In Reply to: Slight correction... posted by Frank.. on September 15, 2005 at 02:54:35:
Just as DSD noise-shaping artifacts are inaudible (I think we all agree here), so too are PCM noise-shaping artifacts, espcially considering how much more pervasive the noise-shaping is in DSD.So we again come back to my original premise: high-rate PCM is more elegant than DSD. If DSD were audibly superior to high-rate PCM then the issue of elegance would be moot. But of course no one has shown conclusively that DSD can be audibly distinguished from high-rate PCM.
Another thing I've been wondering lately...if the original CD patent had specified 44.1/20 instead of 44.1/16 would we even be having this conversation? I'm beginning to think anything above 48/24 may be overkill...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- 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)