Hi-Rez Highway

Posted by Mars on January 20, 2001 at 23:53:14:

In Reply to: Re: SACD equilivalent sampling rates posted by Rodney Gold on January 20, 2001 at 22:56:21:

Thank you for your response.

I was still wondering though, whether SACD has one extra bit of resolution available at half the frequency?

You said that there are 12 or so bits of resolution at 100kHz. Does this mean that there will be 13 bits at 50kHz, 14 bits at 25kHz, 15 bits at 12kHz, 16 bits at 6kHz ect.?

If so, then this seems to be a big step down from Professional DSD which, please correct me if I am wrong, I believe to be 8 bits at 5.6kHz.

In that case perhaps a full 24 bits at all frequencies from PCM at 192kHz might sound better if the ringing of the interpolator is inaudible, and the dithering hides the errors. It this line of thinking correct?

Best regards,

Mars

• Re: SACD equilivalent sampling rates Rodney Gold 07:04:25 01/21/01 (2)
  In Reply to: Re: SACD equilivalent sampling rates posted by Mars on January 20, 2001 at 23:53:14:

  Essentially the noise shaping curve will "set" the resolution at certian points , in that the noise will increase , as noise increases one loses resolution in terms of the softest vs loudest sound that can be heard.
  So the answer to your question re res drops no's is not certian unless one has access to the curves , which I dont have: If the SCD-1 will allow a 100khz signal to be passed , as it does , then the noise there cannot be that excessive.
  SACD will attain max resolution to well over 20khz and it will reduce according to the curve , your speakers wont do 100khz and neither will you hear it apart from there being little or no info on cd up to there as well as the fact that few music instruments wll reach anywhere near there , the output at 100khz is so low it is sort of academic.
  There are studies which seem to prove that even tho we dont hear after 20khz , the signal still influences us.

  As to your 24/192 Q

  Errors at 24/192 are actually negligable compared to 16/44 , of the order of 256x less!!!!
  One doesnt need to apply dither if one is not truncating , and at 24/192 there is no truncation , oversampling and the fact that the anti aliasing filter is at 90+khz , means that the filters employed in 24/192 vs 16/44 are FAR more benign and gentle.
  All in all , on both sides , the AD and the DA process , 24/192 is very gently acted on and will preserve the signal most likely the same as a DSD type process will.
  No one has compared the same music/recording/mix via both processes , so one cant say whether the "pcm" method or the DSD method is better. Time will tell whichh remains dominant

  
  Rodney Gold
  
  
  

  ---

  • Re: SACD equilivalent sampling rates mattpeterson 22:07:34 01/21/01 (0)
    In Reply to: Re: SACD equilivalent sampling rates posted by Rodney Gold on January 21, 2001 at 07:04:25:

    Rodney Gold wrote:

    All in all , on both sides , the AD and the DA process , 24/192 is very gently acted on and will preserve the signal most likely the same as a DSD type process will.
    No one has compared the same music/recording/mix via both processes , so one cant say whether the "pcm" method or the DSD method is better. Time will tell whichh remains dominant

    ------

    This is true. Until the same performance with the same mic feeds is coded to both DSD and 192kHz simultaneously, and this is offered to end consumers in both formats, there will be no way for the average audiophile to compare the two.
    But, DVD-Audio does not have room for more than two channels at 192kHz. SACD can support up to six 64fs DSD channels. This apparent deficiency with DVD-Audio will probably be offset in the mind of the public by longer playing times available with MLP, but only SACD (in current configurations) is capable of full high resolution on all surround channels.
    
    

    ---
  • Re: SACD equilivalent sampling rates Mars 10:19:49 01/21/01 (0)
    In Reply to: Re: SACD equilivalent sampling rates posted by Rodney Gold on January 21, 2001 at 07:04:25:

    When trying to understand the SACD noise shaping filter, I find it more intuitive to imagine what the output voltage will do for each new clock cycle. Perhaps this is too reductionist. I shouldn't have used the word "simple" as I really don't understand the details. Can you explain why it is said to "shift the noise?" This is not intuitive enough for me.

    Also, as for PCM 24/192, will the anti-aliasing filter of 96kHz add undesirable phase distortion presumably not present in SACD?

    Thanks in advance,

    Mars
    
    

    ---

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: