Editing Direct Stream Digital (section)

==DSD vs. PCM==
There has been much controversy between proponents of DSD and PCM over which encoding system is superior. In 2000, Lipshitz and Vanderkooy stated that one-bit converters, as employed by DSD, are unsuitable for high-end applications due to their high distortion.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lipschitz |first=Stanley P. |last2=Vanderkooy |first2=John |date=2000-09-22 |title=Why Professional 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Conversion is a Bad Idea |url=http://peufeu.free.fr/audio/extremist_dac/files/1-Bit-Is-Bad.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221102075257/http://peufeu.free.fr/audio/extremist_dac/files/1-Bit-Is-Bad.pdf |archive-date=2022-11-02}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Lipshitz |first=Stanley P. |last2=Vanderkooy |first2=John |date=2001-05-12 |title=Why 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Conversion is Unsuitable for High-Quality Applications |url=https://sjeng.org/ftp/SACD.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230430093353/https://sjeng.org/ftp/SACD.pdf |archive-date=2023-04-30 |access-date=2023-08-28}}</ref> In 2002, Philips published a paper arguing the contrary.<ref>{{cite web |title=Enhanced Sigma Delta Structures for Super Audio CD Applications |url=https://aes2.org/publications/elibrary-page/?id=11395 |first=Derk |last=Reefman |first2=Erwin |last2=Janssen |publisher=Audio Engineering Society |access-date=23 October 2024 |date=6 April 2002 |language=English}}</ref> Lipshitz and Vanderkooy's paper was further criticized by Angus.<ref>[https://www.aes.org/member/profile.cfm?ID=858226096 Angus-Whiteoak, Jamie A S]. <!-- https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Effect-of-Idle-Tone-Structure-on-Effective-in-Angus/1c322500e19e019ae747b7998c25f1f45e946b39 -->[https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=11303 "The Effect of Idle Tone Structure on Effective Dither in Delta-Sigma Modulation Systems"], {{cite web |title=Session X: SIGNAL PROCESSING FORUM - PART 1 |url=https://www.aes.org/events/112/papers/x.cfm <!-- |website=AES 112th Convention --> }} [[Audio Engineering Society]] 112th Convention, Munich, April, 2002, [https://web.archive.org/web/20060823173606/http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/research/angus_files/angus_files/publications/publications.htmpreprint #5619].  [http://www.salford.ac.uk/computing-science-engineering/cse-academics/jamie-angus (Professor of Audio Technology)] 
[https://web.archive.org/web/20040404135257/http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/research/angus_files/arc_angus1.htm Professor James Angus BSc, PhD (Kent), FIOA, MAES] [https://web.archive.org/web/20040224193651/http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/research/angus_files/angus_files/publications/publications.htm Publications] [https://web.archive.org/web/20070805025908/http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/res/angus/index.php Research Projects]</ref> Lipshitz and Vanderkooy responded to the criticisms.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Vanderkooy |first1=John |last2=Lipshitz |first2=Stanley P. |title=Towards a Better Understanding of 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Modulators - Part 3 |url=https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=11342 |publisher=Audio Engineering Society |access-date=23 January 2021 |language=English |date=1 April 2002}} {{cite web |title=Session X: SIGNAL PROCESSING FORUM - PART 1 |url=https://www.aes.org/events/112/papers/x.cfm |website=[[Audio Engineering Society]] 112th Convention, Munich, April, 2002 }}.</ref> Stuart also defined [[sigma-delta modulation]] a "totally unsuitable choice" for high-resolution digital audio.<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.ece.rochester.edu/courses/ECE472/Site/Assignments/Entries/2009/1/15_Week_1_files/Stuart_2004.pdf|title=Coding for High-Resolution Audio Systems|first=J. Robert|last=Stuart|s2cid=18072620|journal=J. Audio Eng. Soc.|volume=52|issue=3|date=March 2004|pages=139–142|access-date=January 24, 2021|archive-date=February 7, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210207174138/http://www2.ece.rochester.edu/courses/ECE472/Site/Assignments/Entries/2009/1/15_Week_1_files/Stuart_2004.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Conventional implementation of DSD has an intrinsic high distortion.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Hawksford|first=M.|year=2001|url=http://www.essex.ac.uk/ESE/research/audio_lab/malcolmspubdocs/C115%20SDM%20versus%20LPCM.pdf|title=SDM versus LPCM: The Debate Continues|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060513223001/http://www.essex.ac.uk/ESE/research/audio_lab/malcolmspubdocs/C115%20SDM%20versus%20LPCM.pdf |archive-date=May 13, 2006|journal=AES Convention|page=5397}}</ref> Distortion can be alleviated to some degree by using multibit DACs. State-of-the-art ADCs are based around sigma-delta modulation designs. Oversampling converters are usually used in linear PCM formats, where the ADC or DAC output is subject to bandlimiting and dithering.<ref>(Hawksford 1995).</ref> Most modern ADC and DAC converters use oversampling and a multi-bit design; in other words, while DSD is a 1-bit format, modern converters internally use a 2-bit<ref>See the AK5381 ADC datasheet</ref> to 6-bit<ref>See the PCM4222 data sheet</ref> format.

Comparisons of DSD and PCM recordings with the same origin, number of channels and similar bandwidth and noise have yielded contradictory results. A 2004 study conducted at the Erich-Thienhaus Institute in Detmold, Germany found that in [[blind test|double-blind tests]] "hardly any of the subjects could make a reproducible distinction between the two encoding systems."<ref>{{cite journal|title=DVD-Audio versus SACD: Perceptual Discrimination of Digital Audio Coding Formats|last1=Blech|first1=Dominic|last2=Yang|first2=Min-Chi|journal=Erich-Thienhaus-Institute (Tonmeisterinstitut)|location=University of Music Detmold, Germany|year=2004|url=http://www.hfm-detmold.de/eti/projekte/diplomarbeiten/dsdvspcm/aes_paper_6086.pdf |access-date=July 27, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927200955/http://www.hfm-detmold.de/eti/projekte/diplomarbeiten/dsdvspcm/aes_paper_6086.pdf |archive-date=September 27, 2007 |df=mdy }}</ref> In contrast, a 2014 study conducted at the [[Tokyo University of the Arts]] found that listeners could distinguish PCM (192&nbsp;kHz/24&nbsp;bits) from either DSD (2.8&nbsp;MHz) or DSD (5.6&nbsp;MHz) (but not between the two DSD samplings), preferring the sound of DSD over PCM: "For example, Drums stimulus of DSD (5.6&nbsp;MHz) has p&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.001 when compared against PCM (192&nbsp;kHz/24&nbsp;bit) in overall preference. This suggests that DSD version was statistically significantly preferred over the PCM version."<ref>Marui, A., Kamekawa, T., Endo, K. and Sato, E., 2014, April. Subjective evaluation of high resolution recordings in PCM and DSD audio formats. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 136. Audio Engineering Society.</ref> These findings are questionable however, because "the two formats were subject to different processing, most notably, different filtering of the low-frequency content."<ref>Reiss, J.D., 2016. A meta-analysis of high resolution audio perceptual evaluation. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 64(6), pp.364-379.</ref>

Even though DSD-based SACD was more successful than its direct competitor, the PCM-based DVD-Audio, DSD met with relatively little success in the consumer market. Direct manipulation of recorded DSD data is difficult due to the limited availability of appropriate software. The advent of new high-resolution PCM standards, such as [[Digital eXtreme Definition|DXD]], further restricted DSD's market niche.