Should DSD audio have been supported? POLL

[ssully]

Actually the SACD was born as a retaliatory move from Sony over disc royalty agreements of the DVD and DVD-Audio.

I believe you have it backwards. DSD was created i the mid 1990s to archive recordings and make 'hi rez' new recordings (the first of which appeared in 1997, downconverted to CD). Sony's commercial division got wind of it and decided it would be the successor to CDs..which were being widely copied by then, whereas SACD was designed with very strong copy protection. The first SACD, the consumer media to hold DSD, was released in 1999 as was the first SACD player. The DVD Forum (Toshiba & co) refused to pay patent royalties to Sony/Philips, and thus launched DVD-A in retaliation. The first DVD-A appeared in 2000.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

I believe you have it backwards. DSD was created i the mid 1990s to archive recordings and make 'hi rez' new recordings (the first of which appeared in 1997, downconverted to CD). Sony's commercial division got wind of it and decided it would be the successor to CDs..which were being widely copied by then, whereas SACD was designed with very strong copy protection. The first SACD, the consumer media to hold DSD, was released in 1999 as was the first SACD player. The DVD Forum (Toshiba & co) refused to pay patent royalties to Sony/Philips, and thus launched DVD-A in retaliation. The first DVD-A appeared in 2000.

Not according to my talks with the co-inventor of the DVD-Audio, Mr. Bob Scheiner. Yes, DSD was being used to archive recordings, but the SACD as a format was a move of pure spite to prevent the DVD-Audio from succeeding. Apparently DVD-Audio was in works before the SACD. Notice how the minute labels gave up on DVD-Audio, Sony stopped pushing SACD from all angles...

 

[KG10]

Sometimes the consumer doesn't have a choice. I'm referring to SACD's from the likes of Dutton Vocalion, Audio Fidelity, Mobile Fidelity, etc. Some SACDs, of course, have a hybrid layer that allows a standard CD player to output the recording in PCM. And then, of course, you convert the digital file from DSD to PCM using various software options, such as foobar.

As an aside, record companies would prefer not to sell you a high resolution download as they feel that they are effectively selling you a master copy. You can then duplicate(and pirate) this without degradation from one copy to another.

Then what about hi res audio download sites like hdtracks, native dsd, etc?

 

[jimfisheye]

Sony stopped pushing SACD when they gave up on the world switching to DSD converters and they returned to PCM with bluray. I remember they got called out more than a few times intentionally degrading the audio on the CD layer to allow the DSD audio to sound higher fidelity. That really wasn't a good look.

 

[Sal1950]

DSD should go extinct as a consumer format. Certainly not taking up space on a BluRay set.

Amen.

As an aside, record companies would prefer not to sell you a high resolution download as they feel that they are effectively selling you a master copy. You can then duplicate(and pirate) this without degradation from one copy to another.

True, But that ship sailed when the first CD ripping software appeared decades ago. End of story and Thank God for it. If the record companies had their way we'd still be copying to Compact Cassettes.

 

[esimms86]

Amen.

True, But that ship sailed when the first CD ripping software appeared decades ago. End of story and Thank God for it. If the record companies had their way we'd still be copying to Compact Cassettes.

Some people still are. Lo fi has made a comeback. And, in parts of the underdeveloped world it never left.

 

[esimms86]

Then what about hi res audio download sites like hdtracks, native dsd, etc?

HDTracks has downloads as their sole source of revenue and they do not own the product that they sell. Same is true of NativeDSD. I was referring to companies who own the masters. Of course, now that streaming rules the day, the calculation has shifted. Also consider the fact that aging boomers are by far the largest segment of customers for downloads.

 

[KG10]

HDTracks has downloads as their sole source of revenue and they do not own the product that they sell. Same is true of NativeDSD. I was referring to companies who own the masters. Of course, now that streaming rules the day, the calculation has shifted. Also consider the fact that aging boomers are by far the largest segment of customers for downloads.

That makes sense and I assume mofi owns the dsd masters right?

 

[jimfisheye]

Then what about hi res audio download sites like hdtracks, native dsd, etc?

Yeah, how about when they put volume war edition masters in HD format to sell on HDTracks! HDTracks is notorious for this and never to be trusted without vetting the specific title first. They do sometimes have the actual goods.

