Tweet
I asked Mr Hansen if i could share his thoughts on DSD that he posted elsewhere.
Here you go:
1) The only reason the DSD exists at all is because the patents for CD were expiring. This had been a HUGE bonanza for Sony and Phiips as the royalty per CD was onl $0.07, yet it added up to $1 BILLION per year. The costs of inventing the scheme had been written off decades earlier so this represented a massive profit center for Sony. They did NOT want to lose this profit.
2) At the same time, every other manufacturer was SICK of Sony/Philip making so much money while they received nothing. When the DVD standard was finalized, almost all of the major manufacturers owned some patents that were critical to the DVD concept, so they all wanted the format that replaced CD to be based on DVD, as they felt that the entire distribution of royalties was much more equitable.
3) As it turned out, the only viable physical format for a CD replacement was based on the DVD technology, using red laser of much shorter wavelengths than the IR lasers used in CD. So both SACD and DVD-Audio were based on the physical format of DVD. There wasn't enough time to develop anything else.
4) So now the two factions lined up against each other. Sony and Philips had the advantage of only having to align two companies, where as the DVD-Audio Working group was a GIANT committee with representatives from over two dozen companies having input.
5) Both groups felt that the key selling point for both formats would be multi-channel capability (surround sound) which would easily piggy back on to the booming home theater craze where everyone was purchasing mutli-channel systems.
6) There were a few voices (notably Pioneer, pushing for a higher fidelity standard of 96/24, which would give over double the bandwidth of CD.
7) Sony played one of their typical dirty tricks when they announced that DSD would play UP TO 100 kHz with a dynamic range of UP TO 120 dB. This is complete and utter bullshit, as the S/N ratio of DSD at 100 kHz is negative. If you look at a reasonable bandwidth of say 20 kHz to 100 kHz, there is MORE NOISE in the DSD system than there is total signal.
8) Once Sony raised that red herring, it was difficult to fight against. The DVD committee screwed up royally and decided to fight fake fire with real fire So they made Lossless compression a mandatory feature of DVD-Audio, and in the process lost ALL backwards compatibility with the hundreds of millions of DVD players that were already in use.
9) So DVD-Audio was now an orphan that required the customer to purchase a brand-new player for which no software existed. That was one of the turning points where DVD- Audio started to lose the war.
10) There were two other factors that greatly contributed to Sony gaining the PERCEPTION that SACD sounded better that DVD Audio:
a) They hired Andreas Koch and Ed Meitner to build ALL of the hardware required by the record companies required to make discs with a completely new modulation scheme. In contrast, DVD-Audio was like the old Wild West - no rules whatsoever and anything goes An SACD could not be made without a Sony trained and approved engineer on board the engineering team for making the recording. (99% were simply transfers of old analog classics.) Anybody could make DVD-Audio discs with easily available hardware and extremely low cost (eg, $39) software packages.
b) Completely by accident, SACD had a huge sonic advantage because it required no brickwall filter during recording and relatively gentle 3rd order analog filters during playback. At the time, very few people (if any) realized the degree of sonic degradation created by steep brickwall filters.
11) So when people started comparing the SACDs against either CD's or DVD-Audio discs. the combination of FAR BETTER hardware, along with FAR BETTER MASTERING, along with the (virtual) elimination of brickwall filters, most people said, "Aha! Sony is right! DSD is a better format than PCM!"
12) In the end, both formats flopped for different reasons. DVD-Audios generally required a video display just to navigate the menus. People didn't want to add a video display to their audio system. This was proven when we started shipping our C-5xe "universal" player. It was two channels only, so we lost the ENTIRE multi-channel crowd, but that turned out to be a drop in the bucket. The C-5xe was BY FAR the most successful product we had built up to that time. A consumer could buy it, not care about the "format wars" or who won or who lost -- they could just buy any software they wanted BECAUSE THEY LIKED THE MUSIC and didn't have to pay any attention to how it was recorded. If it was an audio disc, it would play and a video monitor was NOT required. We sold thousands of those things!
13) Eventually both formats died off for a very simple reason. Releasing a disc in EITHER format was a money losing proposition. If you release a disc and it makes money, you say, "Hey we just made $XXX,000! Let's do that again!" But that NEVER happened with either format. So after Sony' bribery money ran out, that was pretty much the end of SACD, and since the DVD-Audio committee was SO STUPID as to require a completely different player than a regular DVD player, it was also doomed to failure.
