The truth?
Thats what i mean with unfounded claims. Sounds like DSD gives you some esotheric feelings. Can´t argue with that
That picture does not show infinite bandwidth on analog side. LP and RtR recordings can get into the 50kHz easily.
Nobody on the "PCM" side accepts the fact that, ultimatelly, any modern delta-sigma DAC will convert the PCM to DSD before the actual DAC conversion stage.
The same for any modern ADC - they all digitize the signal as DSD and latter convert it to PCM.
From WM8786 ADC page:
So the discussion is moot... ADC/DAC manufacturers already decided.
Nobody on the "PCM" side accepts the fact that, ultimatelly, any modern delta-sigma DAC will convert the PCM to DSD before the actual DAC conversion stage.
The same for any modern ADC - they all digitize the signal as DSD and latter convert it to PCM.
From WM8786 ADC page:
And yes, they use noise-shaping too...
So the discussion is moot... ADC/DAC manufacturers already decided.
Last edited:
Personally, I have yet to be able to do a verifiably valid comparison between CD, DVD-A, SACD & etc., due to the problem of MASTERING engineers, who can't seem to resist messing with the sound of a recording when doing the higher res version("re-mastered" is almost always a warning label, in my book). Any time I've found something in higher res that's also on CD, comparison is completely torpedoed when I find that they are inevitably two completely different mastering jobs, with different EQ, or mixing or even with noise reduction applied. For a truly valid comparison to be made, I would need to know that both the CD-res and higher-res tracks were done from the same *analog* master or simultaneously from the same live performance, through entirely equal quality preamps & a/d converters, and with no other conversions in the chain before getting to final media. I just DON'T see this ever happening, unless one of my best recording engineer clients takes on the challenge, and has enough time to actually do it. Until then, I am not, and can't be convinced that any human's perception of advantage of one versus the other is not being totally skewed by differences in the mastering & recording signal chain. I don't disbelieve that human hearing extends well past 20kc with real sounds(rather than traditional pure tone testing), but don't believe that, in general practice, the recording industry is capable of taking proper advantage of the higher res formats beyond the extent that could easily be heard perfectly accurately in CD format.
Last edited:
Mathematically it does not matter what buzzwords are used by electronic engineers. Digitizing means that low pass filter in frequency domain must be applied. It results in decimation literally.
The higher is the sample rate the more accurate interpolation can be done during playback. DSD sample rate is MHz while PCM is KHz. No tricks pure mathematic like 2x2=4.
BTW I am owning Wadia transport and Wadia decoding computer and absolutely happy with RedBook playback many years already. But I had stopped buying RedBook's several years ago only SACD instead.
Really ? So you say 1bit DSD = 24 bit PCM , or 1=24 (if we compare just sampling rate). I don't think so .
actually the terms do mean a lot to those understanding the tech, current devices
128x, 256x oversampling rates are available in current flagship audio converters - exceeding DSD sample rate when running at 192k, 256x
and they are multibit internal so that they are aquiring ~ 5 bits per sample vs DSD one bit - that means less interpolation by a factor of the multi-bit resolution
so modern multi-bit high OS delta-sigma chips can actually beat DSD on all of the hyped SACD sales literature "specs" - especially when the 50 kHz 6th order (or higher order) reconstruction filter is applied to control the rising shaped DSD noise
128x, 256x oversampling rates are available in current flagship audio converters - exceeding DSD sample rate when running at 192k, 256x
and they are multibit internal so that they are aquiring ~ 5 bits per sample vs DSD one bit - that means less interpolation by a factor of the multi-bit resolution
so modern multi-bit high OS delta-sigma chips can actually beat DSD on all of the hyped SACD sales literature "specs" - especially when the 50 kHz 6th order (or higher order) reconstruction filter is applied to control the rising shaped DSD noise
Last edited:
There is no point in having multiple bits if the ANALOG part cannot provide more ACTUAL resolution - limited by linearity, distortion and noise.
The absolute best we have today in PCM domain is almost at the level of 22bit (that means 132dB - I still have to see actually a DAC that will provide this level of THD+N) and this at 88-96kHz samplerate. That's exactly what DSD provides easily too...
The absolute best we have today in PCM domain is almost at the level of 22bit (that means 132dB - I still have to see actually a DAC that will provide this level of THD+N) and this at 88-96kHz samplerate. That's exactly what DSD provides easily too...
