georgehifi Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 For me an interesting read, I'm sure it will get a few noses out of joint though. http://www.craigmandigital.com/education/PCM_vs_DSD.aspx Cheers George 2
ArthurDent Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 (edited) Good thing we don't listen to 10khz square waves isn't it. 16/44.1 CD turns them into sine waves and SACD makes them all blurry And this is old news, with the right filtering DSD will spit out a square wave that looks just like 192khz PCM. Edited August 31, 2013 by KenTripp
wis97non Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 What matters is how the reproduced music sounds to the listener...
bzr Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Heres one for the purists......, last paragraph, but not a dying breath..... My most significant conclusion points simply to more questions: How does an engineer work with DSD? Do you roll the room off at 50kHz or leave it at 100k? Where is the peace of mind that your work will be accurately reproduced once it leaves your studio? SACD – Why do we need it?
LHC Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 "Now, at the upper end of the audible spectrum, we toy with the age-old (and sometimes annoying) digital question: can humans really perceive sound above 22kHz? I am of the opinion that ultrasonic harmonics make a difference. Otherwise, I’d be working at 24-bit 44.1kHz, and not bothering to open this discussion. The significance of the preceding graphs is certainly in the ultrasonic." Here we go again.
georgehifi Posted August 31, 2013 Author Posted August 31, 2013 A bit more from the author, this time it's on the ESP website Elliott Sound Products, and those who know about Rod Elliott, he wouldn't put this on his site if it were crap. Just an interesting sentance from it which made me smile, "go multibit" "SACD is in the high frequency range quite mediocre, even compared to a good CD-system one-bit DAC, and of course clearly inferior to a CD-player with a real multi-bit converter."http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm Cheers George 1
ArthurDent Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Even Rod can be wrong sometimes! He's just quoting other guys. Who are wrong
davewantsmoore Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 He's just quoting other guys. Who are wrong Well... let's be pedantic and say the data isn't wrong.... the just perhaps the conclusions around "does it matter".
David.M Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 (edited) This subject is so like the vinyl -v- digital one, I don't really have the expertise to understand the more complex technical stuff (& it really doesn't interest me anyway) but it seems to me in both discussions that the outcomes predicted by the science are not necessarily the same outcomes actually realised when the human ear is the end receiver (instead of a microphone/electronic measuring device). Edited September 1, 2013 by David.M 1
LogicprObe Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 (edited) Not so much vinyl vs digital. More like 16 vs 78 rpm. Edited September 1, 2013 by LogicprObe
DoggieHowser Posted September 1, 2013 Posted September 1, 2013 I am not sure I understand all the technicalities but comparing Playback and EMM Labs implementation of a DSD DAC IMHO was a good demonstration of why I found DSD to be better sounding on my system and on many friends'. I have often triple/quad/penta? dipped for some titles, including US pressed, XRCD, SHM, K2, SHM XRCD and SACD of the same title. And I normally find the SACD to be superior. That said, I've heard a few 1:1 direct cuts (basically just CDs) which sound better than the SACD. But these titles are really hard to come by and cost a heck of a lot more.
Newman Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 A bit more from the author, this time it's on the ESP website Elliott Sound Products, and those who know about Rod Elliott, he wouldn't put this on his site if it were crap. Although Rod notes at the bottom of the article that he finds the sound of SACD to be good in every way. In technical (and sonic) terms, I can't see any reason to choose SACD or DSD over the multichannel PCM alternatives. In terms of convenience, though, I do like the way SACD discs can be played back without the use of a video screen -- just hit the number and that track plays. I wish DVDA and bluray music did that.
georgehifi Posted September 2, 2013 Author Posted September 2, 2013 (edited) Although Rod notes at the bottom of the article that he finds the sound of SACD to be good in every way. One shouldn't edit a quote, because it can put a different spin on that quote. "I must admit that I didn't find the sound to be "bad" in any way ... quite the reverse. However, I did not have the opportunity to perform a proper blind A-B test." Sound to me like he's hedging his bets. Cheers George Edited September 2, 2013 by georgehifi 1
Newman Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 And so he should. Do you? P.S. I always edit a quote. People do waffle so.