The sad part is that if they had just made DVD-Audio the same as DVD without a video section, we all could have been enjoying 2 channels of 96/24, or 5.1 multi channel all the way up to 48/24. And they would have played in ANY DVD player with (at the very most) a firmware update. But that's what happens when things are run by a committee.
14) The story would have ended there except for Gordon Rankin. He had been on parts of the USB committees over the years, and he made sure that USB had the ability to make a good audio data transfer link. So when he released his "Streamlength" asynchronous isochronous USB firmware, all of a sudden any computer made in the last ten years could serve as a transport of higher performance than ANY conventional S/PDIF transport EVER MADE! Ayre was the first licensee, and more people wanted solid state equipment than tubed equipment so we ended up setting a NEW sales record with that product. For 2-1/2 years, the least expensive product we had ever made (excluding accessories) made up over 40% of our revenue stream!
15) Now we have to split the story somewhat. First we will look at multi-channel PCM. Whilt it is TRIVIAL to record and make multi-channel PCM files for USB DACs, there is virtually no software available, very few software players that will handle it, and very few USB DACs are made with more than two channels. Essentially it is a solution waiting for a problem to solve. So we will leave that alone, except to say that if one thought it were a viable market, it would be trivially easy to make a 16-channel 192/24 USB playback system. But nobody really cares except a handfull of people that generally just purchase Blu-ray discs of live audio concerts.
16) Everything changed for DSD, when in 2006 Sony announced the "DSD Disc". This was essentially an SACD but without the copy protection that made it impossible to play on a computer. I first heard about it in 2008 (I think, I can't remember any more). I was seated next to Gus Skinas, who had been part of the Sony SACD team. His role was to be the liaison between the recording studios and the technical people at Sony who would loan out the hardware required to make an SACD. When he told me about it, I talked to Gordon Ranking about it and we said that it would be trivial to packetize the DSD stream so that it looked like PCM. But then we realized it was a fool's errand because the only source of software was to (illegally in this country) rip an SACD with one of the rare specific models of PlayStation 3s. So we said, "Screw it."
When Sony (who is facing HUGE financial troubles and has been for the last ten years) finally gave up on SACD, they gave the rights and all of the designs for the Sonoma Audio Workstation, which is basically the only way to make a modern SACD recording. The Sonoma turns the 64x 1-bit DSD signal into a 64x 8-bit signal, which has 256x the resolution of an SACD. So by turning the DSD signal into a very high speed PCM signal, they can now do things like adjust the volume, fade in or out, add EQ or reverb or compression or any number of things that have become mandatory in this day and age of multi-track recording.
The problem is that now Sony has to talk out of both sides of their mouth at once. They painted themselves into a LITTLE TEENSY CORNER because they said that one of the prime advantages of a one-bit system was that was always inherently linear. But when people found out the trught that probably less that 0.001% of all DSD recordings actually were transferred into PCM and then back to DSD, they look pretty damn stupid.
17) But there is the inescapable fact that DSD (in general) DOES NOT USE ANY BRICKWALL FILTERS and therefore it is MUCH easleri to get good sounding results from a DSD than from normal PCM. So there aer still a WHOLE bunch of people that (incorrectly) believe that DSD sounds "better" than PCM.
Then SOME of these people started record companies selling downloads of DSD recordings because now there is a way to play them on a computer and you DON'T have to worry about the laser burning out or the SPECIAL IRREPLACEABLE CHIP crapping out or any of that traditional problems with SACD.
18) But the truth is that there are still some HUGE problems with DSD, especially with regards to out of ban noise, the need to replace ALL of the studio's recording systems, DAW's (Digital Audio Workstation), and everything down the line. Then at the other end, the consumer has to find a disc player or computer DAC AND computer playback software that will handle this completely different modulations scheme.
Of course the question becomes WHY?
And the typical answer is that "DSD sounds better than PCM". Well, Ive got news for you. It can sound better. And it can sound worse. IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION.
19) We have recently introduced a two channel A/D converter that will output both PCM and DSD. But this converter has a few tricks up its sleeves. Specifically we have taken a page from the "What is so great about DSD" manual and applied it to PCM. And it turns out that with quad rate PCM you can get ALL OF THE SONIC ADVANTAGES OF DSD WITH NONE OF THE PRACTICAL DISADVANTAGES.
