artists as CDs. They are releasing their new albums in CD formats just like they are also releasing them vinyl.
You can buy these new CDs at pretty much any music shop. But if you’re struggling to find a CD of a specific artist, it’s worth going to their official website — a lot of artists and bands these days sell direct-to-consumers these days as well.
6. Audio companies are still releasing new CD players
The portable CD player is mostly a thing of the past, but, believe it or not, big-time audio companies are still releasing CD players for the home. Why? Because audiophiles are still craving them.
In the past few years, companies such as Cambridge Audio, Panasonic, McIntosh, Rotel and Sony have all released new CD players (or integrating them into digital streamers).
These players are a great option for people who have a large CD collection and don’t want to pay for a music server (or spend the time uploading all their entire CD library to it). Also, high-end CD players aren’t terribly expensive.
CDs can offer savings over music subscriptions by providing lifetime ownership at affordable prices.
CD quality surpasses compressed digital formats while avoiding storage issues with lossless formats.
Physical CD collections provide aesthetic appeal, reflect your personality, and are more practical than tape and vinyl.
Old-school music tech is back in a big way—we are witnessing a significant resurgence in vinyl, cassette, and CD sales. As much as I love the convenience of music streaming services, here is why I believe CDs are still worth buying in 2024:
CDs Save You Paying for a Music Subscription Service
I have a music streaming subscription but often find myself listening to the same playlists, which makes me wonder if it's worth the monthly fee. Much of the music I listen to on Spotify already exists in my home music collection, and I'm chiefly paying for the convenience and practicality of music streaming. It begs the question: would the hundreds of dollars I pay yearly for music subscriptions be better spent on physical recordings?
Music streaming has revolutionized the industry, but the impact is not all positive. Artists are paid less, while record companies and streaming services are getting the lion’s share. Algorithms shape our decisions and set trends, while new artists aren't necessarily getting the exposure they deserve. Additionally, streaming services frequently charge a premium for CD-quality sound.
CD Quality Beats Compressed Digital Formats
Music streaming services like Apple Music, Amazon Music Unlimited, and Tidal already provide high-resolution audio. With the imminent release of Spotify HiFi, all major platforms will offer us the option to stream in 16-bit or higher quality that matches or exceeds that of CDs. However, much of this quality is lost on the average listener unless the music is played on high-end equipment or transmitted via premium Bluetooth codecs when connecting wirelessly.
Due to digital music's binary nature, CD quality is theoretically inferior to analog sound reproduction. Still, it beats the quality of compressed digital formats like MP3 by a large margin. The 16-bit 44.1 kHz standard CDs offer can reproduce all frequencies detectable by the human ear, but MP3 and other compressed formats are a significant compromise. If you choose to store your digital music library on a hard drive, storage device, phone, or digital music player (yes, these are also making a comeback), you have to use a lossless format like ALAC, AIFF, WAV, or FLAC to achieve CD-quality sound.
CDs Save You Using Storage Space on Your Devices
The problem with lossless formats is that they have much larger file sizes. Depending on the size of your music collection, this may lead to compromises when using a portable device to listen to your music, and it might dominate space on your computer's hard drive. I use a laptop with a decent amount of storage. However, I have had to relocate my digital music files to an external hard drive to ensure enough space for music creation and video editing.
A CD is a digital storage device in its own right, and if you have the available room, it makes sense to give your music collection a dedicated space distinct from your digital devices. As I prepare to dust off my old CD collection, I am seriously considering buying a modern CD player to get the best possible results and expanding my collection to include new purchases and music converted from my vinyl collection.
CD Players Can Be Compact and Stylish
The world has changed since the CD's heyday, and we tend to favor compact devices over large Hi-Fi separates and boxy floor-standing speakers. Modern entertainment centers seldom have enough room to house much more than a gaming console, a soundbar, and a TV streaming box, but thankfully, CD players have also moved with the times.
While it is still possible to buy 19-inch Hi-Fi separates, many manufacturers are producing scaled-down CD players that produce excellent results. Some exceed thousands of dollars in price, suggesting that the CD format is alive and well in audiophile circles. On the other end of the scale, some of the best new CD players are practical, affordable, and include modern features such as Bluetooth connectivity.
CDs Are Often Cheap to Buy
CDs can be affordable and come with lifetime ownership, unlike subscription services, where even your downloads ultimately expire. New releases on CD usually cost around $15, whereas classic albums and compilations can be found for between $5 and $10 on Amazon. Unsurprisingly, CD prices are lower in used markets, with popular releases selling for as little as $2 to $5 online.
CDs can still be found even cheaper in charity shops and thrift stores, although there's an element of chance involved regarding whether you will find something you like. That said, shopping for records is one of the greatest pleasures of owning physical music. I have spent entire afternoons looking for bargains and hidden gems among the racks of CDs—something that is becoming lost in the age of streaming media.
It Feels Good to Have a Physical Music Collection on CD
Like your taste in clothes or the artwork on your wall, your music collection says a lot about you. Physical music media comes with attractive images and informative liner notes, and a CD collection, like a well-stocked bookshelf, lends aesthetic appeal to a living space. There's much to be said for perusing a shelf full of CDs to consider what to play—something that often can't be said for scrolling through an app where you'll likely be bombarded with suggestions that don't reflect your mood.
As a vinyl collector for over twenty years, I am a fan of physical music media, but CDs are more robust, so I don't get nervous when a friend fumbles through my collection. A well-looked-after CD should last a lifetime, and building a sizable CD library shouldn't take long. You can also easily convert your analog media to CD format as a backup to save it from wear and tear and listen to it on the move.
It's easy to see why CDs declined in popularity. With the proliferation of digital music players, MP3 quickly became the gold standard, damaging the entire music industry as piracy and duplication were rife. To their credit, music streaming services have helped rectify some of these issues, but a new generation is happy to return to basics. As someone who loves their vinyl collection but likes to listen to music on the move, CDs provide the perfect compromise, especially if I decide to take my music entirely offline.
Extended Resolution Compact Disc (XRCD) is a mastering and manufacture process patented by JVC (Victor Company of Japan, Ltd) for producing Red Book compact discs. It was first introduced in 1995.
An XRCD is priced about twice as high as a regular full-priced CD. JVC attributes this to the higher cost of quality mastering and manufacturing.
Technical overview
The XRCD definition refers to the mastering and manufacture process; the resulting CD and the contained data conform to the redbook standard and are encoded at 16 bits, 44.1 kHz. Hence, XRCDs are playable on any compact disc player.
JVC uses advanced dither algorithms (though without noise shaping) in their K2 technology to transfer the analog or digital source to physical disc. The company claims to have studied how inferior CD-remastering techniques degrade the master tape sound and strives to minimize this loss.
Unlike HDCD, the extra four bits cannot be recovered, as this method of mastering only aims to improve dithering to 16-bit, rather than to store extra data.
Mastering process
If analog, the source material is first converted to digital via JVC's K2 20-bit or 24-bit analog-to-digital converter.
The musical information is next encoded on a magneto-optical disk for transport to JVC's Yokohama manufacturing plant, where jitter reduction is applied. The musical signal on the disk is down-converted to 16-bit through a K2 "super-coding" process. This 16-bit signal is eight-to-fourteen modulation-encoded (EFM-encoded) before going through a proprietary "Extended Pit Cut" DVD K2 laser technology to produce a glass master. JVC claims this optimizes the linear velocity of the glass master, giving precise pit lengths to eliminate time jitters, controlled by an extremely precise rubidium clock. All CDs are finally stamped directly from this glass master.
XRCD2 and XRCD24 are improved versions of the original XRCD process. XRCD2 is the first to record to a magneto-optical disk via the digital K2 regenerator, while XRCD24 upgrades the original music signal's bit depth signal from 20 to 24 bits.
K2 HD Mastering: This is an epoch-making mastering technology which can pack the original attractive sound quality of master sources in each media with the information of quite wide frequency range up to 100kHz and high resolution of 24bit based upon K2 High Definition coding technology. In case of CD mastering, it can realize very high sound quality CD which never existed before by packing the information of 192kHz and 24bit in CD master format of 44.1kHz and 16bit.
