theaudiohobby
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2003
- Posts
- 341
- Likes
- 10
I have read Jazz comments and the paper is not valid because DSD uses 7th order noise shaping and the dissenting party have already answered that question themselves by saying this
Quote:
The issue at stake is whether is you could implement a real-life system that did that whilst address the objections previously stated in another post. and philips say this
Quote:
Those issues have been comprehensively addressed see the this dcs newsletter that says
Quote:
Of course ,there are trade offs and you can read them in the paper.
Now read this statement
Quote:
In relation to DVDA, there some issues quoted that would probably be surmised as a digital, see this quote.
Quote:
That quote IMHO is alluding to digital sound because it says that the listeners could identify DVDA 192/24 even in the absence of the analogue source, of course I am sure you could apply some DSP to correct it, but it does not occur at all in DSD. Secondly, some of best turntables reports actual dynamic range at 80- 82db, given them bit depth of <15 bits and these are reference quality tables, why are they deemed to sound better than some digital systems, if you do some study the is issue clear, it is superior timing, to borrow a quote from Roksan 'Function of a record player is to measure the groove with respect to time.The more accurate is this measurement, the better is the performance of the record player.", Could it just be that poor time resolution has been the unravelling of CD?
Quote:
that uses a combination of a linear quantizer with dither to guarantee linearity, together with 4th-order noise shaping. Conversion to a 1-bit code (typically from a 4-bit code) is then performed by an open-loop, optimal code conversion table which minimises spectral modulation. Potentially the system produces high resolution with no low-level correlated distortion. |
The issue at stake is whether is you could implement a real-life system that did that whilst address the objections previously stated in another post. and philips say this
Quote:
Hence, it is clear that DSD as a carrier provides a signal bandwidth which exceeds 100 kHz by far. Obviously, the SNR decreases for high frequencies. As far as experimental evidence shows, the human auditory system is sensitive to ultra sound only if it is correlated with the signal in the 0-20 kHz band, hence, the increase in noise at high frequencies is not important. The excess in bandwidth can subsequently be used to allow for very slow low-pass filtering, which keeps the time response very accurate. Indeed, filtering must still be applied to prevent tweeters in sound reproduction systems from overheating. This can be achieved easily with second order filters, by which the level of high frequency noise is reduced by approximately 45 dB if the corner frequency is chosen as 100 kHz. |
Those issues have been comprehensively addressed see the this dcs newsletter that says
Quote:
It is then also possible to choose a less rigid filter, since aliasing distortion then occurs at a frequency higher than the human hearing spectrum, and it can be argued that the distortions in this area have less audible effect. With those "mild" filters, impulse response is improved a lot though. In this higher sampling rate "trade off", DSD comes off particularly well, as with a sampling rate of 2.8MHz, the filter can be very gentle indeed. |
Of course ,there are trade offs and you can read them in the paper.
Now read this statement
Quote:
if frequency response were the only issue, there would be no advantage in moving formats with higher sampling rates. However, the evidence is otherwise. Direct comparisons of the same source material, recorded and reproduced at 44.1 kS/s, 96 kS/s and 192 kS/s show that there is an advantage in going to the higher rates - it sounds better! The descriptions of those used to making such comparisons tend to involve such terms as “less cluttered”, “more air”, “better hf detail” and in particular “better spatial resolution”. We are left wondering - what mechanism can be at work? It seems unlikely that we have all suddenly developed ultrasonic hearing capabilities.... One can get oneself into a bit of a twist thinking about the energy in the ringing. After all, if it is in the audio band, allowing extra energy at higher frequencies through the system surely cannot cancel out some that is in the audio band? It does, though - so although we may not be able to hear energy above 20 kHz, its presence is mathematically necessary to localise the energy in signals below 20 kHz, and it is possible (and our contention) that we can hear its absence in signals with substantial high frequency content. A high sample rate system allows it through (fact) - and allows the high frequency signals to sound more natural (contention) but allowing better spatial energy localisation (fact). |
In relation to DVDA, there some issues quoted that would probably be surmised as a digital, see this quote.
Quote:
The two highlighted effects with 192 kS/s are interesting. The bandwidth of 192 kS/s far exceeds the normal bandwidth attributed to human hearing, even using gentle roll off filters, so it is hard to believe it is related to frequency response. The stereo image widening is a very strong effect, observed by virtually all listeners, when a comparison with the analogue source is available. The bass problem is commented on by experienced listeners, and shows up particularly well on multi-mic’d rock music – it can enable 192 kS/s material to be identified in absence of the analogue source material for comparison. |
That quote IMHO is alluding to digital sound because it says that the listeners could identify DVDA 192/24 even in the absence of the analogue source, of course I am sure you could apply some DSP to correct it, but it does not occur at all in DSD. Secondly, some of best turntables reports actual dynamic range at 80- 82db, given them bit depth of <15 bits and these are reference quality tables, why are they deemed to sound better than some digital systems, if you do some study the is issue clear, it is superior timing, to borrow a quote from Roksan 'Function of a record player is to measure the groove with respect to time.The more accurate is this measurement, the better is the performance of the record player.", Could it just be that poor time resolution has been the unravelling of CD?