chung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
the usual stuff for the first page or so, but then Nika Aldrich
chimes in and it gets interesting.

http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...6&page=4&pp=30

Therer's also a link to *another* student's CD vs DVD-A vs SACD
study

http://gearslutz.com/board/attachmen...achmentid=6491





Thanks for the link; it is very interesting.

I especially find it illuminating when someone brought out some
marketing promo that touted the impulse response of DSD and how that
looked "better" than CD and other PCM systems (post #282). As Nika said,
that is doctored data and completely bogus. He gave a good explanation
of it he

http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...&page=10&pp=30

See posts #289 and #290. In particular, this is germane:

"The (DSS) system can be said to have EITHER 120dB of dynamic range OR
it can be said to have a high frequency response and great impulse
response, but not both. If we only look at the region up to 20kHz,
filtering off all of the HF noise above 20kHz then the impulse response
of DSD will look just like the impulse response of 44.1kS/s in your plot
above, and the dynamic range is about the same. If, however, we want to
give DSD credit for having a very high frequency response and therefore
a very steep transient response then we also have to factor in all of
that excess noise that accumulates up in that range.

"The graphic you provided is an attempt to say that DSD is the best of
all worlds - it has huge dynamic range and great transient response
(frequency response). You know this not to be the case. If the graph
truly showed the unfiltered transient response the graph would have a
lot of noise in it as I stated above. This graph attempts to say, "look,
if we filtered out all of that noise (can't we just forget about the
noise?), but managed somehow not to filter out the signal, then it would
have a transient response like this." Unfortunately this is completely
bogus."

This should be required reading for those who use impulse response of
DSD as the technical reason why it sounds "better". BTW, vinyl has a
terrible impulse response. The "Analog" impulse response on some of
those diagrams is *NOT* the response from vinyl or tape, but rather some
theoretical, computer generated, model.

I also foudn it interesting that Michael Bishop of Telarc was
vigorously touting
the superior sound of 'hi-rez', meanwhile he's also been found to
have applied dynamic range compression to the CD layer of
a Telarc SACD --

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...#entry235 661



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow