Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded
Digital Resolution -- An Analysis
192.181.133.141 |
||
Posted on September 2, 2020 at 17:21:46 | ||
Posts: 23900
Location: Central Kentucky Joined: December 20, 2000 Contributor Since: January 29, 2004 |
An audio buddy of mine recently sent me an email in which he quoted his friend talking about the introduction of digital into the telephone industry. His friend worked for AT&T and was instrumental in incorporating digital technology to replace the analog system in use at the time. Here's what he wrote: After reading this, it occurred to me that this might be a good method to use for comparing the various digital formats being used in audio today. The method to evaluate and compare the different digital resolutions would be to multiply the sampling rate by the quantization bit rate for each digital format. That way the various digital formats could be compared on an equal basis. For example, the resolution of 16/44 Redbook would look like this: Redbook resolution = 44,100-Hz x 16-bits = 705,600-bits/s per channel DSD64 (SACD) resolution = 2,822,400-Hz x 1-bit = 2,822,400-bits/s per channel If we allow 16/44 Rebook to be the standard to which the other formats are compared, we can see how much higher resolution the other formats provide. For example, here's how SACD compares to Redbook: 2,822,400 / 705,600 = 4.000-times Higher Resolution than Redbook Here's a table of how some of the other digital formats compare to 16/44 Redbook: As can be seen from the table, DXD has a resolution that falls in-between the resolution of DSD128 and DSD256. It also shows that 24/176.4 and 24/192 PCM both have significantly higher resolution than standard SACD. I have a feeling that DSD512 might be overkill when you compare the additional memory required for storage. On the other hand, DXD might be the most efficient digital format from the standpoint of digital resolution relative to the amount of storage memory required. Anyway, I thought this type of comparison was rather interesting so I wanted to see what some of you other digital enthusiasts think about this concept. Thanks!
|
RE: Digital Resolution -- An Analysis, posted on September 3, 2020 at 03:03:51 | |
Posts: 1845
Joined: March 31, 2008 |
I'm afraid you most of all made a file size calculator. Not to be mistaken for resolution. IMHO resolution should be expressed in dynamic range and frequency range. If you do, you will notice that DSD64 isn't such a big (4000!) improvement at all The Well Tempered Computer |
DSD goes 0-100,000 hz. PCM? nt, posted on September 3, 2020 at 07:21:41 | |
Posts: 10581
Joined: April 12, 2002 |
/ |
RE: Digital Resolution -- An Analysis, posted on September 3, 2020 at 09:25:13 | |
Posts: 1845
Joined: March 31, 2008 |
2,822,400 / 705,600 = 4.000-times Higher Resolution than Redbook For me (Europe) 4000 is written as 4.000 |
The answer is on Roseval's chart [nt], posted on September 3, 2020 at 11:16:19 | |
Posts: 26432
Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012 |
|
Or this, from HDTT Website:, posted on September 3, 2020 at 13:37:42 | |
Posts: 10581
Joined: April 12, 2002 |
/ |
RE: That's all very well if you ignore the associated noise of DSD, posted on September 3, 2020 at 23:00:30 | |
Posts: 23900
Location: Central Kentucky Joined: December 20, 2000 Contributor Since: January 29, 2004 |
Well, if you like vinyl, you can always copy your favorite LPs in DSD128 with a TASCAM DA-3000 DSD recorder. That way you can have DSD128 recordings of music you like. However, I've found a lot of commercial DSD256 recordings from places like Native DSD sound good to me. Best regards, John Elison |
RE: That's all very well if you ignore the associated noise of DSD, posted on September 4, 2020 at 12:45:03 | |
Posts: 23900
Location: Central Kentucky Joined: December 20, 2000 Contributor Since: January 29, 2004 |
> I'd rather just play the LP instead of spending $900. That's 5x above what I paid for my entire digital setup. Okay! Different strokes for different folks! To me, $900 is downright cheap. My turntable with arm and cartridge cost more than $16,000 and my phono-stage cost $4,200. My speakers combined with Rythmik servo subs cost over $17,000. I just bought a $3,000 Mytek Brooklyn Bridge and a pair of $6,000 PS Audio 1200-watt monoblock amplifiers. Therefore, $900 is downright cheap to me. To each his own! Good luck, John Elison |
Yet why did you purchase a player that's capable of reproducing more noise that our Sony's can? : ) nt, posted on September 5, 2020 at 17:08:11 | |
. |
Huh? You'll have to explain that one, jdaniel. [nt], posted on September 5, 2020 at 20:12:45 | |
Posts: 26432
Location: SF Bay Area Joined: February 17, 2004 Contributor Since: February 6, 2012 |
|
Yours processes quad DSD, right? Our Sony's only 128. Nt, posted on September 6, 2020 at 11:21:05 | |
. |
Well, 2 X's the DSD.... Was just joke. Nt., posted on September 6, 2020 at 15:16:12 | |
. |
That might be different for everybody! /nt\, posted on September 10, 2020 at 15:15:43 | |
Posts: 23900
Location: Central Kentucky Joined: December 20, 2000 Contributor Since: January 29, 2004 |
No one, especially me, says that is the Only reason., posted on September 13, 2020 at 09:21:31 | |
Posts: 10581
Joined: April 12, 2002 |
Go back to making Babe Posts, that suits you. |
RE: $$, posted on January 18, 2021 at 16:21:24 | |
I doubt I could afford the turntable mat for your system ;) And certainly not the electric bill! |