Extracting music from multi-channel discs

[ted_b]

Jimfisheye and others,
Why the DSD to PCM conversion? I mean, yes, if all you have is PCM playback, but many of us have DSD-capable dacs. What am I missing here; the conversion is lossy (kudos for describing the "least lossy" way of doing it). Summary: I am not seeing anyone talk about leaving DSD as DSD and it is misleading.

 

[ssully]

Actually I wrote that the Foobar SACD ISO converter plugin allows you to 'leave DSD as DSD' as an option.

Not that I would ever do this, though I typically like to leave formats 'as is'.

DSD is a hugely space-wasteful format for reasons that are utterly inaudible except when it distorts your system;
SACD players are supposed to apply a lowpass filter (typically at 100kHz or 50kHz) anyway at output to keeps gobs of ultrasonic hash (the stuff that can 'distorts your system' in the worst case scenario) out of the downstream playback chain ;
and DSD is not nearly as broadly supported as PCM.

No one should feel any rational qualms about converting DSD to PCM -- it's what it was designed for.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Jimfisheye and others,
Why the DSD to PCM conversion? I mean, yes, if all you have is PCM playback, but many of us have DSD-capable dacs. What am I missing here; the conversion is lossy (kudos for describing the "least lossy" way of doing it). Summary: I am not seeing anyone talk about leaving DSD as DSD and it is misleading.

For me, I rip the stereo layer of SACDs as well and I convert them to FLAC. If I want to play those rips in my car, (and I often do), leaving them as DSD isn't an option. Also, I initially experimented with leaving the surround tracks as DSD when I first started ripping disks. I couldn't play them gapless, which bugs me more than it probably should. The gapless issue may well be equipment dependent however.

 

[jimfisheye]

Jimfisheye and others,
Why the DSD to PCM conversion? I mean, yes, if all you have is PCM playback, but many of us have DSD-capable dacs. What am I missing here; the conversion is lossy (kudos for describing the "least lossy" way of doing it). Summary: I am not seeing anyone talk about leaving DSD as DSD and it is misleading.

Easy answer for me. There was no way in hell I was interested in spending $$$$ for a sideways move into DSD converters! Basically reinventing the wheel to achieve the same level of DAC I was used to. (Apogee that is.) The transcode form DSD to PCM is virtually lossless. That leads to really requiring DSD DA converters of the same quality to equal the playback of the converted DSD to PCM files on my Apogees.

Now if this was a case of PCM being the "Betamax" and DSD being "VHS" (assume Beta wasn't superior for this bad analogy please) and all DAW apps were releasing new versions that only worked with DSD and interface makers were retiring PCM devices and so forth, then I might be inclined to sell the PCM hardware and switch gears. That didn't happen of course. Sony gave up on their proprietary digital language rewrite that is DSD and went right back to HD PCM for bluray when everyone told them to get bent. (Remember their willful dishonesty with always trying to compare DSD to low def PCM at 44.1k and further with 16 bit sample size? They were pretending that HD sample rates and 24 bit sample size in PCM didn't exist.)

DSD can rightly die!
But until then, we can transcode DSD to PCM and retain full fidelity. The transcode is more lossless than a PCM sample rate conversion from HD to SD. Like a sample rate conversion, any difference wiggles are down below -100db. You hear silence at any monitor volume that is non life threatening. A/B sounds identical.

If you DID invest in DSD DA converters, yes leave your files in DSD format! Further, you can transcode convert your PCM to DSD to get the benefit of your better DA converters for all your files. Same as I wrote above but reverse the terms. PCM and DSD are literally identical quality formats. Just a different decoder ring to read the ones and zeros. It all rests on the quality of the analog stages in your AD or DA converters just like comparing PCM DA converters to other PCM DA converters using the same digitizer chip set. And as always in these shootouts, don't be fooled by loudness! Work that volume control.

When you hear something that isn't merely a difference in volume between two sources, it's someone's mastering presentation. Are there examples of better mastered albums available in DSD format than releases of the same in PCM? Of course there are! (Because of course there has to be annoying crap like that just because!) But hey, it IS just as full fidelity a format and we still get the music at the end of the day. The situation is just annoying.

 

[ted_b]

Jimfisheye, there is so much misinformation in your last post I can't even summarize. DSD and PCM couldn't be more different. One is a digital format, the other a stream (like FM), that is difficult to edit, let alone sweeten. They require VERY different approaches. And converting from one to the other is in NO way "virtually lossless".

But...I collect and love all things that are hirez, PCM or DSD. Asking one to die is to kill a goose that lays pretty damn good eggs

Ssully, we'll have to agree to disagree. DSD was not invented to convert to PCM. LOL I guess. Space-wasteful? Well, you haven't downloaded multichannel DSD256 then...it is space eating!! But space is cheap.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

They require VERY different approaches. And converting from one to the other is in NO way "virtually lossless".

