Loss-lessSubmitted by TooSmalley t3_10p3e5q in headphones
klogg4 t1_j6iqpa1 wrote
Reply to comment by oldkidLG in Loss-less by TooSmalley
>Of course, if the music is digitally produced to begin with, there is no benefit in using DSD
Yes, "to begin with". >95% of music in the world is digitally produced, even if it doesn't contain any digital instruments. It's a matter of fact, because digital mixing is a lot easier to perform than analog one. Some DSD releases are converted from PCM masters - it's a matter of fact as well.
DSD is an archiving format for analog sources, it does not have any other use cases. It does not do anything better than PCM in terms of sound. "Better approximation", "more information" and "less digital processing and filtering" - all of this is complete nonsense.
oldkidLG t1_j6ircu6 wrote
>DSD is an archiving format for analog sources, it does not have any other use cases. It does not do anything better than PCM in terms of sound. "Better approximation", "more information" and "less digital processing and filtering" - all of this is complete nonsense.
No, it's not. Take any recent DAC chip schematics, and you will see that the DSD circuit is shorter than the PCM one.
DSD take far more samples per second during recording. Of course, it's going to retain more information. You can't argue that
No-Bother6856 t1_j6izh1e wrote
You literally can argue that because this claim is wrong . More samples at a lower bit depth isn't more information and higher sampling frequency past the nyquist frequency isn't actually going to capture more of the 20-20,000hz frequency range anyway. Redbook CD with pcm is already sufficiently high sample rate to reproduce the entire wave form in the range of human hearing (which is beyond what the entire adult population can hear anyway, so 100% of the people buying dacs don't hear to 20khz) the extra sampling frequency of dsd thus isn't capturing more information, its just using higher sample rate as a substitute for the higher bit depth of pcm.
Do quantization errors exist in pcm? Yes. Do quantization errors exist in dsd? Also yes. Is the noise caused by these errors inside the audible frequency range? No. But im sure your cat would prefer you use 196khz pcm instead of CD
oldkidLG t1_j6j0hxl wrote
This would only be that simple if capture and reproduction of sound were perfect. In reality, digital filters alter the signal. DSD avoid steep filters and retains the harmonics, whether you think they are audible or not
klogg4 t1_j6iwwpp wrote
Yeah, take any recent DAC chip schematics and get sad because most modern delta-sigma DACs are not 1 bit and they do not support DSD direct (ESS Sabre chips all play DSD pre-processed for example). And the circuit is not much shorter. And you didn't even consider looking at how ADCs work, which is another potentially very interesting story...
>DSD take far more samples per second during recording.
1 bit samples, might you. Which do not replicate sound wave in any way, unlike PCM.
oldkidLG t1_j6iyvys wrote
>1 bit samples, might you. Which do not replicate sound wave in any way, unlike PCM.
That's wrong. To replicate dynamic range of the analog signal, each sample is encoded to be played back at higher or lower frequency than the one before it. With at least 2.8 million samples per second, this creates a much better capture of the sound than anything PCM
That's funny that you chose ESS as an example, because recent AKM chips, (pre and post factory fire) all include a direct DSD path with a simple low pass filter.
There are also Sony's S-Master class D amp technology that send DSD directly to the amplification stage. That wouldn't be possible if DSD wasn't a faithful representation of the analog signal.
Solypsist_27 t1_j6ixsen wrote
The real question is : do you need all of that information to enjoy music conventionally? No. And if you were super keen on digital artifacts and maximum performance? Well, unless you're a superhuman with higher hearing resolution, many studies state that it's still just snake oil.
oldkidLG t1_j6izcu5 wrote
Go check the frequencies produced by real musical instruments. You will see that they by far exceed 20khz. Of course, we cannot hear these, but as they are harmonics, they interact with the audible range of sound and we are perfectly able to notice when they're missing
Solypsist_27 t1_j6j53dk wrote
If they interact in any measurable way, they do so in pcm recordings as well. The biggest thing that affects sound quality when considering higher resolution than 320kbps mp3s is recording/mastering quality. If you're concerned about the interactions of ultrasonic harmonics between instruments, as long as the sounds are digitally produced and separately recorded, such an interaction is never possible. Once you factor this as well, you will notice this "quality" must also be present in pcm recordings, as long as it's audible, if it's not audible then no quality of recording will make you hear that.
Another thing to infer from the fact that mastering/recording quality plays such a big factor in the perceived sound quality and intelligibility of music, is the fact that natively dsd music cannot be objectively compared to high quality pcm, since as long as they're recorder the same, they will sound the same.
oldkidLG t1_j6j6zp5 wrote
Again, you completely disregard the impact of digital filters on the sound. To mitigate this negative impact, the higher the sampling rate, the better
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments