In Reply to: Digital Resolution -- An Analysis posted by John Elison on September 2, 2020 at 17:21:46:
It IS an interesting analysis however you cannot equate bits per second to resolution. Imagine in a different domain that we have 4k uncompressed video (oh to dream!) at 30 Hz. So that's like 740MB/s . Now suppose we go back to SD 480 and it is just 28MB/s. BUT now let us send that out at 1000 Hz! Whee!!!! Now we are at 28,000MB/s and we have achieved "38 TIMES" as much resolution. Of course, not really, the picture will still not be as clear as the 4k. Because, the resolutions are in different domains.
Doesn't the same sort of thing apply in sound? There's a magnitude domain and a time domain, they are apples and oranges, you can't just multiply all the bits. DSD has far less magnitude information but much more often, it's a different animal with different problems. Bits aren't "resolution" they can just be used to achieve it (whatever "resolution" is which could be a whole other thread).
Yeah, the numbers are just grabbed off a calculation site and maybe not correct, but it's the principle of the thing. I own a number of SACDs I really like, however sorry Sony's original graphic of some kind of pure reconstruction is pretty much silly nonsense, as is the "256 times" resolution claim on the HDTT piece.
Plus it is all for nought if you're just scraping the same old ancient degraded tapes yet again, with no hope to improve anything. What, now we need DSD4096 to re-re-re-re-re-re-re-release "Kind Of Blue" because there was some nanogram of musicl information that had never been recovered off the tapes previously? [rolling eyes emoji]
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- But what is "resolution" eh? - Head_Unit 23:42:01 01/12/21 (0)