![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
12.72.207.223
In Reply to: RE: No...... posted by Todd Krieger on November 16, 2007 at 21:49:45
2.8224MHz isn't a multiple of 96KHz. But that really has nothing to do with my question about whether DSD "upsampling" of CDs (which I believe is what we were talking about here) is really just another name for the PCM to bitstream conversion process that has been used at oftentimes much higher clock rates since the early 90s.
Follow Ups:
Ted Smith originally pointed me to this, when I had the exact same skepticism that you currently have. This link is an eye-opener.
That link just shows what I said, 96K isn't a multiple of the dsd sample rate. If you want to upsample 96K to dsd, you have to go higher than the dsd base rate to get a common multiple, and then decimate. I think that's well understood by now.Thanks for the link, but again, that didn't really have anything to do with my question about CD upsampling, and whether dsd upsampling of 44.1K pcm was anything new.
There is a "5x oversampling" node in the diagram..... The base DSD rate needs to be 5x oversampled to attain synchronous conversion to the DAT formats (I also notice 24/192 is not in the diagram either, which would require "10x oversampling"). So the base rate of DSD is *not* really a "common multiple" of all format rates, like I erroneously stated earlier..... Sorry about that.....
I presumed it was running without a need for an intermediate "oversample" conversion at an odd integer rate.
I think DSD would be the best "single-unit solution" for those who want a system for playing SACD, DVDA, and CD. But for those solely into CD, there are too many conversions (albeit synchronous) relative to the CD-dedicated oversampling and non-OS which can provide satisfying playback.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: