In Reply to: Well... the issue is more complex with PCM posted by Sordidman on May 10, 2006 at 10:45:11:
It is easy to interpret something different as "better" when it is merely "different".I don't mean to slight either your listening preferences or Alex's design skills, but if you prefer DSD converted to PCM on a specific player then it's probably for euphonic or player specific reasons rather than the sound actually being "better".
Mathematically, converting DSD to PCM loses information, even assuming a "perfect" decimation filter (and they are anything but perfect). And then the DAC is internally oversampling the result and converting it back to sigma delta. It's kind of like saying you prefer listening to your LPs after recording them to digital and playing them back on a DAC.
There are myriad of possible reasons why on a specific player and/or DAC it may yield a subjective improvement. For example, the clock on the 3910 probably has higher jitter for DSD rates, and converting to PCM may make the issue less pronounced. Filtering ultrasonic noise may improve playback depending on your amp/speakers (it did on my old system). You may simply prefer the sound of the decimation filter. The DAC itself may be better at PCM than DSD (not surprising given it's probably a hybrid architecture).
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I suspect we are now talking about subjective perception ... - Christine Tham 15:50:35 05/10/06 (7)
- Re: I suspect we are now talking about subjective perception ... - Sordidman 16:12:42 05/10/06 (6)
- Thanks for your gracious reply - Christine Tham 17:32:11 05/10/06 (3)
- Of course... - Sordidman 20:06:31 05/10/06 (2)
- Re: Of course... - Christine Tham 23:12:04 05/10/06 (1)
- Grail? We've already got one!! - Sordidman 11:15:48 05/11/06 (0)
- A story - Ted Smith 16:27:55 05/10/06 (1)
- Well, - I am a huge Espresso fan: the heart of an Italian, nice story -t - Sordidman 16:30:14 05/10/06 (0)