DSD Vs PCM
I wanted to put in my 'two cents worth' regarding DSD vs PCM, which is brought to mind by the article written by Christine Tham.
Gene et al are rightly focused on measured results as a means to determine performance for a given product or technology. In the quest to better understand the technical characteristics of PCM vs DSD, or DVD-audio vs SACD, articles such as Christine's are really informative. Could it be that the graphs which show spiking or a higher noise floor for DSD are signals representing ambient or spatial noise information that is missing in the PCM formats?
My experience so far is this - I have listened to state of the art PCM/CD reproduction systems, either with DAC and transport combined in one case as in most CD players, or systems where DAC and transport are seperated. I have owned several CD players myself, including the very good Sony SCD-XA777ES such as Christine's. I have two speaker systems; the $7,500.00 Polk audio RT5000 Cinema system, and flagship KEF Reference 107s for serious audio listening.
I first experienced SACD for the first time about two and a half years ago.
For me, it was nothing short of a revalation. Articles have discussed how some listeners are not so impressed, perhaps expecting 'huge' differences rather than subtle ones. This puzzles me. I'm darned, but if you ask me, you'd have to be slightly hearing impaired not to hear the very noticable difference between the DSD and PCM technologies. DSD technology, with its far higher bit rate transfer allows a great deal more information to be recorded on disc and replayed by a compatible player. Overall the result is much more dynamic, a much fuller more rounded presentation of instruments, voice, and soundstage. Subtle but important ambient information that was previously unable to be recorded due to bandwidth limitations in in PCM technology is captured using DSD, with the result of producing a more faithful rendition of the original recording. I still love my 'redbook' CD collection and my CD player, And with some material I just like the way my CD player sounds. But SACD produces a more accurate representation of the music - there's no doubt about it.
I can say with confidence that I am not just hearing things, because my fiancee had a similar reaction to myself, and she did not know she was listening to SACD. I sat her down on the couch, and put on some music. She is not an audiophile per say but truly loves music. Her first reaction was, "my God this sounds so real, as if the performers are right there in front of you..."
It seems to me that there is a natural reluctance for many audiophiles to let go of older, more familiar technologies, or to admit that their 20K CD player can be bettered by a 2K SACD player. I have some such friends who've not even tried SACD yet - is this living in denial or what!
I would guess that any flaws people may hear are probably attributable to the current capability of lower grade consumer players rather than the core technology itself. You will probably remember the same comments during the first few years of PCM/CD technology when many players seemed to be excessively bright in the mid-range, and somewhat lacking in spatial soundstage as compare to the best turntables.
Another big roadblock to DSD becoming established as the new benchmark standard has to be the lack of available software to consumers. They've got to get more recordings out there before people are comfortable with a complete transition.
If you want to get a taste of how good SACD really is, try listening to BB King's album - Reflections......
Best,
O'Shag