It depends on the master sources.
*In case of completed master sources such as "Analog Masters" with attractive original sound, it can keep all the information included in the master sources without any change.
*In case of Digital master sources (3/4U-matic, DAT etc.) in which the information or sound quality has already changed compared with the original masters, it can reproduce the sound quite close to the original.
*In case of master sources which need higher sound quality, it can be realized in an active and creative way.
"K2HD MASTERING" requires engineers to have enough skills in handling the equipments knowing well the special character of "K2 High Definition Coding", coping with the various situations such as the status of provided master formats, in judging the sound quality, and the best approach depending on the music genres and contents.
"K2HD MASTERING" can exist only by the engineers' manpower with high judgment for sound quality, and high skills which can match it best to the sound sources to be mastered.
The main purpose of "K2HD MASTERING" is to reproduce the charms packed in the original master sources as much as possible. It is especially effective for the reproduction of rich ambience and sound reality. Particularly it’s recommended for jazz and classical music full of sound reality played by acoustic instruments.
The direction of completed sound depends on the contents of masters but as a whole, it will be with a lot of analog taste full of depth which is soft as well as with high frequency range. Therefore, it's best for mastering of old master sources.
The process of K2HD MASTERING is the same as the one of normal mastering.
There's no special restriction for the format of original master sources or the completed format after mastering. The sound sources can be exchanged through Internet as well.
In case of CD manufacturing, as the master sound quality becomes much better by K2HD MASTERING, it will be possible to manufacture high quality CDs even if the process after mastering is the same as usual.
Of course, it's possible to play such CDs on normal CD players, which can show enough effect of K2HD MASTERING.
Epoch-making new mastering technology which can pack the original attractive sound quality of master sources brought out by mastering engineers' sensitivity and skill in each media with the information of quite wide range up to 100kHz and high resolution of 24bit based upon K2 High Definition coding technology.
The following points are necessary for K2HD MASTERING. *Mastering engineers with high sensitivity for sounds and enough skill *Attractive pieces of music *Master sound sources with enough information
This CD is mastered with superior skill of mastering engineer and revolutionary "K2 High Definition Coding" technology. K2HD MASTERING enhances sound spectrum to a bandwidth of 100 KHz and 24-bit resolution, while retaining all the charm of the original recording. K2HD mastered CDs offer extended nuance, dynamics and musicality and are playable on any CD player.
K2 High Definition Coding: New technology developed by JVC group (JVC & Victor Entertainment) which can pack the information of wide frequency range up to 100kHz and high resolution of 24bit into lower format. This is a part of "K2 technology" which is JVC's original technology for higher digital sound quality started in 1987.
In CD's case, it is possible to pack the information of 192kHz & 24bit into the format of 44.1kHz & 16bit.
K2 Technology: In 1987, JVC and Victor Musical Industries started to cooperate with each other to improve the digital sound quality, and developed this "K2 technology" as JVC's original.
To begin with "K2 interface", innovative technology to cancel fundamentally the elements out of signals such as "jitter and ripple" added at the time of transmission of digital signals which affect much the sound quality, this technology has been active in various professional recording and mastering studios as essential technology to stabilize and improve the sound quality by removing various factors which might affect the sound quality in the process of data transmission or change of media.
JVC is proud of this technology including the newest "netK2" and "K2HD coding" toward all over the world which is evolving day by day.
Source: https://hificable.dk/k2-hd-mastering/
Below is a sample XRCD:
SHM CD Discs
Since its first release of 2007, SHM-CD format has gained much popularity and been highly-acclaimed by audiophiles around the world especially who put the importance on the quality of the sound the most. This page will show you all about SHM-CD format for further understanding on it. It would be great if this page helps your next adventure to the pursuing-the-high-fidelity-audio world.
About SHM-CD
SHM-CD (Super High Material CD) is a superior quality CD fully
compatible with all CD players. SHM-CD utilizes a polycarbonate material
originally developed for LCD screens, and the enhanced transparency of
the SHM-CD results in more clarity, depth and definition of sound,
bringing the listener ever closer to the music of the original master.
＊Results may vary depending on playback environment.
Features of the SHM-CD: Production
The injection molding system developed by JVC KENWOOD enhances the
increased fluidity and greater transfer qualities of the polycarbonate,
creating a new and improved disc in a compatible CD format.
The machine utilizes a precision master metal stamper also developed by JVC KENWOOD.
SHM-CD has it’s own production line, exclusively created for manufacturing SHM-CDs.
At JVC KENWOOD, we take pride in this meticulous production process, and prioritize quality over quantity.
Features of the SHM-CD: Quality
Every SHM-CD is made from a highly transparent polycarbonate originally designed for LCD screens.
Increased fluidity and greater transfer qualities of the polycarbonate allow for finer precision in pit formation.
Cleaner audio signals reduce jitter and the effects of birefringence.
Birefringence is the refraction of light in two slightly different
directions to form two rays, scattering the radar and leading to poor
reading. The superior transparency of this polycarbonate substrate
(1.2mm thick) reduces the effects of birefringence resulting in a more
accurate reading by the laser (780nm).
Features of the SHM-CD: Hardware
Conforms to the Red Book specification and definition of a Compact Disc Digital Audio.
Compatible with all CD players.
A CD with exceptional qualities across the board.
Superior manufacturing process extracts the highest possible sound quality.
Features of the SHM-CD: Sound Quality
Crystal clear sound.
Significantly higher resolution.
Excellent balance and stability.
Reduction in distortion, and improvement in bass range volume.
The Sony BDP-S6700 is a moderately priced Blu Ray player that will play Blu Ray discs as well as SACD discs, as well as MP3 and FLAC files from the included USB port. This is a current model and also offers video streaming as a bonus. It will also upscale SD video to HD video. Seems to be a tremendous value for audiophiles.
Sony BDP-S6700 Blu Ray Player , Jeff Miller, by Crutchfield's Jeff Miller
Your home theatre system's jack of all trades
I've built a solid Blu-ray collection, so I'm glad to see Sony is still committed to making great disc players. The Sony BDP-S6700 won't play Ultra-HD 4K Blu-ray discs, but it will upconvert standard Blu-ray and DVD discs to near-4K quality for playback on your Ultra HD TV. And this versatile player also offers popular streaming video services and delivers serious picture detail to a 1080p screen.
If you're connecting to a home theatre audio system, the BDP-S6700 supports high-resolution movie sound formats, like Dolby® TrueHD and DTS® HD. It will play CDs, SACDs, and music files from a thumb drive. Plus, it offers a wide variety of streaming audio options.
Dual-band Wi-Fi means smooth video streaming...
Dual-band Wi-Fi gives you a strong, quick connection for streaming services like Netflix. And Sony's noise reduction technology improves the quality of your streamed videos. On top of that, Miracast™ technology lets you “mirror” what you see on your smartphone or tablet on your TV's big screen.
Sony BDP-S6700
Send sound from the Sony BDP-S6700 to a pair of wireless Bluetooth headphones (not included) for late night viewing.
...and music streaming, too
If you're a Spotify® Premium subscriber, Spotify Connect lets you play your albums and playlists through your connected speakers. Or you can download Sony's free SongPAL™ app for iOS® or Android™. It gives you wireless access to the music stored on your phone, Pandora® Internet radio, and even music stored on a DLNA-connected server.
Beam sound wirelessly to headphones via Bluetooth
The BDP-6700's built-in Bluetooth lets you send the sound of your movies, shows, and other media to a pair of Bluetooth headphones. This helps with late night binge-watching. You can catch all the dialogue and hear all the loud, exciting sound effects without waking everyone up.
Product highlights:
Plays 3D and standard Blu-ray discs, DVDs, SACDs, CDs and rewriteable CDs
4K video upscaling for use with Ultra HD TVs
Dual-band Wi-Fi for smooth wireless streaming
Streaming video and music apps for playing TV shows, movies, and music, including Netflix, Amazon Instant Video, YouTube™, and Pandora (subscriptions required for some services)
Bluetooth transmitter sends audio from player to Bluetooth-compatible headphones or speakers
LDAC Hi-Fidelity wireless music streaming to and from compatible sources
Miracast-compatible — screen-mirroring with Miracast-compatible smartphones and tablets
Quick Start/Load mode swiftly queues up a disc from the "off" position
Free downloadable Sony SongPAL app (available from iTunes Store and Google Play) helps connect the player to your wireless network and controls playback, and volume
Also gives you control over other compatible Sony speakers as part of a multi-room music system
Control the player and stream content from compatible smartphones and tablets with Sony's SideView app for Apple® and Android™ devices (requires both devices to be connected to the same wireless home network)
BD-Live and BonusView support for added bonus features with compatible discs (requires external USB storage device)
Remote control
Pays Region A Blu-ray discs and Region 1 DVDs
Technical Specs:
Selectable video resolution up to 1080p
Built-in audio decoding for Dolby® Digital, Dolby TrueHD, DTS®, and DTS-HD Master Audio
Plays AAC, AIFF, ALAC, FLAC, MP3, WMA, and WAV audio file formats
Sony BDP-S6700 file format support: Media: Bluray Disc (ROM/R/RE) DVD (+/-R/RW/R-DL/8cm) SACD, CD (R/RW) USB (FAT32/NTFS), External HDD (read)
Sound formats: LPCM, Dolby Digital True HD, DTS HD Master Audio, DTS Neo:6, AV Sync, DRC, DSD
Photo: JPEG (jpg, jpeg), gif, png, mpo (not DLNA)
Front-panel USB port to play music, movies, and images from external hard drives and thumb drives
HDMI output
Coaxial digital audio output
Ethernet port for Internet connectivity
10-1/16"W x 1-1/2"H x 8"D
SONY BDP-BX57 Blu Ray Player
Another even lower-cost option is to get the older Sony BDP-BX57 Blu Ray player. It is readily available on eBay for around $50. It also has the traditional older RCA line output jacks. It will play Blu Ray discs at 1080p resolution, CDs, SACDs, and DVDs. It also has built-in Wi-Fi video streaming and offers USB input for MKV, MP4 video files and MP3 music files.
DSD (direct stream digital) is almost like a mythical creature that only certain audiophiles have confronted before.
These are people who come back from their adventures with DSD telling
wild stories about how they heard this extra-terrestrial beast murmur a
sound that nobody has ever noticed before (besides them).
If you’ve heard of DSD, you may be familiar with these stories. In this article, we’ll uncover if they are true or false; and we’ll separate reality from fiction.
But First, Some Primer
It may sound obvious, but most mythical stories are not real. If
someone were to say that DSD sounds better than PCM, they could be
right.
However, the difference between the two is splitting hairs when it comes down to sound quality.
The drawbacks with DSD are high, and the commercial viability of DSD is non-existent compared to PCM.
Before we look at why this is, we need to make sure we understand some of the fundamentals of digital audio first…
What Are Samples?
The common answer to this is usually something like “samples are pieces of music used in other pieces of music.”
While this is correct, in this context a sample is something much smaller than a piece of music.
A sample is the smallest piece of a waveform possible, describing the wave’s exact position at a precise moment in time.
When all these samples are put together, you get a sound wave. You can think of samples as like pixels but for audio.
In some DAWs and wave editors, you can zoom right in and see little dots on the waveform.
These are samples and you may even be able to move them around, though it’s very hard to edit audio this way unless you are removing a few peaks here and there.
What Is Bit Depth?
Audio is stored in computers with bits – 1s and 0s. So if you have some binary code such as 1001010101000110, since it has 16 digits, this means it has 16 bits.
So bit depth is simply a way to store more information per sample in an audio file in x bits.
16-bit means there are 65,536 different possible values per sample
24-bit offers more than 16 million possible values per sample
32-bit has more than 2.1 billion unique values
But it should be noted that 32-bit float is technically 24-bit with an 8-bit mantissa, and there are no major practical benefits to using 32-bit audio over 24.
What Is Sample Rate?
The sample rate is the number of samples in one second of audio. So if you have a 48 kHz sample rate, then 48,000 samples of the audio are measured per second to recreate the sound.
So, if you are digitally recreating a sine wave at 48 kHz, then you are measuring the amplitude of the sine wave at 48,000 different points per second.
The most common sample rates are 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz, which are used in most DAWs.
What Sample Rate Should You Use For Music?
What sample rate you should use will
depend on the audio quality you prefer, but the differences are very
hard to notice. 48 kHz is the safest option but most consumers can not
tell the difference between 48 kHz and 44.1 Khz.
In this case, we look to other reasons to pick between 48 kHz and 44.1 kHz. Simply
put, 44.1 kHz is a leftover from the CD era, and though it sounds
perfectly fine, 48 kHz is more compatible with video formats.
From an engineering perspective, calculations involving 48 samples per millisecond are neater than 44.1 samples per millisecond.
If you want to use Max, Reaktor, or make your own VST plugins, this is worth considering.
What is PCM?
PCM stands for pulse-code modulation and is the standard digital audio format used to encode sound waveforms digitally.
With PCM, the amplitude of an audio signal is sampled at regular intervals, creating a waveform.
He filed a patent in 1938, describing it in theory with its advantages, but there was no practical application that resulted.
PCM technology was mainly used as a better approach to send telephone
calls in the early 1960s, but the quality was not good enough for
high-fidelity music until the 80s.
It was finally brought into the consumer market in 1982 when the Compact Disc (CD) brought PCM to the mainstream market and took off for its convenience and fidelity.
Instead of sampling the amplitude of audio signals at regular intervals, each bit is an interval that changes depending on the amplitude of the signal.
Does DSD Have a Higher Sample Rate Than PCM?
Yes, DSD (direct stream digital) has a much higher sample rate of over 1000kHz. In comparison, PCM is between 44.1kHz-192kHz.
Does DSD Sound Worse Than PCM?
Not necessarily. The problem with DSD is that you cannot edit, mix,
or master it because there’s no proprietary software to do any of these
things.
DSD also uses extremely high levels of noise shaping,
meaning that at lower frequencies (those we can hear) the noise is very
low, but once you get into ultrasonic frequencies the noise level rises
extremely quickly.
What Is A 1-Bit Format?
A 1-bit format is about as simple as it gets.
Whereas, a 16-bit format has 16 different bits that could either be on
or off at the same time, and the combined bits add more complexity.
History of DSD
In the early 1990s, Sony collaborated with Phillips who had begun
developing the DSD technology, and together the two made the SACD
format, which is the same as DSD but in a consumer format (like PCM is
to CD).
However, while the two had finalized the development of the product, the industry had made a giant step forward.
DAC manufacturers switched from 64fs to 128fs, which is twice the sampling rate, as well as a 5-bit format rather than the 1-bit format that they previously created.
So, they were essentially faced with the dilemma of filming a black-and-white film right when color television was invented.
However, DSD didn’t pan out to be commercially viable enough to be used as a mainstream source of digital audio encoding.
PCM became the dominant analog-to-digital encoding format in the early 80s when CDs were invented.
What Are Some Drawbacks of Using DSD?
The problem with DSD is that it is noisier and offers a more limited frequency range than comparable 24-bit PCM of a sampling rate >88.2kHz.
As a 1-bit format, there isn’t enough space in DSD for it to be dithered properly. As a result, you end up with an elevated noise floor.
The same issue applies to the DAC designs that originally inspired the format.
Which Sounds Better? DSD or PCM?
A lot of controversies have been made over which encoding system
sounds better, but one can never really know unless they hear for
themselves.
Not really easy when almost every digital device uses PCM audio-only.
Furthermore, many argue that DSD is not suitable for high-end
applications and high-resolution audio because of its high distortion,
but there are still audiophiles who swear that DSD DEFINITELY sounds better.
How Do I Listen To DSD?
You can listen to DSD by using an external Digital to Analog Converter, or DAC. A DAC can handle the high sample rates that are used in DSD format and can be connected to your computer through USB.
You will also need software to be able to listen to DSD as well.
Programs like HQPlayer and JRiver work for both Mac and Windows, while
Audirvana works for Mac exclusively, and Teac HR Audio Player works for
Windows exclusively.