So we are literally on the verger of a whole new era of good sounding recordings. (YOU READ IT HERE FIRST!)
Go read John Atkinson's review of the QA-9 on the Stereophile website:
Ayre Acoustics QA-9 USB A/D converter | Stereophile.com
In it, he says that he ripped his best sounding LPs with the QA-9, and when he compared the copy with the original, he tried "until his ears bled" but could hear NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ANALOG ORIGINAL AND THE DIGITAL COPY.
Now this is something of a breakthrough. When the digital is SO GOOD that it is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the analog, we have transcended a barrier.
And this is ALL DONE with PURE PCM, which ANY STUDIO IN THE WORLD CAN HANDLE. No new hardware, no new software, no new nothing. Just better sounding music on PCM. And downloading quad rate PCM is trivial as HD Tracks has shown us all.
You can hear another original recording of an organ recording at:
John Marks Records - Jul Downloads
In another month or so we will have 4 downloads available of a purist recording using the QA-9 in quad-rate PCM mode with just two microphones in a nice hall in Berlin of a piano. These will be preludes by Debussy, played absolutely, stunningly beautifully by a soon-to be-famous pianist named Katie Mahan Gorgeous playing and gorgeous sound.
20) So the bottom line is NOT that you are an idiot if you like DSD. DSD can sound wonderful. But what I am saying is THERE IS NOTHING MAGIC ABOUT DSD. WE CAN GET ALL OF THE GOOD THINGS ABOUT DSD IN A HIGH SAMPLE RATE PCM RECORDING ALSO!
So its more like the difference between tubes and transistors It's hard to make a bad sounding tube amp or preamp. And is DAMNED hard to make a great sounding solid state amp or preamp.
Well, we have cracked the nut. There is NO LONGER ANY REASON to get all worked up over DSD. Every time we send out a A/D converter for trial, It never comes back. In another year or two, MANY releases will be made on the QA-9. And many releases will be made on ADCs where the engineers have stolen our ideas and applied them to their products. (Of course the copy is never as good as the original, but that is a different story altogether
I hope that clarifies things a bit
Here you go:
1) The only reason the DSD exists at all is because the patents for CD were expiring. This had been a HUGE bonanza for Sony and Phiips as the royalty per CD was onl $0.07, yet it added up to $1 BILLION per year. The costs of inventing the scheme had been written off decades earlier so this represented a massive profit center for Sony. They did NOT want to lose this profit.
2) At the same time, every other manufacturer was SICK of Sony/Philip making so much money while they received nothing. When the DVD standard was finalized, almost all of the major manufacturers owned some patents that were critical to the DVD concept, so they all wanted the format that replaced CD to be based on DVD, as they felt that the entire distribution of royalties was much more equitable.
3) As it turned out, the only viable physical format for a CD replacement was based on the DVD technology, using red laser of much shorter wavelengths than the IR lasers used in CD. So both SACD and DVD-Audio were based on the physical format of DVD. There wasn't enough time to develop anything else.
4) So now the two factions lined up against each other. Sony and Philips had the advantage of only having to align two companies, where as the DVD-Audio Working group was a GIANT committee with representatives from over two dozen companies having input.
5) Both groups felt that the key selling point for both formats would be multi-channel capability (surround sound) which would easily piggy back on to the booming home theater craze where everyone was purchasing mutli-channel systems.
6) There were a few voices (notably Pioneer, pushing for a higher fidelity standard of 96/24, which would give over double the bandwidth of CD.
7) Sony played one of their typical dirty tricks when they announced that DSD would play UP TO 100 kHz with a dynamic range of UP TO 120 dB. This is complete and utter bullshit, as the S/N ratio of DSD at 100 kHz is negative. If you look at a reasonable bandwidth of say 20 kHz to 100 kHz, there is MORE NOISE in the DSD system than there is total signal.
8) Once Sony raised that red herring, it was difficult to fight against. The DVD committee screwed up royally and decided to fight fake fire with real fire So they made Lossless compression a mandatory feature of DVD-Audio, and in the process lost ALL backwards compatibility with the hundreds of millions of DVD players that were already in use.
9) So DVD-Audio was now an orphan that required the customer to purchase a brand-new player for which no software existed. That was one of the turning points where DVD- Audio started to lose the war.
10) There were two other factors that greatly contributed to Sony gaining the PERCEPTION that SACD sounded better that DVD Audio:
a) They hired Andreas Koch and Ed Meitner to build ALL of the hardware required by the record companies required to make discs with a completely new modulation scheme. In contrast, DVD-Audio was like the old Wild West - no rules whatsoever and anything goes An SACD could not be made without a Sony trained and approved engineer on board the engineering team for making the recording. (99% were simply transfers of old analog classics.) Anybody could make DVD-Audio discs with easily available hardware and extremely low cost (eg, $39) software packages.
b) Completely by accident, SACD had a huge sonic advantage because it required no brickwall filter during recording and relatively gentle 3rd order analog filters during playback. At the time, very few people (if any) realized the degree of sonic degradation created by steep brickwall filters.
11) So when people started comparing the SACDs against either CD's or DVD-Audio discs. the combination of FAR BETTER hardware, along with FAR BETTER MASTERING, along with the (virtual) elimination of brickwall filters, most people said, "Aha! Sony is right! DSD is a better format than PCM!"
12) In the end, both formats flopped for different reasons. DVD-Audios generally required a video display just to navigate the menus. People didn't want to add a video display to their audio system. This was proven when we started shipping our C-5xe "universal" player. It was two channels only, so we lost the ENTIRE multi-channel crowd, but that turned out to be a drop in the bucket. The C-5xe was BY FAR the most successful product we had built up to that time. A consumer could buy it, not care about the "format wars" or who won or who lost -- they could just buy any software they wanted BECAUSE THEY LIKED THE MUSIC and didn't have to pay any attention to how it was recorded. If it was an audio disc, it would play and a video monitor was NOT required. We sold thousands of those things!
13) Eventually both formats died off for a very simple reason. Releasing a disc in EITHER format was a money losing proposition. If you release a disc and it makes money, you say, "Hey we just made $XXX,000! Let's do that again!" But that NEVER happened with either format. So after Sony' bribery money ran out, that was pretty much the end of SACD, and since the DVD-Audio committee was SO STUPID as to require a completely different player than a regular DVD player, it was also doomed to failure.
The sad part is that if they had just made DVD-Audio the same as DVD without a video section, we all could have been enjoying 2 channels of 96/24, or 5.1 multi channel all the way up to 48/24. And they would have played in ANY DVD player with (at the very most) a firmware update. But that's what happens when things are run by a committee.
14) The story would have ended there except for Gordon Rankin. He had been on parts of the USB committees over the years, and he made sure that USB had the ability to make a good audio data transfer link. So when he released his "Streamlength" asynchronous isochronous USB firmware, all of a sudden any computer made in the last ten years could serve as a transport of higher performance than ANY conventional S/PDIF transport EVER MADE! Ayre was the first licensee, and more people wanted solid state equipment than tubed equipment so we ended up setting a NEW sales record with that product. For 2-1/2 years, the least expensive product we had ever made (excluding accessories) made up over 40% of our revenue stream!
15) Now we have to split the story somewhat. First we will look at multi-channel PCM. Whilt it is TRIVIAL to record and make multi-channel PCM files for USB DACs, there is virtually no software available, very few software players that will handle it, and very few USB DACs are made with more than two channels. Essentially it is a solution waiting for a problem to solve. So we will leave that alone, except to say that if one thought it were a viable market, it would be trivially easy to make a 16-channel 192/24 USB playback system. But nobody really cares except a handfull of people that generally just purchase Blu-ray discs of live audio concerts.
16) Everything changed for DSD, when in 2006 Sony announced the "DSD Disc". This was essentially an SACD but without the copy protection that made it impossible to play on a computer. I first heard about it in 2008 (I think, I can't remember any more). I was seated next to Gus Skinas, who had been part of the Sony SACD team. His role was to be the liaison between the recording studios and the technical people at Sony who would loan out the hardware required to make an SACD. When he told me about it, I talked to Gordon Ranking about it and we said that it would be trivial to packetize the DSD stream so that it looked like PCM. But then we realized it was a fool's errand because the only source of software was to (illegally in this country) rip an SACD with one of the rare specific models of PlayStation 3s. So we said, "Screw it."