I have to say, with my less-than-state-of-the-art system I cant tell the difference between a 24/88.2 FLAC and the DSD source it came from. And I tried quite a bit early on. YMMV of course.

If you consider the conversion from DSD to PCM as lossy, wouldn't the original encode from PCM to DSD also be lossy to the same extent, all else being equal? I mean, I'm not sure if I have even a single native DSD recording. Native DSD is mostly a classical niche isn't it? So why do the initial PCM to DSD conversion at all? Sony certainly gave up on it many years ago.

 

[jimfisheye]

@ted_b
Both DSD and PCM are digitally encoded formats. Both present the original analog signal to digitizer chips. The result is a code made of ones and zeros that can be reconstructed into analog waveforms again by the decoder DA converter. DSD is not an analog stream or modulated (eg frequency modulated) or otherwise altered analog stream in any way shape or form.

If you're interested...
The samples are discrete in PCM. The samples are the change values from one sample to the next in DSD. It's actually nearly the same data set (when you compare to 24 bit at 88.2k) and can transcode back and forth if you mind the levels. Try it yourself! Null tests with audio don't lie and nulls sure as heck don't come about by coincidence!
PCM is subject to clock jitter. DSD is more subject to hysteresis but also clock jitter. Clock jitter is nearly a moot point nowadays. So it data loss going so wild to result in hysteresis in a DSD system.

Just to be clear, I have zero issues with the QUALITY of the DSD container! It's every last bit as full fidelity as HD PCM. I rage against the creation of an alternate language for no improvement that's designed to restrict content and force proprietary hardware sales. It's purely that.

 

[ssully]

Jimfisheye, there is so much misinformation in your last post I can't even summarize. DSD and PCM couldn't be more different. One is a digital format, the other a stream (like FM), that is difficult to edit, let alone sweeten. They require VERY different approaches. And converting from one to the other is in NO way "virtually lossless".

You'd best tell that to Sony and Phillips. They designed DSD for the purpose of archiving. Consumer releases were planned to be audibly transparent conversions from DSD-->PCM. It's why DSD sample rates are even multiples of 44.1. The decision to released DSD in yet another new and unwieldy physical consumer medium (SACD) had much to do with the enhanced copy protection available to SACD.
.

Ssully, we'll have to agree to disagree. DSD was not invented to convert to PCM.

This is not a matter of opinion or 'disagreement'. It's history. Apparently the person harboring misinformation is you

 

[Jabwylie1968]

How do you Rip to native audio format?

I've used MakeMKV and DVDAExtractor to rip most of my non-sand DVD/BR audio .

However , with Atmos gaining popularity I'd like to rip the audio to it's native format rather than FLAC , namely Dolby True HD 7.1 so I can 'hopefully' retain the Atmos element

Have I missed something in DVDAE? can I extract and save as the same format I'm extracting ?

 

[sjcorne]

Have I missed something in DVDAE? can I extract and save as the same format I'm extracting ?

Select "Direct Stream Demux" as your output format.

 

[gene_stl]

I didn't see this, referred to , anywhere on this thread.
The best thread I have seen on this topic is here;

Rip SACD with a Blu-ray player

It is now 120 pages and 2400 posts. The reason it is so long is the moderator of that thread Mikey Fresh helps each and every person who asks a question. He is very knowledgeable about computers (seems to me like an IT pro of some kind) including Macs.

 

[Sal1950]

It is now 120 pages and 2400 posts. The reason it is so long is the moderator of that thread Mikey Fresh helps each and every person who asks a question. He is very knowledgeable about computers (seems to me like an IT pro of some kind) including Macs.

Yes but please read thru the first half dozen pages or so, plus use the search function to see if you can't find the answer yourself. Probably 90% of all questions have been asked and answered already. TIA
Sal

 

[JonUrban]

I didn't see this, referred to , anywhere on this thread.
The best thread I have seen on this topic is here;

Rip SACD with a Blu-ray player

It is now 120 pages and 2400 posts. The reason it is so long is the moderator of that thread Mikey Fresh helps each and every person who asks a question. He is very knowledgeable about computers (seems to me like an IT pro of some kind) including Macs.

Here too!

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/sacd-to-iso-with-oppo-pioneer-bd-players.22388/

 

[Jabwylie1968]

Select "Direct Stream Demux" as your output format.

View attachment 59828

Thanks soo much , excellent

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Select "Direct Stream Demux" as your output format.

Will that preserve the Atmos metadata? What type of file does it output?

Edit: I guess DTS -MA would give a .DTS file .... Duh!!!

 

[MagnumX]

Jimfisheye, there is so much misinformation in your last post I can't even summarize. DSD and PCM couldn't be more different. One is a digital format, the other a stream (like FM), that is difficult to edit, let alone sweeten. They require VERY different approaches. And converting from one to the other is in NO way "virtually lossless".

