In Reply to: RE: audiophool bluster-always posted by fmak on July 4, 2012 at 11:39:36:
"..., even though DSD64 has technical and sonic merits over PCM."
This remark is logically inconsistent. DSD64 is a form of PCM, specifically it is 2822.4/1 PCM.
Because of its higher sampling rate, 2822.4/1 has technical and sonic benefits over 176.4/24. Because of its higher bit depth, 176/24 has technical and sonic benefits over D2822.4/1. Which is "better" is not provable, it is a matter of opinion.
It is possible to convert between multi-bit PCM formats in a lossless way, providing that the initial conversion is from a lower to a higher sampling rate and there is "sufficient" bit depth in the intermediate format. The final result in the original format will differ from the original by only a small multiple of the least significant bit. As far as I know, this does not apply to conversions from 44/16 to 2822/1 and back. None of the sigma delta modulators that I have tested manage to encode the original audio with 16 bit accuracy without putting noise in the frequency band below 20 kHz. Perhaps there is some way to do this, but I've not seen it. There are audiophiles who believe that Redbook is higher resolution than SACD and from their perspective they could be right.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: audiophool bluster-always - Tony Lauck 12:49:37 07/04/12 (3)
- RE: audiophool bluster-always - fmak 21:58:09 07/04/12 (2)
- RE: audiophool bluster-always - Tony Lauck 06:15:55 07/05/12 (1)
- Computaphool bluster? - fmak 06:30:18 07/05/12 (0)