When Sony (who is facing HUGE financial troubles and has been for the last ten years) finally gave up on SACD, they gave the rights and all of the designs for the Sonoma Audio Workstation, which is basically the only way to make a modern SACD recording. The Sonoma turns the 64x 1-bit DSD signal into a 64x 8-bit signal, which has 256x the resolution of an SACD. So by turning the DSD signal into a very high speed PCM signal, they can now do things like adjust the volume, fade in or out, add EQ or reverb or compression or any number of things that have become mandatory in this day and age of multi-track recording.
The problem is that now Sony has to talk out of both sides of their mouth at once. They painted themselves into a LITTLE TEENSY CORNER because they said that one of the prime advantages of a one-bit system was that was always inherently linear. But when people found out the trught that probably less that 0.001% of all DSD recordings actually were transferred into PCM and then back to DSD, they look pretty damn stupid.
17) But there is the inescapable fact that DSD (in general) DOES NOT USE ANY BRICKWALL FILTERS and therefore it is MUCH easleri to get good sounding results from a DSD than from normal PCM. So there aer still a WHOLE bunch of people that (incorrectly) believe that DSD sounds "better" than PCM.
Then SOME of these people started record companies selling downloads of DSD recordings because now there is a way to play them on a computer and you DON'T have to worry about the laser burning out or the SPECIAL IRREPLACEABLE CHIP crapping out or any of that traditional problems with SACD.
18) But the truth is that there are still some HUGE problems with DSD, especially with regards to out of ban noise, the need to replace ALL of the studio's recording systems, DAW's (Digital Audio Workstation), and everything down the line. Then at the other end, the consumer has to find a disc player or computer DAC AND computer playback software that will handle this completely different modulations scheme.
Of course the question becomes WHY?
And the typical answer is that "DSD sounds better than PCM". Well, Ive got news for you. It can sound better. And it can sound worse. IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION.
19) We have recently introduced a two channel A/D converter that will output both PCM and DSD. But this converter has a few tricks up its sleeves. Specifically we have taken a page from the "What is so great about DSD" manual and applied it to PCM. And it turns out that with quad rate PCM you can get ALL OF THE SONIC ADVANTAGES OF DSD WITH NONE OF THE PRACTICAL DISADVANTAGES.
So we are literally on the verger of a whole new era of good sounding recordings. (YOU READ IT HERE FIRST!)
Go read John Atkinson's review of the QA-9 on the Stereophile website:
Ayre Acoustics QA-9 USB A/D converter | Stereophile.com
In it, he says that he ripped his best sounding LPs with the QA-9, and when he compared the copy with the original, he tried "until his ears bled" but could hear NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ANALOG ORIGINAL AND THE DIGITAL COPY.
Now this is something of a breakthrough. When the digital is SO GOOD that it is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the analog, we have transcended a barrier.
And this is ALL DONE with PURE PCM, which ANY STUDIO IN THE WORLD CAN HANDLE. No new hardware, no new software, no new nothing. Just better sounding music on PCM. And downloading quad rate PCM is trivial as HD Tracks has shown us all.
You can hear another original recording of an organ recording at:
John Marks Records - Jul Downloads
In another month or so we will have 4 downloads available of a purist recording using the QA-9 in quad-rate PCM mode with just two microphones in a nice hall in Berlin of a piano. These will be preludes by Debussy, played absolutely, stunningly beautifully by a soon-to be-famous pianist named Katie Mahan Gorgeous playing and gorgeous sound.
20) So the bottom line is NOT that you are an idiot if you like DSD. DSD can sound wonderful. But what I am saying is THERE IS NOTHING MAGIC ABOUT DSD. WE CAN GET ALL OF THE GOOD THINGS ABOUT DSD IN A HIGH SAMPLE RATE PCM RECORDING ALSO!
So its more like the difference between tubes and transistors It's hard to make a bad sounding tube amp or preamp. And is DAMNED hard to make a great sounding solid state amp or preamp.
Well, we have cracked the nut. There is NO LONGER ANY REASON to get all worked up over DSD. Every time we send out a A/D converter for trial, It never comes back. In another year or two, MANY releases will be made on the QA-9. And many releases will be made on ADCs where the engineers have stolen our ideas and applied them to their products. (Of course the copy is never as good as the original, but that is a different story altogether
I hope that clarifies things a bit
Comment