DSD vs. PCM Recording
Ella Fitzgerald "Black Coffee"
Let No Man Write My Epitaph
(Verve - Classic Records Reissue)
Crosby, Stills, and Nash "Helplessly Hoping"
(Atlantic - Classic Records Reissue)
Beethoven "Symphony No.7"
(Decca - HiQ Records Supercuts)
World’s First Valid Comparison of PCM versus
Recently the introduction of computers into home audio playback systems has made possible
an unforeseen occurrence — the reintroduction of DSD, the modulation scheme used in
Sony’s failed format of SACD from the turn of the millennium.
At the end of the 1990s as the CD patents were expiring, so was a huge revenue stream for
Sony and Philips, developers of the Compact Disc format. Anxious to replace the CD with
another exclusive format that would also generate licensing income, Sony and Philips
tried again with the Super Audio Compact Disc or SACD. In the meantime, none of the other
hardware manufacturers were having any of it. They all saw the explosive growth of DVD as
the wave of the future and wanted to base any new format on DVD. Thus began one of the
most bizarre chapters in the history of audio formats.
They say that the function of time is to prevent everything from happening all at once.
For a while it seemed that time had broken. First the lossy compression of MP3 was
developed to allow streaming of audio over low-bandwidth internet connections. This soon
led to massive piracy (politely referred to as “file sharing”) and also made possible
ultra-compact portable music players that could hold thousands of songs.
While Sony and Philips worked on the SACD, almost all of he other major audio
manufacturers worked together to make a DVD disc specialized for music. By fudging the
numbers to the point of mendacity Sony claimed an implied performance of 100 kHz
bandwidth with a dynamic range of 120 dB. The only way to fight these totally misleading
numbers was with numbers as big or bigger, which forced the DVD-Audio disc (as it came to
be known) to be incompatible with the millions of DVD players that the early adopters had
Then a teenaged Norwegian hacker broke the encryption method used in DVD. This put the
fear of God into the record companies, who (almost certainly inaccurately) blamed “file
sharing” on dwindling record sales. So Sony promised the record companies that SACDs
would never be playable on computers, by building special transport mechanisms that
modulated the width of the laser pits and bumps.
There was one thing that both camps agreed on completely, and which they were completely
wrong about. Since surround sound had been such a hit for DVDs in home theater setups,
they were sure that any future music format had to have surround sound to succeed. The
iPod disproved that notion completely.
There was some overlap in the need for text for lyrics and or album cover art, which
DVD-Audio gave more attention to than did SACD. But for the audiophile, only one question
mattered. Which format sounded better?
It was a good question. Sony was doing fantastically well at the time and spent millions
of dollars promoting their format, first by hiring top-level engineers Ed Meitner (now
with EMM Labs) and Andreas Koch (now with Playback Design) to build the original machines
used to make the original SACD recordings for release. This equipment was owned by Sony
and loaned at no charge to any major studio that wanted to make a high-quality disc that
was, in essence, copy-proof, and not able to be shared.
But the DVD-Audio camp was a committee of over a dozen large companies that could agree
on very little. And so like the kitchen with far too many chefs, the product that emerged
tried to be all things to all people and didn’t really resonate with any group. It was so
complex to operate that it required a video monitor to navigate a confusing menu just to
start the disc playing, let alone select a specific song.
Furthermore there was no single entity organizing the roll-out of DVD-Audio. The first
releases were made by specialty audiophile labels that only spent a few hundred dollars
on their recording hardware. When doing battle head-to-head against the juggernaut led by
Sony, it was several years before any serious releases were made by any of the major
But the problem was a classic chicken-and-egg problem. Nobody could sell enough software
to realize a profit until a critical mass of hardware was sold. Neither format appealed
to any group in large numbers and virtually every title ever made in either format lost
money. So it wasn’t long before both formats withered on the vine.
Cut forward a half decade and the introduction of the asynchronous USB DAC by Gordon
Rankin o Wavelength Audio suddenly made computer-based audio a real and still-growing
market force that continues to gain momentum. Adding higher resolutions, such as 96/24
and 192/24 was trivial with this new hardware model. Many claimed that a $100 hard disk
drive gave better playback fidelity than a $50,000 optical disc reader. With the growth
of high speed internet lines, downloading large audio files became a reality so that one
needn’t even leave the house to purchase new music.
Then in 2006 Sony made an unexpected move. Since SACD was a clear failure, they
introduced a format called “DSD-Disc”, which was basically an SACD but playable in a
computer by leaving out a layer of content protection. To my knowledge not a single one
of these discs has been made or sold, but it did open the door to make and sell DSD
Ever since Sony’s early (convoluted and self-contradictory) marketing claims about the
performance advantage of DSD, backed by the fact that their multi-million dollar budget
was generally able to make better sounding products than the disorganized renegades that
released DVD-Audio, many, many audiophiles have believed that DSD is inherently superior
At the highest levels of audio engineers there has been little consensus as to which
format sounds better, but most audiophiles have had first-hand experience with SACDs
generally sounding better than DVD-Audio disc. So the prospect of being able to play
downloadable DSD files via computer has led to a great deal of excitement, even
controversy in the audiophile community. This article aims to sort out some of these
All through 2013 a small infrastructure has been built and is slowly growing to record,
distribute, and play downloadable DSD files. Now it is well known from a technical
standpoint that there are many, many technical drawbacks of the DSD format when compared
1) Standard DSD has low noise levels in the audio band. But at 20 kHz the noise rises
sharply, leading to one of Sony’s more obviously amusing marketing contradictions. On the
one hand they say that its extended bandwidth leads to a more natural presentation of
high frequencies in the music, but on the other hand, they say that the high amounts of
high frequency noise doesn’t matter because it is inaudible. I suppose the answer to that
question depends on which marketing person you are speaking to on any particular day...
However it does cause serious problems when recording with the techniques that have
become commonplace over the last fifty years or more. Any time that the signal is
manipulated, more and more noise is added to the signal. These high-frequency noises can
lead to damage of downstream equipment including amplifiers and loudspeakers. Therefore
the official Sony specification (the “Scarlet Book”) specifies a third-order low-pass
filter starting at 50 kHz, and the actual usable frequency response of SACD doesn’t
extend much beyond 30 kHz.
To minimize this problem in professional gear, most DSD recordings today are made at
double the rate of the DSD used on SACDs. This was modulated at 64x the CD frequency so
is often called DSD-64, while the professional equipment running at double this rate is
often called DSD-128. While this reduces some problems it introduces others, such as
doubling of the file size and of course the download times and storage space required.
2) Since DSD is a one-bit format it is literally impossible to perform any signal
manipulation at all — even a fade-out. So to perform recording in the modern methods
where signals are mixed, EQ’d faded, reverb added, et cetera, all of the DSD signals must
first be transcoded into PCM (or analog) signals, then the signal processing applied, and
finally re-modulating the signal back into DSD, adding another layer of high-frequency
3) Except for the microphones, amplifiers, and loudspeakers, all of the equipment in both
the recording and playback chain must be replaced with new hardware that can accommodate
this new form of modulation.
We can see that DSD has quite a few strikes against from the very start. So the only
justification for it whatsoever would be for the hard-core audiophile, and this would
only be in the case if DSD could provide audibly superior sound quality over PCM. So to
settle this issue once and for all, for the first time available to the general public,
Ayre has made available a series of recordings in both DSD and PCM that allow the
listener to judge for him or herself if there are any audible advantages to DSD.
We have made three short (to avoid legal problems) “needle drop” recordings with the Ayre
QA-9 Analog-to-Digital converter and posted them on our website. If you have the
appropriate equipment, you can download them, play them back and judge for yourself which
sounds better and by how much.
Please note that the signal path for the recordings were identical. The analog source
a) A DPS zero-clearance main bearing turntable.
b) A Benz LP-S moving coil cartridge.
c) A DPS unipivot tonearm with integral wiring from headshell to XLR connectors.
d) An Ayre P-5xe phono preamplifier.
e) A pair of balanced Ayre Signature series interconnects.
f) An Ayre QA-9 A/D converter.
g) Cardas Clear USB cable to Mac Book Pro
When switching between recording DSD or PCM, all of the internal hardware is identical.
All of the analog circuitry, power supplies, digital circuitry, converter chips, PCB
material , et cetera is 100% identical. The only difference in the algorithms used to
process the raw data from the Arda AT1201 ADC chip (6 bits at 256 Fs) either into DSD or
If you are fortunate enough to own either an Ayre DX-5-DSD or Ayre QB-9-DSD, then the
same is true for the playback also. There are no differences in the signal path
whatsoever except for the algorithms used in the ESS ES9016 Digital-to-Analog converter
chip. There is no way to make a more fair comparison.
I think that those who take the time to compare the sound quality of the playback to be
very illuminating, and should put to rest many of the myths that Sony created around DSD
when they first were trying to recapture the revenues lost by the expiring CD patents.
Please send comments to:
with the words “Format Comparison” in the subject line. We will publish the more
interesting ones and try to answer any questions that come up. Thank you for your
Ayre Acoustics, Inc.
Thanks to all of the Ayre team, especially Ariel Brown, who wrote the algorithms, Ryan
Berry who built the converters, and Alex Brinkman who made the recordings.