The Best for the Least

[GUTB]

4 hours ago, Spacehound said:

If you think there is an audible  difference between 'native' DSD and DSD over  DoP you are mistook.

The only difference is that DoP is an 'envelope around' DSD and that envelope is discarded before anything else happens.

 

"DSD is better than PCM"

PCM is perfect within any arbitrary limit you are free to choose, as is DSD (though DSD adds some inaudible noise,  removed  before playing).  Please explain how one is "better" than the other

 

Or do  you just make up this stuff?

 

Get out of this anti-MQA cult, it’s warping your mind.

 

Native DSD refers to DSD that hasn’t undergone decimation to PCM, either in the A/D or D/A process. There is no conversion happening in a DoP stream so that’s irrelevant. If you have the DAC that can do native DSD (Sabre, 449x, 7841, etc) and recordings made from analog straight into DSD (Channel Classics, Merging, etc) and you have the system of high enough quality to render the dynamic range of DSD, you will be able to enjoy native DSD.

[GUTB]

It’s been established that humans receive and process high frequency information (Ooshi), and non-linear distortion effects are well known by now. 

[GUTB]

Why do the non-audiophiles have to resort to nonsense psychology to explain better sound? Is it necessary to hold the position that they can be audiophiles while at the same time placing little value in sound quality?

[GUTB]

Nyquist is still valid, its just not the whole story. Our time domain acuity is much higher than the frequency domain. We process high frequency information and many instruments produce high frequency tones.

 

Its an established fact through listening tests and our own dann ears that high res audio sounds better than Redbook. Shannon-Nyquist sampling formula is correct and that hasn't changed; what's changed is our understanding of human audio processing.

 

Its time to get off the class warfare kick. Time to get out of the cult. Get with the times and let your ears judge.

[GUTB]

2 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

That's nonsense.   Frequency domain and time domain are the same thing displayed differently.

 

Its a fact that humans perceive moments of sound at a much shorter time scale than our ability to hear tones would indicate.

[GUTB]

Vinyl in my limited experience seems to be greatly dependant on mastering and cutting. My small collection has examples of crackly, compressed, flat junk and wonderful recordings that are so quiet you could mistake them for digital at some times (Sheffield Labs, MoFi, Analouge Productions).

 

In digital quality is more deterministic and what matters is talent of the recording engineer and not having that quality crushed in mastering.

 

What vinyl does have across the board is the complete and utter lack of digititus.

[GUTB]

Some reading for the interested — and for cultists thinking about re-joining normal society.

 

Here is a study from 1971 which shows humans being able to distinguish audible clicks at 10 microseconds — which would translate into 100 kHz in the frequency domain:

 

http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.1912374

[GUTB]

I found 96/24 close to 44/16, but 176/24 and above is a significant improvement (352/24 is very good, but only a couple of audiophile labels record in this format).

 

You'll need a high-quality DAC to realize these gains, though.