Can You Do Post-Production With DSD?
There’s been no method to edit, mix, and master DSD files like you could PCM files.
Therefore, most “commercially available” DSD recordings are recorded
directly to DSD with no mixing/mastering, or are simply converted to and
from PCM!
There are a few new software packages that can mix, master, and edit using DSD, but most are from very small niche companies.
Why Does DSD Need To Be Converted To PCM?
PCM does not have noise in the higher frequencies like DSD so it
allows non-linear processing effects such as saturation and distortion.
DSD also cannot be dithered like PCM audio, because dithering applies
randomness, the 0s and 1s become meaningless and the result is simply
noise.
What Is Dithering?
Dither works by adding a bit of
random noise to the signal: the sample values are shifted around a tiny
bit in an unpredictable way.
This gets rid of the nasty distortion that results when decreasing the bit depth from 24 to 16 or lower.
Even though this raises the noise floor, the result is still less harsh than without dithering.
Dithering is somewhat antiquated and
should only be used in the final stage of the production process in
mastering when preparing a 16 bit master. Do not apply dithering to
anything else!
What Is Quantization?
With PCM, the amplitude of the signal is limited to just one of a set
of fixed values, determined by bit depth. This limiting process is
called quantization.
Dither is needed on the signal to avoid quantization distortion. For example, quantization occurs when a 24-bit recording (with 16 million possible values per sample), gets converted to 16-bit CD resolution (which has only 65,536 possible values).
What Are The Different Rates Of DSD?
DSD comes as the standard DSD64, double-rate DSD128, Quad-rate DSD256, and Octuple-rate DSD512.
The number at the end of the acronym signifies that it is 64, 128, 256, or 512 times the sample rate as a CD.
Are DSD Files Smaller than PCM files?
DSD records a 1-bit data stream at 2.88 MHz. This amounts to roughly
22 MB of disk space per minute. So, if you have a typical song around 3
minutes in length, that would only equate to 66 MB.
PCM files such as WAV use less space, however. For
example, a 24-bit 48 kHz WAV file at the same length is about 40 MB
while an MP3 file of that length would be about 4-8 MB.
Playback Options for DSD
What Is DSD Disc Format?
DSD discs are available through the use of specific recorders and appropriate tools.
These discs can be listened to via certain Sony audio hardware
devices such as the PlayStation 3, as well as certain Sony laptops.
Can DSD Be Used With USB?
Yes, USB is an alternative to using discs with files burnt onto them
for playback. In 2012, a lot of companies teamed up to develop a
standard that detects DSD audio in PCM frames they titled DSD over PCM, or DoP.
DSD vs PCM
When comparing DSD vs PCM, it’s important to note that DSD audio has a
higher noise floor than PCM audio, a more limited frequency range, and
was based on an approach to DAC/ADC design that was substantially
improved right after its release.
The other problem is it’s incredibly difficult to work with. In fact, to perform any kind of serious work with DSD, you have to convert it into PCM.
It really seems that in 90% of cases, your average SACD was recorded
as PCM audio, mixed as PCM audio, and then converted to DSD audio.
Contradictory Results
The consistent theme when comparing PCM and DSD is contradictory
beliefs and opinions, and this goes for scientific studies as well as
personal tests.
One double-blind study in Germany found that hardly anybody could distinguish the difference between PCM and DSD audio.
However, in a 2014 study in Tokyo, the results concluded that listeners could distinguish 192 kHz, 24-bit PCM with DSD at 2.8 MHz and 5.6 MHz, but not between 2.8MHz and 5.6Mhz DSD.
Consumer Market
DSD never achieved any level of success in the consumer market
because post-production (which includes editing, mixing engineering, and
mastering engineering) is extremely difficult due to the lack of
necessary software.
DSD is still used, however, as a format for studio equipment in an archival manner as a possible replacement for analog tapes.
Conclusion
The quality of production, mixing, and mastering in most cases is 99%
in the music itself, with that last 1 percent arguably being reliant
upon the encoding format (in this case, DSD vs PCM).
Producing music in DSD format is extremely tiresome and near impossible. So unless you have a point to prove, stick to PCM.
If you’re only interested in listening to music, then DSD is worth investigating if you’re really fussy about audio formats.
If we had to pick a clear winner between the two, it would be PCM, largely thanks to its wide compatibility.
FAQ’s
What is SACD Versus DSD?
SACD (Super Audio CD) uses DSD encoding, except it is compatible with CD as well to make it more commercially viable.
It was intended to replace the Compact Disc (CD) in 1999 when it was introduced, with its multiple audio channel functionality.
The SACD layer uses a 1-bit DSD with a
4.7 GB disc capacity while the optional CD layer uses a 16-bit PCM with
a 700 MB disc capacity (just like a regular CD).
What Is DST?
DST (Digital Stream Transfer) is a lossless data compression method used to reduce space and bandwidth within DSD.
DST compression reduces the file size by twice or three times and carries eighty minutes of sound.
What is ADC and DAC?
ADC is an analog to digital converter while DAC is a digital to analog converter. They are basically what the name implies.
DACs and ADCs are commonly used with music players but are also seen in televisions and phones.
What is Nyquist Theorem?
The Nyquist Theorem
states that a digital sampling system must have a sample rate at least
twice as high as the highest frequency of the audio that is being
sampled.
Simply put, this is because you need at least two samples to generate an oscillation.
So with a 48 kHz sample rate, repeating two samples of opposite values would create a 24 kHz tone.
This is why for high-quality audio we use at least a 44.1 kHz sample rate.
Because the highest frequency we can hear is 20 kHz, this gives us just
enough room to fit the entire audible spectrum of sound.
Direct Stream Digital (DSD) has become a big thing in high-end digital
audio. Simplified encoding and decoding, along with ultra-high sampling
frequencies, promise unparalleled performance. Is this what we’ve all
been waiting for or just mass-marketing hype? This blog separates the
hype from the technical facts. I’ll explain in what ways DSD has the
advantage and in what ways pulse-code modulation (PCM) is better.
If you're not sure if you should believe the statements in this blog
which contradict much of the marketing hype, myth, and legend in the
audiophile industry, feel free to check the references at the end of
this blog.
In late 1877, Thomas Edison used Cros’ theories to invent the cylinder
phonograph, allowing music lovers to experience recorded music in their
homes for the first time. Can you imagine a modern cylinder phonograph?
Tangential tracking…no arc error…no skating error. The concept was
flawless.
In 1887, Emile Berliner invented the technically inferior disk
phonograph. Disks warp and there was arch error and skating errors
introduced. Certainly no comparison to the tangential tracking Edison
cylinder player.
But since disks are much cheaper to produce than cylinders, and since
disk fit nicely in display bins at stores and can include larger cover
art and notes, they became the standard. And so began the long history
of the recorded music industry being more about consumer convenience and
optimal profits than about optimal fidelity.
The digital revolution was no different. Philips and Sony collaborated
on the new standard for a consumer digital format in 1979. Philips
wanted a 20 cm disk, but Sony insisted on a 12 cm disk which could be
played in a smaller portable device. In 1980 they published the Red Book
CD-DA standard, and mass-market digital music was born. Many in the
recording industry in the early days of digital joked that CD stood for
“compromised disk.”
In the early 1980s, when digital recording became readily available,
studios converted from analog to digital to save money. For studios,
this cost less for the equipment, required less space for both recording
and archiving, and made it easier to mix and edit tracks in
post-production. For consumers, there weren't many advantages. Most of
the early digital recordings were produced with relatively low
resolution and sounded so fatiguing they would make you want to tear
your ears off.
The switch from PCM to DSD was no different. In the early 1990s Sony
wanted a future-proof, less expensive medium to archive their analog
masters. In 1995 they concluded that storing a 1-bit signal directly
from analog-to-digital would allow them to output to any conceivable
consumer digital format (LOL...later I'll explain how Sony screwed the
pooch on this decision). This new 1-bit technology was achieved by
outputting from the monitoring pin on Crystal’s new 1-bit 2.8Mhz Bit
Stream DAC chip.