Last edited:
there's no obvious "need" for more than 44/16 with noise shaped dither
but I thought the question was SACD vs hi res PCM
while you've been spouting decade old SACD/DSD sales literature talking points I've been pointing out current multi-bit delta sigma converters have advantages both theoretical and practical over the DSD process
whatever the practical limits of audibilty or analog circuit resolution, today's best multi-bit delta-sigma converters can capture/reproduce more information, at higher ovesampling frequency than DSD, and with lower jitter sensitivity while avoiding a zoo of nonlinear effects in the delta-sigma processing by the fact of having multi-bit internal converters vs DSD single bit
SACD was heavily hyped, its "real" contribution was difficult to break copy protection - it has been technically surpassed by "hi res" multi-bit PCM
not suprising after a decade with Moore's Law still working, chip manufacturer's still seeing (some) potential profit in audio converters
but I thought the question was SACD vs hi res PCM
while you've been spouting decade old SACD/DSD sales literature talking points I've been pointing out current multi-bit delta sigma converters have advantages both theoretical and practical over the DSD process
whatever the practical limits of audibilty or analog circuit resolution, today's best multi-bit delta-sigma converters can capture/reproduce more information, at higher ovesampling frequency than DSD, and with lower jitter sensitivity while avoiding a zoo of nonlinear effects in the delta-sigma processing by the fact of having multi-bit internal converters vs DSD single bit
SACD was heavily hyped, its "real" contribution was difficult to break copy protection - it has been technically surpassed by "hi res" multi-bit PCM
not suprising after a decade with Moore's Law still working, chip manufacturer's still seeing (some) potential profit in audio converters
Last edited:
As I've told you before, only one comes close. This.
But ofc implementation matters when we'ret talking about such numbers. Check Weiss's DAC202 measurements on the latest Stereophile. That's one guy who knows what he's doing.
Last edited:
I have been reading the posts to my original question and your responses have been terrific.
I am coming to the conclusion that high-res PCM is preferred over SACD. The only significant advantage of SACD is its 'hard to break' copy protection - but that serves the music business over consumers who need flexibility.
I thought SACD was 'better' - because of the marketing hype, but apparently it isn't better. It's not bad - it is certainly better than red book, but high-res PCM can achieve outstanding audio quality just as good if not better based on what I read in this thread.
I am still learning about bit depth and sample frequency that bests captures music beyond which the ear can not hear. From what you all wrote, it seems that 20-22 bits is enough and 92KHz is sufficient. Anything more is not audible. I can report personally that I can hear a BIG difference between 16bit/44KHz. But I have not been able to hear a difference between 24bit/92 and 24bit/192.
At the end of a day, we want to be able to download music, put it on a hard drive, organize it, put it through a damn good DAC and then send it on to our speakers. I still need to figure out how to get music off my SACD's onto my computer, but that is for a different thread.
This has been great.
My gear: Krell KCT/400 amp, Sonus Faber Amati speakers. Soon to be obsolete Marantz SA-11S1 SACD Player.
I am coming to the conclusion that high-res PCM is preferred over SACD. The only significant advantage of SACD is its 'hard to break' copy protection - but that serves the music business over consumers who need flexibility.
I thought SACD was 'better' - because of the marketing hype, but apparently it isn't better. It's not bad - it is certainly better than red book, but high-res PCM can achieve outstanding audio quality just as good if not better based on what I read in this thread.
I am still learning about bit depth and sample frequency that bests captures music beyond which the ear can not hear. From what you all wrote, it seems that 20-22 bits is enough and 92KHz is sufficient. Anything more is not audible. I can report personally that I can hear a BIG difference between 16bit/44KHz. But I have not been able to hear a difference between 24bit/92 and 24bit/192.
At the end of a day, we want to be able to download music, put it on a hard drive, organize it, put it through a damn good DAC and then send it on to our speakers. I still need to figure out how to get music off my SACD's onto my computer, but that is for a different thread.
This has been great.
My gear: Krell KCT/400 amp, Sonus Faber Amati speakers. Soon to be obsolete Marantz SA-11S1 SACD Player.
If you want to know what todays Delta-Sigma DACs can archieve you may have a look at one older type, the AK4396.
It has very faithfull measurememnts into its Evaluation board pdf with nice measurements. You see the dithernoise is no real problem with it.
