|
|
|
raffells said:
No Its the best that Stanley P. Lipshitz and John Vanderkooy
could do when they spent umpteen pages explaining why one bit and DSD was a flawed system.Prior to its implementation.
Wish they could hear how great today's state-of-the-art DSD converters can sound!
|
|
|
|
|
|
raffells said:
no it would not.
So please stop trolling about this PCM crap already. Native PCM is a fading technology and DSD is the future. GET OVER IT.
|
|
|
Post by tailspn June 15, 2012 (183 of 360)
|
|
raffells said:
No Its the best that Stanley P. Lipshitz and John Vanderkooy
could do....
Hi Dave,
I did read the Lipshitz and Vanderkooy 2001 paper. Several times. It was Greek to me. However it was answered in the AES Paper 5616 by Reefman, Janssen, Sandler and Reiss of Philips in 2002, and largely debunked at that same AES Convention in paper 5619 by Angus. Look em up.
A MUCH simpler explanation of the technology is available in an Analog Devices Tutorial here:
http://www.analog.com/static/imported-files/tutorials/MT-022.pdf
And further here:
http://www.analog.com/static/imported-files/tutorials/MT-023.pdf
They may refine your thinking.
While your push to advance the notion that PCM has attributes over DSD has been spirited, please let me summarize my argument. ALL current audio A/D Converters that would be considered Hi-Res (and which use integrated circuits in their conversion process, and cost less than $10K (read ALL that any studio or production company uses)) begin as a Delta-Sigma Modulator. The beauty of DSD is the process stops there, and the result is recorded. If a magnitude based data stream is desired (for the convenience of post-processing in word based computers), then a conversion to PCM is required. That decimation process is always lossy, primarily from the low pass digital filter phase affects and down sampling process.
My interest is in the most accurate archival and playback of correctly mic'ed classical music. Modern DSD (currently 64fs) is the most accurate method of achieving that end, your "facts", measurements, beliefs and supporting papers not withstanding. PCM conversion and processing only deteriorate the cues I receive from a correctly recorded production.
That's my position.
I have abused this forum, and this thread enough on this subject, and apologize for my persistence. This is my last post on this subject.
Tom
|
|
|
Post by raffells June 15, 2012 (184 of 360)
|
|
audioholik said:
So please stop trolling about this PCM crap already. Native PCM is a fading technology and DSD is the future. GET OVER IT.
Dumbo.
Your original question.?
A.. It requires four times the amount of bits.
See Toms explanation.
PCM is already wasteful enough.
At least it faded into the future blu-ray.
DSD did not.
Not sure If I want to waste that amount of energy
on downloads.Then again You stated that 128x wasnt any better
than 64x with that rather poor 1 bit processor.Then again that was based on DSD listeners and we all know what they are like.
Can you not write your own final lines without cut and paste or copying.?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is ANYBODY going to post about Deneve's Debussy, cos I'm sick to death of this technobabble on a thread supposedly devoted to performance (and recording quality). Keep your digits and ADCs to yourselves unless you post it in a dedicated thread which I can then ignore.
|
|
|
Post by raffells June 15, 2012 (186 of 360)
|
|
tailspn said:
Hi Dave,
I did read the Lipshitz and Vanderkooy 2001 paper. Several times. It was Greek to me. However it was answered in the AES Paper 5616 by Reefman, Janssen, Sandler and Reiss of Philips in 2002, and largely debunked at that same AES Convention in paper 5619 by Angus. Look em up.
That's my position.
I have abused this forum, and this thread enough on this subject, and apologize for my persistence. This is my last post on this subject.
Tom
No not debunked.Or even largely.
Wishfull thinking.
.
These two fresh students working on the Sacd side of Philips
ask the help of the two mentioned experts and even quoted some of the problems from the papers mentioned.
It was interesting to find out some more information which helped explain that reduced sampling reason.Was not just to save bits.
Also mentioned in long winded write up.
AD1871 multibit convertor 24/96.
Lucky for you Im off to Greece next so you can get on with giving away those DSD files.
|
|
|
Post by Vaan June 15, 2012 (187 of 360)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
raffells said:
At least it faded into the future blu-ray.
Sorry to burst your PCM~marketing bubble but blu-ray is not the future by any stretch of imagination.
For the last 4 years there have only been like 5 pop titles released on blu-ray audio. LOL!
|
|
|
|
|
|
And a few classical Naxos are now on bluray.
|
|
|
|
|
|
raffells said:
Dumbo.
Your original question.?
A.. It requires four times the amount of bits.
See Toms explanation.
Do you think a recording studio won't be able to afford a bigger hard drive?
Now there's a reason to use inferior pcm rather than 256x DSD, to save bits. Idiot...
|
|
