In Reply to: DSD vs. PCM preferences. posted by Phil W on January 15, 2007 at 16:40:29:
I enjoy great sound quality as much as anyone, but I think there are other, more important, factors that determine how good a recording will sound, such as the hall (or studio) used, number and placement of microphones, whether compression or limiting was used, the particular type of EQ employed, and who-knows-what other kinds of knob-twiddling that go on in the production room.And the predilections of recording producers/engineers for a particular type of sound quality should not be overlooked. For example, in LP days I could easily determine what a particular recording would sound like by looking at who the producers/engineers were. EMI's team of Christopher Bishop (producer) and Christopher Parker (engineer) could always be relied upon to produce recordings of wonderful warmth and spaciousness. I also noticed that recordings produced by Suvi Raj Grubb (also EMI) tended to be much less warm and leaned toward the strident side. On RCA, the Dellheim/Keville team usually produced great results, while the Mohr/Salvatore team were less consistent, especially with recordings with the BSO in the mid/late 60's. Today, the producers and engineers aren't as well known as they used to be (Michael Bishop of Telarc being a notable exception here), and so it's harder to tell.
So, to answer your original question, all things being equal (which, as mentioned by others here, they rarely, if ever, are) I would prefer DSD over PCM, but it's not a deal-breaker by any means. DSD alone is not a guarantee of great sound quality, and PCM doesn't automatically mean that a recording is going to sound terrible.
Russell
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I try not to get hung up over the PCM vs DSD thing... - Russell 11:09:31 01/17/07 (0)