But...I collect and love all things that are hirez, PCM or DSD. Asking one to die is to kill a goose that lays pretty damn good eggs

Ssully, we'll have to agree to disagree. DSD was not invented to convert to PCM. LOL I guess. Space-wasteful? Well, you haven't downloaded multichannel DSD256 then...it is space eating!! But space is cheap.

You'd best tell that to Sony and Phillips. They designed DSD for the purpose of archiving. Consumer releases were planned to be audibly transparent conversions from DSD-->PCM. It's why DSD sample rates are even multiples of 44.1. The decision to released DSD in yet another new and unwieldy physical consumer medium (SACD) had much to do with the enhanced copy protection available to SACD.
.




This is not a matter of opinion or 'disagreement'. It's history. Apparently the person harboring misinformation is you

My god. This is a bit like like discovering Monster Island and seeing Godzilla for the very first time.


Analog streams like FM.....

Now laserdisc (Discovision) actually did have analog streams available for it stored by laser. I don't know anyone that thought it was superior to the digital PCM that came later, however. I'm sure a high-end analog format could be made using blue lasers and a higher rate analog stream to disc (I'd prefer a Mini-Disc style holder and smaller disc but using Blue lasers for a higher fidelity analog version of the laserdisc sound in a smaller fingerprint proof format that could not be copied without converting to digital (something many audiophiles despise with a blind passion...or is it a deaf passion?). Actually, I've been thinking what a great format it would make to sell to audiophiles seeing as how most still think the LP is superior to most or even all forms of digital. That glowing analog sound covered in surface noise and the occasional static pop is compromised! A Blu-Wave (my name for analog Blu-Rays) would have none of those issues and of course, we could charge people $100 an album and audiophiles would gladly pay it because most only have a few dozen albums to demonstrate their $20k DACs and $10k turntables anyway. The record companies would love it since it couldn't be easily duplicated in analog form except perhaps on an industrial scale. I'm honestly surprised the industry never thought of it sooner.

Blue-Wave Analog! Who wants it?

 

[ted_b]

Deleted

 

[jimfisheye]

The misnomer of thinking DSD was an analog format aside...

Return to analog storage concepts? I think some radical new design concept would need to appear. At this point we find ourselves able to make machines that can read very large strings of ones and zeros very fast and with perfect accuracy. Even though turning audio and other data into codes of ones and zeros creates a gargantuan amount of those codes, this turns out to be easier to build than a precision device that can preserve the original analog domain detail down into the decimal dust throughout the process.

This is kind of a wild creative system we ended up with! It would have REALLY had to show an advantage to ever begin to entertain! And... it did! So here we are. Put the hard part of the encode on one end and the other hard part of decoding on the other end. Then just shuttle ones and zeros around in between.

We've been running with this for 30 years now and improvement ideas are still focused on this kind of a system. I don't even mean to sing praises or not. The results speak for themselves. Something analog with data nuance that would be better sounds like a pretty big stretch right now! Preserving nuance would need to get easier than shuttling ones and zeros around quickly.

And of course this is all coming out of a conversation over a misunderstanding of one of the digital data formats to begin with.

 

[MagnumX]

The misnomer of thinking DSD was an analog format aside...

Return to analog storage concepts? I think some radical new design concept would need to appear. At this point we find ourselves able to make machines that can read very large strings of ones and zeros very fast and with perfect accuracy. Even though turning audio and other data into codes of ones and zeros creates a gargantuan amount of those codes, this turns out to be easier to build than a precision device that can preserve the original analog domain detail down into the decimal dust throughout the process.

Thou surely missest my point. The point is audiophiles will buy almost anything that is analog if marketed properly and Blue-Wave Audio will be an analog wet dream. Small disc without surface noise or clicks/pops or tape hiss. It will be at least as good as 1982 digital, but marketed towards people who believe in Santa Claus. (i.e. Look how vinyl is on the rise again, selling more than CDs now). We just need a really good mass media puff piece!

Analog is BACK! With a Vengeance!!! (And best of all you can't copy it without converting to digital and "ruining" its yummy analog caramel center!)

 

[gene_stl]

I have been totally gorging myself on used classical CDs at Half Price Books. Their clearance bins and tent sales sell CDs for 2.00 or .50/1.00 respectively. Discs end up in those locations by virtue of sitting in the store too long. Nothing to do with the publisher or content. Accordingly I have gotten , at those prices,, Fancy CDs from Fancy labels. I am firmly of the opinion that in the near future CDs will make the same kind of comeback that LPs have made. Save your Dixie Cups, the south will rise again!

I do hope to rip many of them , and am in the process of setting up for file based playing, and understand those that never want to handle any disc again.
But some of us like having something physical, maybe with pictures, art, "liner notes" etc.

I don't think that CDs are better than HiRes but they ARE very good , in spite of what naysayers have said since they came out. There are valid arguments about early digital mastering but most of the complainers were either trying to sell something or had never heard high frequencies before.

The abuses of audio marketing people and companies are arguments against freedom of speech.