zenelectro Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 A bit more from the author, this time it's on the ESP website Elliott Sound Products, and those who know about Rod Elliott, he wouldn't put this on his site if it were crap. Just an interesting sentance from it which made me smile, "go multibit" "SACD is in the high frequency range quite mediocre, even compared to a good CD-system one-bit DAC, and of course clearly inferior to a CD-player with a real multi-bit converter." http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm Cheers George George, You are just searching for support of your dislike of anything delta sigma. If we play this game there are plenty of articles that support DSD that we can find - but what will it prove? If you want to find subjective views, I would speak to recording engineers that mix down to or master to various formats from analog. Most of the ones I know speak very highly of DSD, especially DSD128 (5.6MHz) when compared to the source. Now I don't see any hidden agenda here - any other reason that they would actually want to support DSD, as for them it is a complete PITA due to the lack of easy editing capability. As I have stated in the Phasure thread, I don't think it matters anymore. These formats are becoming easily transportable and DAC's that play everything commonly available. Since you are a multi bit die hard, I would ultimately be looking at getting a multibit DAC that can accept USB input up to 384kHz and run the DAC sans filters. You can convert your files on a PC using superior upsamplers to any on board DAC digital filter. You can run the USB DAC with a fixed clock (asynchronous USB), with high speed isolators and it will be superior to any CD player available. The future is fine for multi bit DAC's - It si also fine for DSD DACs. We have many choices for playback these days - we should be having fun trying them, not having religious wars WRT multibit versus DS on forums. cheers T 7
georgehifi Posted September 2, 2013 Author Posted September 2, 2013 Each to his own. I would love to hear what a PCM1704 multibit could do with Hi rez files, then I believe I could embrace Hi Rez totally, but not while 1 Bit is doing to conversion. Cheers George 1
zenelectro Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 Each to his own. I would love to hear what a PCM1704 multibit could do with Hi rez files, then I believe I could embrace Hi Rez totally, but not while 1 Bit is doing to conversion. Cheers George George, Just about -All- of your digital files originated from delta sigma ADC of 1 to a few bits, at very high SR (~5 to 6MHz) decimated to 24 bit PCM. That is how things are done these days. Where as I do believe that a true multi bit ADC running at 384k or 768k would be fantastic and I will be playing with this in the future, right now it's all high speed, low bit count DS ADC's. T 1
georgehifi Posted September 2, 2013 Author Posted September 2, 2013 (edited) George, Just about -All- of your digital files originated from delta sigma ADC of 1 to a few bits, at very high SR (~5 to 6MHz) decimated to 24 bit PCM. Not my collection, most of it was done before SD/DS was even thought of. Any later stuff I have is Reference Recordings and I believe that he "Prof." Keith O. Johnson" is also a multibit man as well as a firm believer in HDCD, as he was the inventer of it, along with being the designer of the Model One and Two HDCD a/d/ a/d converters from Pacific Microsonics, still highly sought after by those in the know. Where as I do believe that a true multi bit ADC running at 384k or 768k would be fantastic and I will be playing with this in the future, That would be nice, one day. Cheers George T Edited September 2, 2013 by georgehifi
zenelectro Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 Yes I am aware of the HDCD Model 2 and have actually listened to the DAC part quite a few years ago. I believe there are a few kicking around here. But a lot of top mastering engineers claim that other ADC's have surpassed the M2 that use DS ADC's. Here's a couple of opinions: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/6540444-post14.html http://www.gearslutz.com/board/6523693-post2.html Yeah - I know it's the internet and they're not worth the paper they're written on :) But you get my drift - there has been a lot of development in ADC land. T
davewantsmoore Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 I would love to hear what a PCM1704 multibit could do with Hi rez files You have a few options available
davewantsmoore Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 1 Bit is doing to conversion Well aren't SD AD converters are no longer 1bit anyways (AFAIUI) .... So is it SD or 1bit, either, or the combination that is the problem?
zenelectro Posted September 2, 2013 Posted September 2, 2013 Well aren't SD AD converters are no longer 1bit anyways (AFAIUI) .... So is it SD or 1bit, either, or the combination that is the problem? Most ADC's are multi bit (5 / 6 bits). However reportedly the best ADC currently available is the 1 bit 2.8MHz grimmaudio unit. So as you can see it's a mixed bag. T
Recommended Posts