Okay so much higher sample rate allows exactly same signal as PCM, except for the possible noise issue.
Sort of! DSD does have a great deal more noise than say 16/44 PCM. However, given the far larger audio bandwidth of DSD/SACD, all that noise can be spread over a far wider band. You can easily see this in a spectrogram, the dither noise typically reaches it's peak around 25kHz and continues throughout the rest of the spectrum. This amount of ultra-sonic noise can potentially cause an IMD (inter-modulation distortion) issue with downstream equipment, amps and/or headphones/speakers, which is why Sony implemented a 50kHz analogue filter in it's SACD players and REQUIRED an analogue filter at 30kHz - 50kHz in it's licence agreement for third party manufacturers. This fact obviously makes a nonsense of audiophile claim that SACD contained important/useful information up to 100kHz.
In practice, as far as audibility is concerned, SACD (1bit DSD) and CD are pretty much identical when it comes to noise. In the critical hearing band 1bit DSD provides roughly 120dB of dynamic range and 16/44 (that also has noise-shaped dither applied), in the critical hearing band provides roughly .... 120dB of dynamic range!!
[1] Is FPGA better than chips and provide a lower latency and better sound, or it it, once again, placebo?
[2] Asking in regard of Hugo 2 vs Pro iDSD
1. How does lower latency provide better sound? Latency just refers to the delay between pressing play and the audio playing, or in recording situations it refers the time difference between the analogue input signal (say from a mic pre-amp) and the analogue output signal after passing through the AD/DA (digital conversion) loop. Typically, this delay/time difference is just a few milli-secs and to put that into perspective, the blink of an eye is typically around 300ms! As far as "better sound" is concerned, it's all relatively simple math, it doesn't matter what type of chip you use (ASIC or FPGA), they can all do the math required for audibly transparent/perfect reconstruction (conversion back to analogue).
2. Chord tout it's FPGA in terms of it's speed/ability to run the more demanding math of their bespoke reconstruction filter, that has more "taps" than conventional reconstruction filters. All very impressive as far as audiophile marketing is concerned but conventional reconstruction filters are already audibly perfect, so any audible difference cannot be anything other than placebo!
The results of Mark Waldrep's
"HD Audio Challenge" are live.
I always had a lot of respect for Mark Waldrep, both in terms of the quality of his recordings and his generally "no nonsense", factual approach to marketing. There was one exception though, I did disagree with him about his statements of the audible benefits of high-res audio. As he states, "
I was convinced that high-resolution recording — real HD-Audio — would be perceptible." and "
I was among the strongest advocates for this new and exciting “upgrade” to audio reproduction." However, a few years ago he (reliably/controlled) tested HD vs CD and kudos to him, he actually publicly admitted he couldn't distinguish them.
Now he's gone a step further, tested hundreds of others and states: "
The hundreds of people that have participated in the second round of the HD-Audio Survey, have confirmed the results of the previous project. It is no longer possible to claim that “hi-res audio” is an important next step in the evolution of audio. HD-Audio is completely unnecessary for the reproduction of hi-fidelity." !
G