AK4396|Site of Asahi KASEI MICRODEVICES
I just listen to mine btw...
In contrast you may have a look on how far pure 1bit DSD as used on SACD can bring you The Well-Tempered Computer
It even can´t reproduce 24bit/48khz!
Edit: Please don´t take the text at thewelltemperedcomputer to serious, just watch the pics
It has very faithfull measurememnts into its Evaluation board pdf with nice measurements. You see the dithernoise is no real problem with it.
AK4396|Site of Asahi KASEI MICRODEVICES
I just listen to mine btw...
In contrast you may have a look on how far pure 1bit DSD as used on SACD can bring you The Well-Tempered Computer
It even can´t reproduce 24bit/48khz!
Edit: Please don´t take the text at thewelltemperedcomputer to serious, just watch the pics
Last edited:
Who can do that? And why?
Show me a DAC that can output 48kHz at 24 bit PCM resolution.
After that shome me a human ear that can hear 48kHz with that dynamic range.
Also you choose to ignore the dither embedded in your precious WM4396 DAC. That by the way can do only 100dB THD+N (with proper OpAmps, at 44.1kHz samplerate) - that is less that 17bit real resolution. If you go to 96kHz samplerate, you get only 97dB THD+N - that's exactly 16 bit real resolution. Whohoo...
Last edited:
Here are some measurements of a real world implementation for the Ak4396
Slim Devices Transporter network music player Measurements | Stereophile.com
If your SACDs sound better on your equipment it gets time you get a system that can play back PCM as it should. Even when SACD was new there were 16bit/44.1kHz material that simply sounds better as any DSD version of it. We can discuss the need of anything above 44.1kHz sampling rate in another thread if you like but not on diyaudio.
In this thread was asked about how DSD and Hires PCM differ. We repeat ourself to often meanwhile.
1bit DSD is as pointless as it gets, long surpassed, face it and go further.
Edit: Just for clarification: 24bit/48khz means 24bit with a sampling rate of 48kHz means fs/2=24khz
Last edited:
Absolutely agreed. Hi maths background is a must however to understand mathematical transformations that are standing behind.
Exactly. Oversampling is guessing while DSD contains real data.
Mandatory oversampling of a PCM stream means PCM no good by itself.
The picture on page 3 of the thread shows it precisely.
You mean the marketing foils freom page 2? I already asked you to think about these pics. Seems like you don´t understand what it shows.
Every lowpassed signal creates this pre-and post ringing with linear filters. These artefacts only are created at the frequencies the lowpass kicks in.So the claim is that you can hear the lowpass at fs/2 for 96kHz material that creates some pre-and post ringing only at the frequencies from lets say 45kHz on but you can´t hear the huge amount, lets say +60dB DSD noise that must be added for SACD at these frequencies. How silly is that?
Do yourself a favour, create such impulse files for yourself and look at them in a spectral view. Since you seem to like funny pics you´ll have some fun for sure.
Yes you are right the picture is on the page 2 it’s my mistake.
It is very important to not forget that music exists several centuries already & classical music performances shine without mics, amps and other garbage electric gear
As of now DSD recordings seem to be most accurate digital copies of analogues originals.
However there is very strong marketing behind PCM as always was right from the beginning when sonically inferior RedBook was taking over LP and no one from big fishes marketing side seems to be bothered at all to informe uneducated customers about interpolation nature of PCM playback but bs them with snr dB and other stuff like that (looks like a perfect example of scam actually).
It is very important to not forget that music exists several centuries already & classical music performances shine without mics, amps and other garbage electric gear
As of now DSD recordings seem to be most accurate digital copies of analogues originals.
However there is very strong marketing behind PCM as always was right from the beginning when sonically inferior RedBook was taking over LP and no one from big fishes marketing side seems to be bothered at all to informe uneducated customers about interpolation nature of PCM playback but bs them with snr dB and other stuff like that (looks like a perfect example of scam actually).[/FONT][/COLOR]
Yawn... You forgot to mention that Nyquist was wrong!
I guess you never did listen to a SACD, all the experience you have about it is from this forum.
Have fun with that great DAC that can play PCM 96kHz at superior 16 bit resolution... because that how much it can do per MANUFACTURER specs, not what some magazin claims they measured.
Have fun with that great DAC that can play PCM 96kHz at superior 16 bit resolution... because that how much it can do per MANUFACTURER specs, not what some magazin claims they measured.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.