In Reply to: ever read the Moncrieff stuff, or has that been discredited?? posted by Tom Schuman on January 28, 2015 at 11:07:03:
His main argument seems to be based on equating the number of samples per half cycle with bit depth, which is a laymans misunderstanding of sampling. From that basis, he concludes that DSD has 6-bit equivalent resolution at 20 KHz, 7-bit at 10 KHz, etc. down to 12-bit at 312 Hz. This conclusion is nonsense. The equivalent resolution is a function of the noise shaping curve, which was optimized to theoretically provide better than 24-bit PCM performance up to 20 KHz, with a huge amount of ultrasonic noise above that as a consequence.
He also misunderstands noise shaping and confuses it with signal averaging, which leads him to claim that it destroys transients via averaging them out. This is also nonsense. Noise shaping filters the quantization error, not the signal. The transient response of a system using noise shaping will be commensurate with it's bandwidth, same as without noise shaping. DSD produces impulse responses and square waves like you would expect from its bandwidth. They look similar to what you get with 24/192 PCM, except at low levels they are fuzzed up with ultrasonic noise.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- The Moncreiff stuff is a lot of nonsense - Dave_K 16:25:13 02/02/15 (1)
- RE: The Moncreiff stuff is a lot of nonsense - Tony Lauck 19:14:21 02/16/15 (0)