I think that initially it would be a question of knowing what equipment is used today for sound recording and what is the maximum 'digital format' used because we offer DACs which have capacities that go beyond this and therefore do not serve no purpose other than to modify the original signal in some way.
In fact, you have to use a DAC that is capable of reproducing the original format of the recording of the musical passage you want to listen to.
The technical characteristics of the devices have now reached significant levels, which of course should not be neglected, but the most important thing however lies in the appreciation by the listener of the restitution he hears and this is specific to each although generally the opinions come together when a device is really good.
This is only my opinion and it only engages me 😉
In fact, you have to use a DAC that is capable of reproducing the original format of the recording of the musical passage you want to listen to.
The technical characteristics of the devices have now reached significant levels, which of course should not be neglected, but the most important thing however lies in the appreciation by the listener of the restitution he hears and this is specific to each although generally the opinions come together when a device is really good.
This is only my opinion and it only engages me 😉
Yes, DSD is theoretically flawed and also flawed for practical implementation reasons. PCM is flawed for practical reasons so far as well. Vinyl is flawed, and tape is flawed.
However when each modality is as well implemented as is practical today, PCM often tends to sound the worst (and the main problems with it seems to be in the dacs). It turns out that whatever is mostly wrong with modern dacs appears to be what ESS described as non-PSS (where PSS = Periodic Steady State). Unfortunately audio FFT analysis is typically PSS, and with phase information discarded. Therefore some of the flaws of PCM do not show up well in such measurements. Same problem for some of the flaws of DSD.
Last edited:
That doesn't appear to be a 'fact.' It reads more like a philosophical statement.
It turns out that the original format used inside most ADCs is 'raw.' Its not standard PCM, not DSD, not TDM, etc. Usually, raw is converted to PCM inside the ADC. So its already no longer in its original format by that point. Its converted because standard PCM is the most practical format for editing, mixing, mastering, etc. When it comes time to play a digital recording though a dac however, it is often beneficial to perform yet another DSP operation to convert from PCM to DSD. Not saying that's always the case, but sometimes it is.
That doesn't appear to be a 'fact'. It reads more like something copied from over 12 years old marketing material.
It was an obvious deduction. It is known that some modern dacs measure so well using FFTs, J-test, etc., that some people have concluded the dacs must be audibly transparent. Other people have observed that some dacs which measure very well, tend to sound rather different. It is a fact that how a dac sounds can not be predicted with high accuracy just by looking at FFTs, SINAD, j-test, etc. So, how can two dacs look good on FFTs, but sound different? What's missing from, or doesn't show up well on typical audio FFTs includes at least two factors. One is that phase information is discarded. Another would be non-PSS aberrations.
Also if anyone would like to read some of what ESS said, here is a link: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/r2r-or-single-ic-for-dac.394462/post-7240355
Some following posts even draw on information more than 20-years old.
Also if anyone would like to read some of what ESS said, here is a link: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/r2r-or-single-ic-for-dac.394462/post-7240355
Some following posts even draw on information more than 20-years old.
Still over 12 years old marketing material with unsubstantiated claims.
ESS is known for being in the forefront of the "numbers game" with over-optimistic datasheets and architecture that uses some rather questionable measures (e.g. ESS IMD hump). ESS DACs are probably most often cited as having bad sound. So either they don't practice what they preach or their preaching is flawed.
ESS is known for being in the forefront of the "numbers game" with over-optimistic datasheets and architecture that uses some rather questionable measures (e.g. ESS IMD hump). ESS DACs are probably most often cited as having bad sound. So either they don't practice what they preach or their preaching is flawed.
Datasheets have become marketing material in today's world. They may contain unsubstantiated claims. Can't trust anything, I guess, not one word of it?
On the practice/preach issue, why does it have to be a dichotomy? Why isn't it more like, in practice manufacturers don't tell you about all the downsides of their products. However they don't preach that they telling you everything.
On the practice/preach issue, why does it have to be a dichotomy? Why isn't it more like, in practice manufacturers don't tell you about all the downsides of their products. However they don't preach that they telling you everything.