Later, Sony’s consumer division caught wind of DSD and collaborated with
Philips to create the SACD format. Of course, from the time the SACD
was conceived until the time it came to market, DAC chip manufacturers
had advanced from 64fs to a higher 128fs sampling rate (aka Double-Rate
DSD) and from 1-bit to a higher-resolution 5-bit wide-DSD format. If the
SACD format was DSD128 instead of DSD64 and 5-bits instead of 1-bit it
would have made a huge difference in performance. Oops.
Long before the DVD, SACD, or DSD formats were developed, the Bit Stream
DAC chip was introduced to the consumer market as a lower-cost
alternative to the significantly more expensive R-2R multi-bit DAC chip.
Bit Stream DAC chips have built-in algorithms to convert PCM input to
DSD, which is then converted to analog. Once again, the result was a
huge cost saving at the expense of fidelity.
It was in part Bit Stream DAC technology which allowed the development
of our modern 7.1 channel audio that’s embedded into video formats. This
also allowed electronics manufacturers to market DVD players in small
chassis with cheap power supplies which could retail for under $70. Once
again, the audio purist never stood a chance.
In contrast, not only do multi-bit R-2R DAC chips cost significantly
more to manufacture than single-bit DAC chips, but they also require
much larger and more sophisticated power supplies. If you were to make a
7.1 channel R-2R multi-disk player, it would cost several times the
price of Bit Stream technology and it would be several times the size.
Certainly not what the average consumer is looking for.
To sum things up, the recorded music industry has made decision after
decision to maximize profits and mass consumer appeal at the expense of
the audio purist. History lesson over.
DSD vs. PCM Technology:
PCM recordings are commercially available in 16-bit or 24-bit and in
several sampling rates from 44.1KHz up to 192KHz. The most common format
is the Red Book CD with 16-bits sampled at 44.1KHz. DSD recordings are
commercially available in 1-bit with a sample rate of 2.8224MHz. This
format is used for SACD and is also known as DSD64 or single-rate DSD.
There are more modern, higher-resolution 1-bit DSD formats, such as
DSD128, DSD256, and DSD512 as well as wide-DSD formats with 5-bit to
8-bit Delta-Sigma decoding which I will explain later. These formats
were created for recording studios and comprise only a very small
portion of the recordings which are commercially available.
Though you can’t make a direct comparison between the resolution of DSD
and PCM, various experts have tried. One estimate is that a 1-bit
2.8224MHz DSD64 SACD has similar resolution to a 20-bit 96KHz PCM.
Another estimate is that a 1-bit 2.8224MHz DSD64 SACD is equal to 20-bit
141.12KHz PCM or 24-bit 117.6KHz PCM.
In other words a DSD64 SACD has much higher resolution than a 16-bit
44.1KHz Red Book CD, roughly the same resolution as 24-bit 88.2KHz PCM
recording, and not as much resolution as a 24-bit 176.4KHz PCM
recording.
Both DSD and PCM are “quantized,” meaning numeric values are set to
approximate the analog signal. Both DSD and PCM have quantization
errors. Both DSD and PCM have linearity errors. And both DSD and PCM
have quantization noise that requires filtering at the output stage. In
other words, neither one is perfect.
PCM encodes the amplitude of the analog signal sampled at uniform
intervals (sort of like graph paper), and each sample is quantized to
the nearest value within a range of digital steps. The range of steps is
based on the bit depth of the recording. A 16-bit recording has 65,536
steps, a 20-bit recording has 1,048,576 steps, and a 24-bit recording
has 16,777,216 steps.
The more bits and/or the higher the sampling rate used in quantization,
the higher the theoretical resolution. So a 16-bit 44.1KHz Red Book CD
has 28,901,376 sampling points each second (44,100 x 65,536). And a
24-bit 192KHz recording has 32,212,254,000,000 sampling points each
second (192,000 x 16,777,216). This means 24-bit 192KHz recordings have
over 111,455 times the theoretical resolution of a 16-bit 44.1KHz
recording. No small difference.
So why is it that HD recordings sound only slightly better than a 16-bit
44.1KHz recordings made from identical masters? Later in this blog I’ll
explain the difference between theoretical and actual resolution.
DSD encodes music using pulse-density modulation, a sequence of
single-bit values at a sampling rate of 2.8224MHz. This translates to 64
times the Red Book CD sampling rate of 44.1KHz, but at only one
32,768th of its 16-bit resolution.
In the above graphical representation of PCM as a dual axis
quantization, and DSD as a single axis quantization, you can see why the
accuracy of DSD reproduction is so much more dependent on the accuracy
of the clock than PCM. Of course, the accuracy of the voltage of each
bit is just as important in DSD as PCM, so the regulation of the
reference voltage is equally important in both types of converters.
Of course the accuracy of the clocking during the recording process
which is done at several times the resolution of commercial DSD64 SACD
and 16-bit 44.1KHz PCM recordings is significantly more important than
the accuracy of the clocking of either DSD or PCM during playback.
There are other DSD formats which use higher sampling rates, such as
DSD128 (aka Double-Rate DSD), with a sampling rate of 5.6448MHz; DSD256
(aka Quad-Rate DSD), with a sampling rate of 11.2896MHz; and DSD512 (aka
Octuple-Rate DSD), with a sampling rate of 22.5792MHz. And most modern A
to D and D to A Delta-Sigma converters do multibit wide-DSD with 5-bits
to 8-bits decoding in parallel. All of these higher-resolution DSD
formats were intended for studio use as opposed to consumer use, though
there are some obscure companies selling recordings in these formats.
Note that Double, Quad, and Octuple DSD have both the potential for a
44.1KHz multiple and a 48KHz multiple sample rate for 100% equal
division down to DSD64 SACD and 44.1KHz Red Book (both 44.1KHz
multiples) or 96KHz and 192KHz High-Definition PCM formats (both 48KHz
multiples).
Of course when studios convert a 48KHz multiple format to a 44.1KHz
multiple format or visa versa they introduce quantization errors. Sadly
this is often the case with older recordings when they are released in a
remastered 24-bit 192KHz HD version derived from DSD64 masters, such as
the ones Sony and other companies used to archive their analog masters
in the mid-90's. Note that the optimal HD PCM format which can be
created from a DSD64 master would be 24-bit 88.2KHz. Any sampling rate
over 88.2KHz or that is equally divisible by 48KHz would have to be
interpolated (not good). But consumers demand 24-bit 192KHz versions of
all their old favorites, so companies provide them, despite the known
consequences.
The Problems:
There are three major areas where both PCM and DSD fall short of
perfection: quantization errors, quantization noise, and non-linearity.
Quantization errors can occur in several ways. One way which was most
common in the early days of digital recording had to do with the
resolution being too low. Think of the intersection points on a piece of
graph paper. You can’t quantize to a fraction of a bit, and you can’t
quantize to a fraction of a sampling rate. You can only quantize to a
value which falls on the intersection points of bit-depth and sampling
rate. When the value of the analog signal falls between two quantization
values, the digital recording ends up recreating the sound lower or
higher in volume and/or slower or faster in frequency, distorting the
time, tune, and amplitude of the original music. Often this creates
unnatural, odd harmonics which result in the hard, fatiguing sound
associated with early digital recordings. Note on the graphic below that
the solid blue line represents the actual music wave and the black dots
represent the closest quantization values.
Though modern sampling rates are high enough to fool the human ear,
quantization errors still occur when translating from one format to
another. For example, when Sony decided to archive their analog master
libraries to DSD64 back in 1995, they were wrong to believe that these
masters would be future-proof and able to reproduce any consumer format.
The fact is, these masters could only properly reproduce a format that
was divisible by 44.1KHz. So any modern 96KHz or 192KHz recording
created from DSD64 master files have quantization errors.
This leads me to one of the many things that enrage me about the
recorded entertainment industry. If 44.1KHz was the standard which was
engineered to put aliasing errors in less critical audio frequencies,
then why did they start using multiples of 48KHz?!?!?!? All they had to
do was go with 88.2KHz and 176.4KHz as the modern HD consumer formats,
and all of this mess could have been avoided. They made DXD, a 24-bit
352.8KHz studio format, equally divisible by 44.1KHz. What blithering
idiot decided to put a wrench in the works with 96KHz and 192KHz HD
audio?!?!?!?
The actual reason for the 48KHz multiple has to do with optimal
synchronizing to video. So it makes sense to have sound tracks from
movies recorded in a 48KHz multiple, such as the 24-bit 96KHz format
embedded into 7.1 channel audio on DVDs and Blu-Rays. But since over 90%
of all music recordings are sold in a 44.1KHz for Red Book CD or DSD64
SACD it is rather ridiculous to offer any HD music in 96KHz or 192KHz as
opposed to the optimal 88.2KHz and 176.4KHz HD formats. But because
naive consumers wrongly believe that the higher the sampling rate the
higher the fidelity they demand 192Khz falsely believing it is better
than 176.4KHz, so that is what record companies market.
Quantization noise is unavoidable. No matter what format you digitize
in, ultrasonic artifacts are created. The more bits you have, the lower
the noise floor. Noise floor is lowered by roughly 6db for each bit. So
as you can imagine, 1-bit DSD has significantly more ultrasonic noise
than even 16-bit PCM. This is part of why wide-DSD formats with 5-bit to
8-bit parallel Delta-Sigma decoding were created. With PCM, you have to
deal with significant noise at the sampling frequency. This is why Sony
and Philips engineered the Red Book CD to sample at 44.1KHz, which is
over twice the human high-frequency hearing limit of 20KHz.
Since quantization noise is present around the sampling frequency of a
PCM recording, a 44.1KHz recording has quantization noise one octave
above the human hearing limit of 20KHz. This quantization noise needs to
be filtered out, so all DACs have a low-pass filter at the output.
Because the quantization noise is only one octave above audibility the
filters used have a very steep slope so as to not filter out desirable
high frequencies. These steeply sloped low-pass digital filters are
commonly known as "brick wall" filters. This is why there can be an
advantage in playing 44.1KHz PCM upsampled to 88.2KHz or 176.4KHz.
Though you hear a lot about "brick wall" filters causing an audible
distortion in the top end of early Red Book CD players , the fact is
that was only a small part of the reason early Red Book CDs and players
had an unnatural sounding top end. Most of the hard, harsh, unnatural
sounding high frequencies in early digital had more to do with flaws in
the power supplies and flaws in the recording process, not "brick wall"
filters.
Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble, but despite what many
audiophiles may believe, less than one person in a thousand can hear
anything above 20KHz as a child and there is almost no one over the age
of 40 who can hear much above 15KHz.
Of course DSD64 is another story: above 25KHz the quantization noise
rises sharply, requiring far more sophisticated filters and/or
noise-shaping algorithms. See graphic below. When you filter the output
of DSD64 with a simple low-pass filter, the result is distorted
phase/time and some rather nasty artifacts in the audible range. The
solution is noise-shaping algorithms which move the noise to less
audible frequencies and/or higher sampling rates. This is why
Double-Rate DSD and Quad-Rate DSD formats came into being. This is also
why advanced player software, such as JRiver,
offers Double-Rate DSD output. Using player software that upsamples
DSD64 to DSD128 or DSD256 significantly improves performance by putting
the digital artifacts octaves above audibility allowing more advanced
noise-shaping algorithms and less severe digital filters. Note these
extremely high sampling frequencies are why ultra accurate clocking is
more important in the playback of DSD than PCM recordings.
Jitter is defined as inconsistencies in playback frequency caused by
inaccurate clocking. The result is observable as distortion of the time
and tune of the music. Often the pattern of the inconsistency of
frequency can result in an analog wave form that has an unnatural odd
harmonic frequency. This results in the fatiguing character commonly
known as “digititis.” Note in the two graphs below: jitter is an
inconsistency in the horizontal time axis and non-linearity is an
inconsistency in the vertical amplitude axis.
Jitter occurs when the converter’s clock rate is inconsistent and
non-linearity can occur when the converter's reference voltage is
inconsistent. This is why we are hearing so much about “super clocks”
and “femto clocks.” The more accurate the clock, the more accurate the
analog output. This is also why ultrahigh-performance R-2R DACs, such as
Mojo Audio’s Mystique, have a way to adjust the voltage of the most-significant-bit (MSB) at the zero crossing to optimize linearity.
The Myth of Pure DSD:
Despite the marketing hype, there are almost no pure DSD recordings
available to consumers. This is partially because up until quite
recently there was no way to edit, mix, and master DSD files. So most
pure DSD recordings which are commercially available are those recorded
direct to DSD without any post-production. There are some new studio
software packages which can edit, mix, and master in DSD, but these are
quite rare in the industry, and mostly used by small boutique recording
companies. Most DSD recordings are in fact, edited, mixed, and mastered
in PCM and then converted back to DSD. The marketing hype DSD flow chart
you see below rarely exists anywhere but in theory. Yikes…the secret is
out.
There are several generations and levels of quality in purely digital
DSD recordings. The least pure are DSD recordings made from old PCM
masters. Many of these PCM masters had low resolution as well as
significantly higher quantization errors and lower linearity than modern
PCM recordings. Since you can never get better than the original
masters, these DSD recordings sound as bad as or worse than the original
low-resolution PCM masters. The purest common DSD recordings come from
modern DSD masters which are recorded in 5-bit to 8-bit Wide-DSD, which
is in fact a 5-bit to 8-bit parallel Delta-Sigma encoding.
As you can see from the above flow chart, most commercially available
DSD recordings have to be converted back and forth to a PCM format in
order to do post-production editing, mixing, and mastering. In each of
these conversions, more quantization noise and/or quantization errors
are added to the recording. For that reason they created these inaudible
resolution 24-bit and Wide-DSD formats with insanely high sampling
rates. The higher the resolution during editing, mixing, and mastering,
the lower the digital noise in the audible spectrum when these
recordings are downsampled to commercially available formats.
It is quite unlikely that any or many of recording studios that are
currently using Wide-DSD for editing, mixing, and mastering will ever
upgrade to software that can edit, mix, and master in true DSD, since
DSD is in fact an obsolete format. Even Sony no longer supports DSD and
SACD. The modern format which recording studios will likely be upgrading
to would be MQA, which compresses much better than DSD or PCM for
streaming and decodes to PCM formats, such as 24-bit 88.2KHz. That is
why HD music streaming services such as Qobuz and Tidal
are switching over to MQA for their ultra-HD selections. So with the
invention of MQA compression, PCM is quickly becoming the preferred HD
music format.
Another common marketing myth about DSD vs. PCM is that when blind
listening tests were done comparing DSD to PCM, there was a consensus
that PCM had a fatiguing quality and DSD had a more analog-like quality.
This was proved to be total marketing BS. One way that marketing lie
was perpetuated was with hybrid SACDs which have DSD64 and 16-bit
44.1KHz PCM on the same disk. The DSD64 tracks have over 30 times the
resolution of the 16-bit 44.1KHz tracks so that they could make DSD
sound better than PCM in comparisons. The truth is that in recent blind
studies they've proved that high-resolution PCM and DSD are
statistically indistinguishable from one another. Considering that
nearly all DSD recordings were edited, mixed, and mastered in PCM, it is
no wonder.
Then there are the differences in the ways DAC chips work. Most modern
DAC chips are Delta-Sigma which decode native DSD. R-2R DAC chips decode
native PCM. In order for you to play PCM files on a Delta-Sigma DAC or
DSD files on an R-2R DAC the files have to be converted in real time.
Most modern Delta-Sigma DAC chips can decode multiple file formats,
including PCM, DSD, and Wide-DSD. When they are decoding PCM, a
Delta-Sigma DAC chip has to first convert it into DSD, the chip's native
format. Another reason for the common misconception that DSD performs
better than PCM has to do with the poor quality of the real-time PCM to
DSD converters built into native DSD Delta-Sigma DACs. Since R-2R ladder
DAC chips can only decode PCM formats some DAC manufacturers use chips
or FPGAs at the input stages of their DACs which convert DSD to PCM.
But no R-2R DAC chip can decode DSD on its own.
