ONE Music project

I suspect that it’s not done in the Sonoma hardware at all, but is a process in the editing software or a separate utility. It’s simple in principle: low pass filter the DSD stream to, say, 21000Hz with a FIR and then decimate. It is amazing how many people manage to mess it up, but the Sonoma system doesn’t.

So, does this mean that it makes sense to do a DSD/PCM comparison between the tracks?

If the PCM is just a transcode from the DSD material a comparison makes no sense, however if they are output from the workstation (hardware or onboard editor) into two different formats from the same Master it becomes interesting.

I am using a dB meter for volume matching.

I guess I don’t know the distinction you are driving at. Most SACDs (and more certainly SACDs from Sony) use SBM (Super Bit Map) which is a carefully designed DSD decimation algorithm to produce the 16/44.1 PCM layer. SBM can also be used to produce all of the standard PCM outputs from 16/44.1 to 24/192. Tho I don’t know if the program Gus used is exactly SBM I’m sure it’s similar if not. There are some subtleties that can make a difference - DSD can temporarily go above 0dB FS and CDs can’t and when going to 16 bits dither is important: I’m not sure exactly how these are handled by the converters in question. Contrary to Elk’s statement above I’ve never found that the DSD layer of an SACD was on average a higher level than the CD layer, the peaks are certainly greater, but the average level of the PCM is the same in my experience.

I have had problems using a dB meter in the past to set levels - I got different relative levels depending on the different weightings used in the meter and/or the material being used to set the levels. I suspect that the problem was more the SACD players being used at the time instead of the meters or the source material, but don’t jump to any conclusions without many tests.

Ted Smith said . . . I've never found that the DSD layer of an SACD was on average a higher level than the CD layer, the peaks are certainly greater, but the average level of the PCM is the same in my experience.
I admit to only spot checking, but have found many SACDs were the DSD layer is higher in level than the Redbook. I listen almost exclusively to classical recordings. The difference in level is often most apparent in quiet sections with room sound. After verifying multiple times that the level is higher I have become very cynical of the manufacturers' efforts to convince us that the DSD layer is better than PCM.

Of course the difference is most apparent in quiet sections - DSD has 24 more dB of resolution than CDs. It takes something like classical with dramatic differences in loudness from section to section for that difference in resolution to become most apparent. I’ve heard a lot of people complain that tracks were purposefully lower in SACDs to make them look better than CDs when the truth (at least in most cases) is that DSD has more dynamic range and that that extra range is quite useful in things like classical music, etc. SACD is better in these cases precisely because you still get a lot more definition in those quiet places than on CDs: At least with modest CD players, all of those details in the quiet places are lost or muddled. Now we know that a good CD player can lessen these differences, but IMO the differences between the CDs layer and DSD layer on SACDs are usually because the SACD is mastered in DSD to sound the best and therefor the CD layer suffers at times. Even so the general consensus seemed to be that CDs that were remastered in DSD ended up sounding better than most of the previous CD offerings mastered with other technologies.

My world view is “Never ascribe to malevolence what can adequately be explained by mere incompetence.” That’s perhaps an over statement of the situation, but all of the DSD mastering engineers that I know want both the DSD and the CD layers to be their best and have more integrity than to stoop to cheating the CD layer to bolster the DSD layer. They believe the benefits of DSD can stand on their own.

I forgot to mention that another way that comparisons go wrong is that a lot of audio dB meters don’t limit the measured frequencies to the audio band and they get falsely high readings from DSD due to the higher ultrasonic noise. I did a lot of waveform comparisons early on in my DSD DAC project and on disks which used the same mastering for the CD and DSD layers I never encountered a systematic level difference. I did encounter some SACD players which had slight (or not so slight) level differences between their PCM and DSD outputs, especially those players that had two separate output paths.

Ted Smith said “Never ascribe to malevolence what can adequately be explained by mere incompetence.”
An excellent approach. I like this.

The DSD layer definitely sounds better, as well as appears louder. It certainly could seem louder if the signal is cleaner. I also had not considered ultrasonic noise. I will have to review the documentation and/or synthesize some high frequency tracks to see what registers.

Ted Smith said I guess I don't know the distinction you are driving at.
I guess I have some problems explaining myself since English is not my native language, but here is an example.

Let say you download a dsd album from a hirez download site and use a transcoding program (DSD to PCM) to make a PCM version of that very dsd album. Are we all in agreement that it makes little sense to do an A/B test between the two and then conclusively claim that dsd sounds better than pcm still if they both came from the same Master?

Wouldn’t it be a different ballgame to have the Master on the Sonoma WS and then:

Alt.1: Master the source to DFF format

Alt.2: Master the source to PCM format

Finally, make a disc (and download option) = ONE PS

I am just trying to understand which scenario that is the best (and correct, if destinctions differs).

It might be that my understanding of the Mastering process is fundamentally wrong, though…

You can’t win at that level. If there’s a difference between mastering separately and using a transcoding program, then that difference can be justly attributed to the differences in mastering. On the other hand most people seem to want two versions of the same material both mastered identically to compare formats - I try to point out to them that any SACD that use SBM meets that definition - we have thousands available - they are mostly clearly labeled as such and the ONE Music disc is very probably done identically to many other SACDs. SBM is probably the best way to transcode from DSD to PCM in that Sony spent a lot of time and money developing it to do the best job that they knew how to do and they market it as a critical step in mastering CDs via DSD tools - you can find quite a few CDs out there that proudly claim to be mastered from DSD via SBM (and for some reason a lot of those aren’t available in SACD ?)

In my opinion the only way to compare two formats is to use hundreds of examples where you know every step in the recording and processing - and you know that care was taken to so the best job possible at each step. I believe I’ve done that: I don’t expect anyone to take my word about which is better, but unlike quite a few people I’ve put my money where my mouth is. The same can be said about a lot of people that professionally do recording, mixing and/or mastering. Once again IMO, trusting one of them is probably the best that most people can do.

ONE Music appears to be a perfect source for comparison files of DSD, high resolution PCM, and CD. They are all sourced from the same master file and carefully transcoded. I sufficiently trust the transcoding process to conclude this is a fair comparison.

The only other option I can think of is to split a stereo microphone feed of the musicians playing to two separate recording setups, one DSD and one PCM, make no changes other than to set identical levels, and distribute the resulting files. But by doing so, you are more likely comparing the recording chains more than the formats.

The only additional data point I can offer is that I prefer the sound when I record in DSD than PCM. Unfortunately, I cannot use a DSD recording. I need to edit and master the recording which requires transcoding to PCM , and my clients do not want a DSD file, they want a CD. Some also like receiving a high resolution PCM file, but only because my contact or a musician or two has the capability to play high resolution files.

Great Idea.

I listened to all the tracks and there’s only one I would want to own.

dan said Great Idea.

I listened to all the tracks and there’s only one I would want to own.


I agree i bought the download and love the quality but the content is not great, there is not one of the tracks that I felt any emotional response to.

I figure there has to be many great artists that would love to be recorded and published.

i want ed to support the project and see what the SQ was like but next time i will take a more critical listen to the content before i spend $35

I put the ONE Music Data DVD in my PWT and after attempting to read it, it says Invalid Disc. I put the DVD in my computer and it shows the 10 .wav files (176k/24 bit) and a DSD folder that has the 10 .dsf files in it. This is the first time that I have tried to paly a DVD with .wav files on it.

The PWT manual says

only those DVDs recorded with WAV files can be played. WAV files of up to 24 bit 192kHz can be played without a problem. The DVD must have been recorded using the UDF 2.0 system.

Do I have a problem with my PWT, or was the ONE Music DVD not recorded using the UDF 2.0 system? Properties for the DVD show File system: UDF.

My Oppo Blu-ray player recognized the DVD, but I was unable to play any of the files on it.

bstanwick said

My Oppo Blu-ray player recognized the DVD, but I was unable to play any of the files on it.

Correction. My Oppo BDP-83SE won't recognize the .wav files on the DVD (no files listed), but my BDP-93 will see and play the .wav files.

I, too, put the DVD in my PWT and received the “Invalid Disc” display. However, if I hit “play” the CD will play and the DSD shows PCM input at 176/24. I do not have Fast Forward or Track Selection functionality.

The SACD disc plays with all functionality at PCM 44/16.

I verified that I can play the DVD disc, and also that only Play, Pause and Stop work. That means being stuck listening to the entire disc from start to finish without being able to skip ahead to a specific track.

Can anyone who has burned their own DVD of .wav files verify that none of the track selection keys work?

I’d like to hear these tracks. unfortunately I paid and wasn’t able to download them in 3 attempts.

The ONE project has driven a certain cable engineer over the edge to the digital dark side. He will be purchasing a DS DAC from Paul soon.

Eeeeeexcelent…devil_gif

I verified that I can play the DVD disc, and also that only Play, Pause and Stop work. That means being stuck listening to the entire disc from start to finish without being able to skip ahead to a specific track.

Can anyone who has burned their own DVD of .wav files verify that none of the track selection keys work?

I’ve made several hundred vinyl rips to DVD using .wav files and the track selection feature works on the PWT.

matthewnz said

I’ve made several hundred vinyl rips to DVD using .wav files and the track selection feature works on the PWT.


So why is it that this DVD from PS Audio comes up as an Invalid Disc, and the track selection buttons on the remote (Next, Previous and digit buttons) do not work? Does anyone from PS Audio care to comment?

emailists said I'd like to hear these tracks. unfortunately I paid and wasn't able to download them in 3 attempts.
Did Sean ever get back to you on this? Did you order a physical disc as well?