HD is often a calling card for a high quality master. CD or streaming is often a calling card for lo-fi, volume war style harsh, lossy, or all of the above. You find volume war bluray discs and perfect masterful sounding CDs often enough though.

Again, all these formats can be really good. The flawed stuff is genuinely operator every time. (Or intentional marketing driven tactics to degrade item A to prop up item B.)

 

[esimms86]

Yeah, how about when they put volume war edition masters in HD format to sell on HDTracks! HDTracks is notorious for this and never to be trusted without vetting the specific title first. They do sometimes have the actual goods.

HD is often a calling card for a high quality master. CD or streaming is often a calling card for lo-fi, volume war style harsh, lossy, or all of the above. You find volume war bluray discs and perfect masterful sounding CDs often enough though.

Again, all these formats can be really good. The flawed stuff is genuinely operator every time. (Or intentional marketing driven tactics to degrade item A to prop up item B.)

I 100% agree with you about HDTracks. They also at various points have sold upsamples. Caveat emptor(buyer beware).

 

[esimms86]

That makes sense and I assume mofi owns the dsd masters right?

Mofi does not own the masters, rather, they receive a license for a limited release.

 

[KG10]

I 100% agree with you about HDTracks. They also at various points have sold upsamples. Caveat emptor(buyer beware).

Thank the lord for spek to expose those upscales.

 

[KG10]

Mofi does not own the masters, rather, they receive a license for a limited release.

So the DSD transfer of the master tape gets sent to them right?

 

[jimfisheye]

Sometimes it's undocumented exactly what path the audio took. You might want to look at it from this angle: These formats even allow for generational copies that are still so good they're nearly perfect clones of the audio. That's probably why some of these players take advantage of that sometimes. We really are getting the mastering work at hand in the end for good or bad.

 

[esimms86]

So the DSD transfer of the master tape gets sent to them right?

Actually, no. They generally work from the master tapes or, perhaps in some cases, a safety tape. They then work in PCM format since it's essentially not possible for an audio engineer to make adjustments to a DSD file. Once work with the PCM file is completed, the file is transferred to DSD format for production of an SACD.

 

[jimfisheye]

Pretty sure there are a few DSD DAW apps. Just nothing for advanced production like Reaper, Protools, or Logic.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Actually, no. They generally work from the master tapes or, perhaps in some cases, a safety tape. They then work in PCM format since it's essentially not possible for an audio engineer to make adjustments to a DSD file. Once work with the PCM file is completed, the file is transferred to DSD format for production of an SACD.

Well, you CAN make mastering adjustments in the pure analog domain before transfer to DSD, but yes DSD editing is very limited. Some albums have multiple stages of DSD -> PCM -> DSD conversions, like the Ryuichi Sakamoto remasters.

 

[JonUrban]

It's all buried in the forum somewhere, but DVD-Audio was supposed to be included in EVERY DVD player from the git-go, the birth of the DVD format, but some clowns over in Europe cracked the copy protection BEFORE the discs and players got to market, which caused the manufacturers to remove DVD-Audio from the first players, which pretty much sabotaged the format right out of the gate.

QQ forum member "jimby", from Universal, spoke about it, as did Neil Young, who was a big proponent of DVD-A at the start (but he's been a big proponent of lots of stuff then forgotten about it going forward).

SONY took the delay of DVD-A and created the SACD and got it to market in this time, so they were in fact first out, stereo only, but DVD-A was supposed to be a stereo and M/C format that was part of every video player at the start

 

[hafquark]

Yes, and if I remember correctly, due to the encryption mess DVD-A was delayed a full year from it's originally planned roll-out date.

 

[kfbkfb]

May be too much off topic, however:

IMHO, it's too bad that the DVD-Video spec didn't include the (very clever) DTS-HD idea with Dolby Digital - "DD-HD", then a DVD -Video with MCH audio would be compatible with the lowest end DVD-V players (which would process the DD 5.1 audio only) and higher end DVD-V players which would retrieve the "HD" difference data, allowing for lossless MCH audio (no need to develop DVD-A).

Anyway, I guess (back in the mid-1990s when the DVD-V specs were being debated) nobody thought of using a difference signal to convert lossy to lossless in a compatible way.


Kirk Bayne