In almost all cases I would recommend playing music files in the native
format which your DAC chip decodes. That would be PCM for an R-2R DAC
chip and DSD for a Delta-Sigma DAC chip. There are several brands of
player software on the market which have real-time PCM to Double-Rate
DSD converters. HQ Player is one of the most sophisticated player software packages on the market today. HQ Player
can be configured for real-time PCM to DSD conversion as well as
real-time DSD upsampling to Double, Quad, Octuple, and even higher rate
DSD formats. Using player software that is capable of converting PCM to
DSD and upsampling it to at least Quad-Rate DSD is highly recommended.
Summary:
Well, all that’s a real ear opener, isn’t it?
When people claim to hear significant differences between PCM and DSD it
is not the difference between the formats that they are hearing, but
most often the difference in the quality of the digital remastering or
the native format their specific DAC decodes. Delta-Sigma DACs decode
native DSD and R-2R DACs decode native PCM.
Keep in mind that most recordings are engineered to sound best on a car
stereo or portable device as opposed to on a high-end audiophile system.
It’s a well-known fact that artists and producers will often listen to
tracks on an MP3 player or car stereo before approving the final mix.
The quality of the recording plays a far more significant role than the
format or resolution it is distributed in. But to increase profits, many
modern recording studio executives insist that errors be edited out in
post-production, significantly compromising the quality of the original
master tapes. So no matter what format these recordings are released in,
the music will always sound mediocre, since you can never have higher
performance than what is on the original masters.
In contrast, some of my favorite digital recordings were digitally
mastered from 1950s analog recordings. Many of these recordings were
done as a group of musicians playing in a room with one take per track
and no post-production editing. Though these recordings have much higher
background noise being limited by old-school pre-Dolby 60dB dynamic
range master tape, they retain an organic character and in-the-room
harmonic cues that can't be duplicated any other way.
Hear It for Yourself:
Are you curious about the potential of digital-to-analog conversion?
No noise-shaping, upsampling, or oversampling algorithms.
MSB zero-crossing voltage adjustment circuitry to optimize linearity.
Perfectly bit-aligned left and right channel hardware-based demultiplexing.
Direct-coupled with no output capacitors or transformers to distort phase and time or narrow bandwidth.
LC choke-input power supplies, which unlike capacitive power supplies, store both current and voltage.
The Mystique
is in a class by itself. Explosive micro-dynamics combined with
harmonically coherent micro-details reveal the true time, tune, tone,
and timbre of the original musical performance.
With Mojo Audio’s 45-day no-risk audition you can hear the Mystique DAC
for yourself, in your own system, with no-risk and no restocking fees.
Experience all the harmonic coherency and emotional content digital
music is capable of delivering.
If you like what you've read in this blog and are interested in getting more free tips and tricks, check out the rest of my blogs on our website. Also, sign up for our e-newsletter to get more useful info as well as discount coupons, special offers, and first looks at new products.
The loudness war (or loudness race) is a trend of increasing audio levels in recorded music, which reduces audio fidelity and—according to many critics—listener enjoyment. Increasing loudness was first reported as early as the 1940s, with respect to mastering practices for 7-inch singles.[1] The maximum peak level of analog recordings such as these is limited by varying specifications of electronic equipment along the chain from source to listener, including vinyl and Compact Cassette players. The issue garnered renewed attention starting in the 1990s with the introduction of digital signal processing capable of producing further loudness increases.
With the advent of the compact disc (CD), music is encoded to a digital format with a clearly defined maximum peak amplitude. Once the maximum amplitude of a CD is reached, loudness can be increased still further through signal processing techniques such as dynamic range compression and equalization. Engineers can apply an increasingly high ratio of compression to a recording until it more frequently peaks at the maximum amplitude. In extreme cases, efforts to increase loudness can result in clipping and other audible distortion.[2] Modern recordings that use extreme dynamic range compression and other measures to increase loudness therefore can sacrifice sound quality to loudness. The competitive escalation of loudness has led music fans and members of the musical press to refer to the affected albums as "victims of the loudness war". History[edit]
The practice of focusing on loudness in audio mastering can be traced back to the introduction of the compact disc,[3] but also existed to some extent when the vinyl phonograph record was the primary released recording medium and when 7-inch singles were played on jukebox machines in clubs and bars. The so-called wall of sound (not to be confused with the Phil SpectorWall of Sound) formula preceded the loudness war, but achieved its goal using a variety of techniques, such as instrument doubling and reverberation, as well as compression.[4]
Jukeboxes became popular in the 1940s and were often set to a predetermined level by the owner, so any record that was mastered louder than the others would stand out. Similarly, starting in the 1950s, producers would request louder 7-inch singles so that songs would stand out when auditioned by program directors for radio stations.[1] In particular, many Motown records pushed the limits of how loud records could be made; according to one of their engineers, they were "notorious for cutting some of the hottest 45s in the industry."[5] In the 1960s and 1970s, compilation albums of hits by multiple different artists became popular, and if artists and producers found their song was quieter than others on the compilation, they would insist that their song be remastered to be competitive.
Because of the limitations of the vinyl format, the ability to manipulate loudness was also limited. Attempts to achieve extreme loudness could render the medium unplayable. Digital media such as CDs remove these restrictions and as a result, increasing loudness levels have been a more severe issue in the CD era.[6] Modern computer-based digital audio effects processing allows mastering engineers to have greater direct control over the loudness of a song: for example, a brick-wall limiter can look ahead at an upcoming signal to limit its level.[7]Three different releases of ZZ Top's song "Sharp Dressed Man" show increasing loudness over time: 1983–2000–2008.[8]
The stages of CD loudness increase are often split over the decades of the medium's existence. 1980s[edit]
Since CDs were not the primary medium for popular music until the late 1980s, there was little motivation for competitive loudness practices then. The common practice of mastering music for CD involved matching the highest peak of a recording at, or close to, digital full scale, and referring to digital levels along the lines of more familiar analog VU meters. When using VU meters, a certain point (usually −14 dB below the disc's maximum amplitude) was used in the same way as the saturation point (signified as 0 dB) of analog recording, with several dB of the CD's recording level reserved for amplitude exceeding the saturation point (often referred to as the "red zone", signified by a red bar in the meter display), because digital media cannot exceed 0 decibels relative to full scale (dBFS).[citation needed] The average RMS level of the average rock song during most of the decade was around −16.8 dBFS.[9]: 246 1990s[edit]
By the early 1990s, mastering engineers had learned how to optimize for the CD medium and the loudness war had not yet begun in earnest.[10] However, in the early 1990s, CDs with louder music levels began to surface, and CD levels became more and more likely to bump up to the digital limit,[note 1] resulting in recordings where the peaks on an average rock or beat-heavy pop CD hovered near 0 dBFS,[note 2] but only occasionally reached it.[citation needed]
The concept of making music releases "hotter" began to appeal to people within the industry, in part because of how noticeably louder some releases had become and also in part because the industry believed that customers preferred louder-sounding CDs, even though that may not have been true.[11] Engineers, musicians, and labels each developed their own ideas of how CDs could be made louder.[12] In 1994, the first digital brick-wall limiter with look-ahead (the Waves L1) was mass-produced; this feature, since then, has been commonly incorporated in digital mastering limiters and maximizers.[note 3] While the increase in CD loudness was gradual throughout the 1990s, some opted to push the format to the limit, such as on Oasis's widely popular album (What's the Story) Morning Glory?, whose RMS level averaged −8 dBFS on many of its tracks—a rare occurrence, especially in the year it was released (1995).[10]Red Hot Chili Peppers's Californication (1999) represented another milestone, with prominent clipping occurring throughout the album.[12] 2000s[edit]Waveform envelopes comparison showing how the CD release of Death Magnetic (top) employed heavy compression resulting in higher average levels than the Guitar Hero downloadable version (bottom)
