In Reply to: SACD ultrasonic noise irrelevant... posted by meisterkleef on September 14, 2005 at 10:37:11:
ALL sample rate conversion generate quantization noise and artefacts - one day we will have DSPs with sufficient power (in terms of filter taps and numerical precision) to make this a non-issue, but that day hasn't quite arrived yet.*** Why bother with a system that generates measurable noise-shaping artifacts, whether audible or not, when you can have a measuably cleaner PCM reproduction. ***
The "system" that you are not bothering is the same "system" that's embedded in just about every PCM ADC and DAC so the artefacts are not confined to DSD. Look at spec sheets.
The "measurably cleaner" PCM reproduction is because the modulation typically happens at 128x rather than 64x but the ultrasonic artefacts are still there. The only way to avoid it is to use a ladder type DAC, but that introduces other problems which is why they are becoming a rarity these days.
DSD is an interesting idea, comparable to the idea of capturing the "raw" image from a digital camera instead of converting to TIFF (PCM) or JPEG (compressed audio). There are benefits of capturing data "raw" (in this case, the undecimated delta sigma bitstream) and defer conversion to PCM, but the acquired signal is not easily editable without conversion.
However, 64fs may be good enough at one stage, but these days 128fs is the "norm" for both ADCs and DACs, and "hybrid" designs (multi-bit plus sigma delta) is common, so "raw" really should be a 5 bit 128fs bitstream rather than a 1 bit 64fs bitstream. It's kind of like forcing digital cameras to capture 1 megapixel "raw" images when the CCD is actually a 10 megapixel wafer, so the original "benefit" of DSD (not throwing away data) becomes a moot point. To me, that's a far more serious objection to DSD than ultrasonic artefacts.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: SACD ultrasonic noise irrelevant... - Christine Tham 14:44:22 09/14/05 (22)
- A very frank discussion from a record label re DSD . . . - Martin419 10:10:27 09/15/05 (7)
- DSD is dead signal... very dead signal... LOL!!! - SF tech 12:48:12 09/16/05 (2)
- Re: DSD is dead signal... very dead signal... LOL!!! - Martin419 02:01:45 09/19/05 (1)
- OK... But I still think the assessment is way off the mark. (nt) - SF tech 08:03:56 09/21/05 (0)
- eloquent indeed - tunenut 22:37:51 09/15/05 (1)
- Re: eloquent indeed - Martin419 04:10:11 09/16/05 (0)
- Can you please attribute the quote? Otherwise worthless. - meisterkleef 13:13:49 09/15/05 (1)
- It was "off the record" . . . - Martin419 13:44:37 09/15/05 (0)
- Forgot to mention, most PCM dithering algorithms generate similar ultrasonic noise - Christine Tham 20:42:40 09/14/05 (13)
- Slight correction... - Frank.. 02:54:35 09/15/05 (12)
- Corrections to your corrections! - Christine Tham 13:55:25 09/15/05 (5)
- AD converter issues.. - Frank.. 03:06:28 09/19/05 (0)
- Re: Corrections to your corrections! - Frank.. 23:32:39 09/18/05 (0)
- If you've ever used any of Philips' DSD software, Frank... - Michi 14:27:48 09/16/05 (2)
- Re: If you've ever used any of Philips' DSD software, Frank... - Frank.. 23:37:19 09/18/05 (0)
- Interesting! I did not know that! (nt) - Christine Tham 15:48:41 09/16/05 (0)
- Exactly right. Besides we're talking about audibilty... - meisterkleef 08:26:56 09/15/05 (5)
- Re: Exactly right. Besides we're talking about audibilty... - Christine Tham 14:09:33 09/15/05 (2)
- Re: Exactly right. Besides we're talking about audibilty... - evector 18:22:03 09/16/05 (0)
- Great charts! Thanks! (NT) - meisterkleef 10:41:08 09/16/05 (0)
- Another slight correction.. - Frank.. 11:07:28 09/15/05 (1)
- Thanks! I differentiated because PCM is filtered above passband. (NT) - meisterkleef 13:11:17 09/15/05 (0)