Post by gfresh March 17, 2005 (21 of 42)
|
|
In response to tailspns post, what none of these audio people has factored in is the effect of filtering in the analog to digital conversion. Greater bandwidth from higher sample rates gaves you better filtering, so it is no surprise that DSD has near perfect filtering (like analog). PCM has awful filtering, esp. below 96khz.
Why does this matter, and why do people actually prefer the sound of DSD if it is technically inferior? Because filtering affects impulse response. Impulse response is what both the sense of depth and warmth in the lower frequencies as well as 3 dimensionalness (stereo image). With bad impulse response you feel the music less, and you lose spatial perception.
Thus, even if DSD has more 'artifacts', less dynamic resolution and poorer frequency response than PCM, it still sounds better because it sounds more real. More full, with more depth and space. These confused heads have put their theoretical knowlede of digital audio before actuall experience.
|
|
|
Post by Myrtone November 2, 2007 (22 of 42)
|
|
Thus, even if DSD has more 'artifacts', less dynamic resolution and poorer frequency response than PCM, it still sounds better because it sounds more real. More full, with more depth and space. These confused heads have put their theoretical knowlede of digital audio before actuall experience.
What PCM? Are you talking about 24 bit at say 88.2/96kHz? Certainly, it offers a dynamic range of 120db, compare that with the CD format's 96db (or something like that), DSD has much greater frequency response, if the noise (and the artifacts) is nearly all out of the audio band and can easily be rejected by the lowpass filters, why should it matter.
|
|
|
Post by RWetmore September 1, 2008 (23 of 42)
|
|
Interesting discussion. I've seen references to these papers and debate on other forums. Some people have said that DSD sounds artificially softer than comparable PCM. Why not combine the benefits of both formats into some kind of multibit sigma delta format? Something like 4bit/1.4Mhz or 8bit/705Khz? These formats could be edited in their native form and still retain the benefits of DSD.
|
|
|
Post by Ear September 2, 2008 (24 of 42)
|
|
RWetmore said:
Some people have said that DSD sounds artificially softer than comparable PCM.
Oh boy... what can one say to this?
|
|
|
Post by raffells September 2, 2008 (25 of 42)
|
|
Ear said:
Oh boy... what can one say to this?
It happens ? I agree with these observations on occasions.
|
|
|
Post by Ear September 2, 2008 (26 of 42)
|
|
raffells said:
It happens ? I agree with these observations on occasions.
Do you mean when something is recorded in DSD and PCM to compare the more accurate reproduction of the original performance or when an analogue source is coverted to DSD and PCM? What bothers me is the term 'artificial'. Vinyl (my only analogue source) has always sounded softer than digital recordings. That was one of it's advantages. The analogue soft and warm sound. Maybe I miss the point. HELP :-)
|
|
|
Post by Peter September 2, 2008 (27 of 42)
|
|
Ear said:
Do you mean when something is recorded in DSD and PCM to compare the more accurate reproduction of the original performance or when an analogue source is coverted to DSD and PCM? What bothers me is the term 'artificial'.....
What do your ears tell you? Mine tell me DSD sounds just fine.
Peter
|
|
|
Post by trntbl September 2, 2008 (28 of 42)
|
|
Peter said:
What do your ears tell you? Mine tell me DSD sounds just fine.
Peter
My thoughts exactly. Let your ears be the judge.
kristian
|
|
|
Post by Ear September 2, 2008 (29 of 42)
|
|
Peter said:
What do your ears tell you? Mine tell me DSD sounds just fine.
Peter
Well, that was what I was trying to get across. I thought DSD was supposed to sound softer since it's wave form is more on the analogue wave that PCM. But anyhow... I am not an expert. I like high res PCM as well. Much of the sound depends on the recording and mixing anyway.
|
|
|
Post by raffells September 2, 2008 (30 of 42)
|
|
Ear said:
I like high res PCM as well. Much of the sound depends on the recording and mixing anyway.
Yes I agree and it also depends upon other factors in the musical chain you use.ie how the preamplifier (if you have one) and the main aplifier and speakers (tweeters) react to ultra high frequenies,plus other factors like the speed of power supplies and how noisey they are in those Ultra hf ranges.Add to that different types of distorions and headrooms and you are just scratching the surface.Did I mention that you are using two totally different processors.
Of course all processors are exact same sounding,NOT..Neither will you find two normal D to A converters sound the same,especially when they have different power supplies and compoents around them.
There are far too many blands statements made covering huge areas that have vast differences.ie Is all vinyl the same. No. Thats why I have very little problem with most of my discs.
The subject of different recording formats has been brought up before and most people have their opinions based on their own observations.These judgements are based on very limited considerations of how many stages influences the sonics. Some have even sworn that their favourites are DSD,later the recording was officially admitted to being edited via PCM.The two sytems have different sampling at higher Fqs so they are going to have a potential sonic difference in certain circumstances.
Two different people are going to have two different opinions.One is not wrong.
Thought it seems on this forum that if you dont agree with someone else then THEY are wrong.Not so.
Getting back to your thread,If you look at the history of how DSD came about in the first place,It was never meant to be perfect any more than the average listeners hearing.Its just gives the potential for a more accurate representation.Not always fulfilled.
|
|