By the early 2000s, the loudness war had become fairly widespread, especially with some remastered re-releases and greatest hits collections of older music. In 2008, loud mastering practices received mainstream media attention with the release of Metallica's Death Magnetic album. The CD version of the album has a high average loudness that pushes peaks beyond the point of digital clipping, causing distortion. This was reported by customers and music industry professionals, and covered in multiple international publications, including Rolling Stone,[13]The Wall Street Journal,[14]BBC Radio,[15]Wired,[16] and The Guardian.[17]Ted Jensen, a mastering engineer involved in the Death Magnetic recordings, criticized the approach employed during the production process.[18] When a version of the album without dynamic range compression was included in the downloadable content for the video game Guitar Hero III, copies of this version were actively sought out by those who had already purchased the official CD release. The Guitar Hero version of the album songs exhibit much higher dynamic range and less clipping than those on the CD release, as can be seen from the illustration.[19]
In late 2008, mastering engineer Bob Ludwig offered three versions of the Guns N' Roses album Chinese Democracy for approval to co-producers Axl Rose and Caram Costanzo. They selected the one with the least compression. Ludwig wrote, "I was floored when I heard they decided to go with my full dynamics version and the loudness-for-loudness-sake versions be damned." Ludwig said the "fan and press backlash against the recent heavily compressed recordings finally set the context for someone to take a stand and return to putting music and dynamics above sheer level."[20] 2010s[edit]
In March 2010, mastering engineer Ian Shepherd organised the first Dynamic Range Day,[21] a day of online activity intended to raise awareness of the issue and promote the idea that "Dynamic music sounds better". The day was a success and its follow-ups in the following years have built on this, gaining industry support from companies like SSL, Bowers & Wilkins, TC Electronic and Shure as well as engineers like Bob Ludwig, Guy Massey and Steve Lillywhite.[22] Shepherd cites research showing there is no connection between sales and loudness, and that people prefer more dynamic music.[4][23] He also argues that file-based loudness normalization will eventually render the war irrelevant.[24]
One of the biggest albums of 2013 was Daft Punk's Random Access Memories, with many reviews commenting on the album's great sound.[25][26] Mixing engineer Mick Guzauski deliberately chose to use less compression on the project, commenting "We never tried to make it loud and I think it sounds better for it."[27] In January 2014, the album won five Grammy Awards, including Best Engineered Album (Non-Classical).[28]
Analysis in the early 2010s suggests that the loudness trend may have peaked around 2005 and subsequently reduced, with a pronounced increase in dynamic range (both overall and minimum) for albums since 2005.[29]
Mastering engineer Bob Katz had argued that "The last battle of the loudness war has been won", claiming that mandatory use of Sound Check by Apple would lead to producers and mastering engineers to turn down the level of their songs to the standard level, or Apple will do it for them. He believed this would eventually result in producers and engineers making more dynamic masters to take account of this factor.[30][31][32]
Earache Records reissued much of its catalog as part of its "Full Dynamic Range" series, intended to counteract the loudness war and ensure that fans hear the music as it was intended.[33] 2020s[edit]
By the late 2010s/early 2020s, most major U.S. streaming services began normalizing audio by default.[34] Target loudness for normalization varies by platform: Audio normalization per streaming serviceServiceLoudness (measured in LUFS) Amazon Music −13 LUFS[35] Apple Music −16 LUFS[35] SoundCloud −14 LUFS[35] Spotify −14 LUFS, −11 and −19 available in premium[36][37] Tidal −14 (default) or −18 LUFS[38][35] YouTube −14 LUFS[39]
Measured LUFS may further vary among streaming services due to differing measurement systems and adjustment algorithms. For example, Amazon, Tidal, and YouTube do not increase the volume of tracks.[35]
Some services do not normalize audio, for example Bandcamp.[35] Radio broadcasting[edit]
When music is broadcast over radio, the station applies its own signal processing, further reducing the dynamic range of the material to closely match levels of absolute amplitude, regardless of the original recording's loudness.[40]
Competition for listeners between radio stations has contributed to a loudness war in radio broadcasting.[41] Loudness jumps between television broadcast channels and between programmes within the same channel, and between programs and intervening adverts are a frequent source of audience complaints.[42] The European Broadcasting Union has addressed this issue in the EBU PLOUD Group with publication of the EBU R 128 recommendation. In the U.S., legislators passed the CALM act, which led to enforcement of the formerly voluntary ATSC A/85 standard for loudness management. Criticism[edit]
In 2007, Suhas Sreedhar published an article about the loudness war in the engineering magazine IEEE Spectrum. Sreedhar said that the greater possible dynamic range of CDs was being set aside in favor of maximizing loudness using digital technology. Sreedhar said that the over-compressed modern music was fatiguing, that it did not allow the music to "breathe".[43]
The production practices associated with the loudness war have been condemned by recording industry professionals including Alan Parsons and Geoff Emerick,[44] along with mastering engineers Doug Sax, Stephen Marcussen, and Bob Katz.[5] Musician Bob Dylan has also condemned the practice, saying, "You listen to these modern records, they're atrocious, they have sound all over them. There's no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like—static."[45][46] Music critics have complained about excessive compression. The Rick Rubin–produced albums Californication and Death Magnetic have been criticised for loudness by The Guardian; the latter was also criticised by Audioholics.[47][48]Stylus Magazine said the former suffered from so much digital clipping that "even non-audiophile consumers complained about it".[10]
Opponents have called for immediate changes in the music industry regarding the level of loudness.[46] In August 2006, the vice-president of A&R for One Haven Music, a Sony Music company, in an open letter decrying the loudness war, claimed that mastering engineers are being forced against their will or are preemptively making releases louder to get the attention of industry heads.[6] Some bands are being petitioned by the public to re-release their music with less distortion.[44]
The nonprofit organization Turn Me Up! was created by Charles Dye, John Ralston, and Allen Wagner in 2007 with the aim of certifying albums that contain a suitable level of dynamic range[49] and encourage the sale of quieter records by placing a "Turn Me Up!" sticker on certified albums.[50] As of 2019, the group has not produced an objective method for determining what will be certified.[51]
A hearing researcher at House Ear Institute is concerned that the loudness of new albums could possibly harm listeners' hearing, particularly that of children.[50] The Journal of General Internal Medicine has published a paper suggesting increasing loudness may be a risk factor in hearing loss.[52][53]
A two-minute YouTube video addressing this issue by audio engineer Matt Mayfield[54] has been referenced by The Wall Street Journal[55] and the Chicago Tribune.[56] Pro Sound Web quoted Mayfield, "When there is no quiet, there can be no loud."[57]
The book Perfecting Sound Forever: An Aural History of Recorded Music, by Greg Milner, presents the loudness war in radio and music production as a central theme.[12] The book Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science, by Bob Katz, includes chapters about the origins of the loudness war and another suggesting methods of combating the war.[9]: 241 These chapters are based on Katz's presentation at the 107th Audio Engineering Society Convention (1999) and subsequent Audio Engineering Society Journal publication (2000).[58] Debate[edit]
In September 2011, Emmanuel Deruty wrote in Sound on Sound, a recording industry magazine, that the loudness war has not led to a decrease in dynamic variability in modern music, possibly because the original digitally recorded source material of modern recordings is more dynamic than analogue material. Deruty and Tardieu analyzed the loudness range (LRA) over a 45-year span of recordings and observed that the crest factor of recorded music diminished significantly between 1985 and 2010, but the LRA remained relatively constant.[29] Deruty and Damien Tardieu criticized Sreedhar's methods in an AES paper, saying that Sreedhar had confused crest factor (peak to RMS) with dynamics in the musical sense (pianissimo to fortissimo).[59]
This analysis was also challenged by Ian Shepherd and Bob Katz on the basis that the LRA was designed for assessing loudness variation within a track while the EBU R128 peak to loudness ratio (PLR) is a measure of the peak level of a track relative to a reference loudness level and is a more helpful metric than LRA in assessing overall perceived dynamic range. PLR measurements show a trend of reduced dynamic range throughout the 1990s.[60][61]
Debate continues regarding which measurement methods are most appropriate to evaluating the loudness war.[62][63][64]
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war Examples of "loud" albums[edit]
Most songs on streaming services are compressed files, meaning songs don’t sound as vibrant or complete.Photo by Henry Phillips
When you stream music, you lose one of the best parts about listening to a new album: diving into the booklet that comes with a CD.Cambridge Audio
