Jump to content

First DSD Audio Files


Wolfbane
 Share

Recommended Posts

PCM has none of these issues, but doesn't play past 96KHz

Explain what you mean here... Recording and playback of 24/192 is readily available. You can do multiple channels of 24/192 over a single Cat 5 cable.

Time was, when any editing of DSD meant converting to PCM, but the tools are becoming more mainstream (if you have deep pockets).

Bruce

Hi Bruce, First watch some YouTube videos (linked above) about sampling theory. 192KHz sampling allows you to play up to its Nyquist frequency. In 192KHz it's half the sample rate, which is 96Khz. DSD64 has lots of noise at 100KHz, plus most players low pass these ultrasonic frequencies. I dont know about DSD at higher sample rates, but I'd imagine the upper limit is extended and there is an even more acurate "picture" or sample of the analog waveform. (5.6MHz DSD is ~5,600,000 samples a second!)

A free DSD editing app is avaible on Tascam's website. PCM editors such as Audacity (free) are MUCH better. Still, if you are Archiving vinyl and just splitting tracks, then these DSD editors are fine.

Think of DSD as Digital "Tape" - much of the rules for editing apply to both Analog Tape and DSD.

Edited by o0O Bill O0o
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With current tech for 2 ch.  Upsampling, noise reduction, ect. it is really hard to distinguish some ultra high res. files from ones that are not.  There are even algorithms for mp3's encoded in 256 bit that places more weight on certain parts of the file over other parts for a better sound.  Where this is leading is to our collection of music and storage.  I don't like the large files if I can't hear the difference.

 

The digital domain is future and even though storage is cheap, it is still a consideration with these large file.  The other things is how often are people listening that critically?  I recently spent several weeks comparing FLAC and high quality mp3's.  It was not a night and day difference. The HD content cost more, less of a selection: it seems most of us will end up with a combination of HD and non-HD files.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With current tech for 2 ch.  Upsampling, noise reduction, ect. it is really hard to distinguish some ultra high res. files from ones that are not.  There are even algorithms for mp3's encoded in 256 bit that places more weight on certain parts of the file over other parts for a better sound.  Where this is leading is to our collection of music and storage.  I don't like the large files if I can't hear the difference.

 

The digital domain is future and even though storage is cheap, it is still a consideration with these large file.  The other things is how often are people listening that critically?  I recently spent several weeks comparing FLAC and high quality mp3's.  It was not a night and day difference. The HD content cost more, less of a selection: it seems most of us will end up with a combination of HD and non-HD files.

Makes sense to me. Circle back to my first comment in this thread, https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/161854-first-dsd-audio-files/?p=1979176

Play the version of the song you enjoy the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...