影音天地主旨 ﹝請按主旨作出回應﹞  上頁  下頁  首頁  尾頁 寄件者 傳送日期 由舊至新 由新至舊
[#341] 有冇發覺FILES 始終不及CD 機播歌.    
只要有邏輯思考,客觀判斷,你就可以得出真理或比較合理的答案。小弟的論點不是絕對答案,只是以認受性比較高的各個龍頭品牌作參考,從而得出相對合理的結論,大家可以去批判、質疑我的結論,討論要客觀,而不是用一些含糊不清字眼或扮權威去否定對方,如「音響產品是市場主導」、「你盲目跟從品牌」、「什麼品牌技術不夠他應用廣泛」、「什麼設計師理論本末倒置」,這些都不是客觀論點,以模糊為高深,以技術權威去壓倒你,這些全部是虛廢言詞 - 即沒有真的資格,連假的資格都沒有。

S.Cheung
個人訊息 會員
182.xxx.xxx.225
2021-02-28 23:59
[#342] 有冇發覺FILES 始終不及CD 機播歌.    
都唔知係邊個連理解能力也欠奉,之前都有其他師兄講出佢見解話邊樣技術好啲係比較技術同品牌無關,如果唔係比較技術上嘅差異只講聽感,有人會覺得 file 好啲,亦會有人覺得 CD好啲,甚至有人會覺得黑膠仲係最好...,所以我一直都話大家都有過往唔同嘅經驗,都係以聽感及觀感嚟做討論唔會有結果,更唔可能會結論 ,品牌嘅說只不過係其中一個論點,睇返前面都已經有其他師兄唔認同喱個論點亦舉出其他例子,市場導向往往有太多複雜因素,柯達發明數碼相機技術都一樣可以將自己嘅菲林市場整死,但從技術上有人可以標榜所謂嘅 hifi 龍頭廠牌但同時郤又否定 studio 用嘅播/放及其他器材,與其話整唔到最好嘅 file 放播放器叫人收口,CD 係錄音原檔 downsample 後嘅產物喱個亦都係唔可以莫視嘅事實。 剩係識得喺度人身攻擊,咁鐘意講 Andreas 嚟壓人,但講咗咁耐又見有啲咩有營養嘅嘢講到出嚟,唔好懶係講到自己好有資格先得喇,除咗品牌之外由頭到尾又係嗰三幅被。

你睇吓人哋專家講啲咩理據嚟反駁 DSD/SACD。
長長影子
個人訊息 正式會員
165.xxx.xxx.175
2021-03-01 01:37
[#343] 有冇發覺FILES 始終不及CD 機播歌.    
About DSD

(Mark Waldrep) I'm an audio engineer. While I’ve studied enough electronics, built equipment, and repaired hundreds of pieces of equipment, I don't consider myself an expert on analog or digital circuit design. But I know people who are experts. Friends that have the requisite educational and practical background to speak authoritatively on the subject of DSD vs. PCM.

John Siau is one of the principals and Director of Engineering at Benchmark Media, makers of both professional and consumer audio equipment. He has almost 40 years of experience designing high-end analog and digital circuits for use in a variety of applications. John is continually seeking to improve their high-end DACs, devices that include DSD conversion. I spoke to him about DSD technology after reading a few of his white papers on the topic. The illustrations below were taken from a paper by Andreas Koch, a principal in Playback Designs (a hardware company that manufacturers DACs and advocates for the DSD format) from an article entitled, DSD - the new Addiction. They got me thinking about the DSD format. So I asked John if he would be willing to answer some questions and help me understand what’s behind DSD. Here’s a transcription of that phone interview. Transcription of John Siau Interview April 3, 2013

MW: So let's start with the basics of conversion technology shown in Figure 1 of the DSD document. (Shown below as Figure 8.1) What's going on there?


長長影子
個人訊息 正式會員
165.xxx.xxx.175
2021-03-01 01:38
[#344] 有冇發覺FILES 始終不及CD 機播歌.    
Figure 8.4 An illustration of an oversampled ADC convertor showing the difference between the PCM and DSD signal path. This was adopted from the article DSD - The New Addiction by Andreas Koch.

JS: The block diagram shows a 1-bit oversampled ADC feeding PCM data to a 1-bit DAC. This topology was typical in the 1990’s but does not apply to most PCM converters manufactured after about the year 2000. Virtually all of today's PCM converters use oversampled 4-bit conversion. Oversampled 1-bit converters are a relic from the past. The additional 3 bits improve the SNR of the overall conversion system while greatly reducing the amount of noise shaping that is required.

MW: Can you please explain a little more about the change to multi-bit oversampled converters?

JS: In the 90s the music industry began to mix and process audio in digital audio workstations (DAWs). The first DAWs used 16-bit processing, and recording engineers quickly recognized that this 16-bit processing introduced noise and distortion. Manufacturers responded with 18, 20, 22, and 24-bit systems. It was the move to 24-bit conversion that ultimately made the 1-bit delta-sigma converter obsolete. Benchmark's first step beyond 1-bit conversion delta-sigma was the DAC2004, a 20-bit DAC that was introduced in 1997. It had two 1-bit delta-sigma DACs wired in parallel. This configuration produced a 3 dB improvement over existing systems. With 4-bit delta-sigma converters we can now achieve a 130 dB SNR. This is a full 10 dB better than the channel capacity of 64x DSD. A 1-bit system simply doesn’t have enough room in the format for both dither noise and the audio signal. DSD is limited to a 120 dB SNR over the audio band. You can pass an audio signal that's partially dithered or an audio signal that has no dither but there's not enough room to pass a fully dithered audio signal. You need more than 1-bit in order to be able to do that.

MW: OK, so DSD may have a reduced SNR, but the simplicity of the data path must offer some sonic advantages.

JS: The dotted lines [in Figure 8.4] show how DSD can create a bypass path to eliminate several DSP blocks in the ADC and DAC (but this bypass assumes 1-bit conversion at each end). If DSD were designed today, we would probably consider using 4-bits instead of 1. The problem is that 1-bit DSD is nearly impossible to process. In the studio, DSD is processed as 8-bit data (or wider) at DSD sample rates, in a format known as DSD-Wide. The additional DSD-wide data bits reduce the amount of noise shaping that must be applied in each processing step. Bottom line, the 1-bit DSD bypass shown in the diagram doesn’t really exist except in the very simplest direct-to-disk DSD recording.

MW: DSDs are not mixed in DSD?

JS: No, DSD signals are not 1-bit wide in the DAW. DSD becomes 4-bits wide or 8-bits wide or 16-bits wide depending on what word length the DAW can handle.

MW: Really? So is it true to say as a complement to what they say in here that every DSD file or project actually goes through a PCM stage as well?

JS: Shh! Please don't use the PCM word! But OK yes, it is probably safe to say for about 99% of the DSD projects that have been done. There may be a few exceptions where somebody set up a microphone to a DSD direct to disc project and have done nothing with it. No processing, no level changes, no filtering, no mixing or have used that for archiving an analog tape…or archiving a vinyl disc.

MW: Those are rare.

JS: Yes. We're going to do multichannel recording, we're going to have to do mixing, we're going to have to do EQ, we're going to have to do various effects and all that has to be done in PCM. Now the PCM can all be done at DSD sample rates, and that's fine. That's well and good. The conversion from DSD to PCM is really an automatic thing, a very benign conversion. If you don't change the sample rate, there is no loss of quality when expanding the word length. As soon as you do any mathematical operation on the DSD, the word length expands. And so DSD goes from being 1-bit to being multiple bits. The DSD DAW manufacturer chooses how many bits of precision they wish to preserve in the processing — the more the better.

MW: Is that an example of what Pyramix or the Sonoma system is doing? I mean productions that are actually happening in that domain, are they doing all these PCM steps and just keeping it under the covers?

JS: That's exactly what they're doing. Yeah. It's PCM at the DSD sample rate. But, nothing bad happens up until that point. The loss of quality only comes when multi-bit PCM is dithered back down to 1-bit DSD. When you dither down to 1-bit, you're adding huge amounts of quantization noise. Any 1-bit DSD signal has a 6 dB signal to noise ratio - at best (when the ultrasonic noise is included in the measurement). The noise situation gets worse when we have two cascaded multi-bit to 1-bit conversions (once in the ADC, and once in the DAW).

MW: Right.

JS: And so you have to apply very, very aggressive noise shaping to keep the in-band noise down, but this comes at the expense of a tremendous amount of out of band noise.

MW: Yeah, that's the purple haze you see at the high end of the spectrum in DSD recordings.

JS: The spectrum analysis of DSD shows a huge amount of noise at high frequencies. You've got 6 dB of signal to noise ratio - at best.

MW: Back up on that a second. You mean the end result, if you include the ultra sonic noise maxes out at 6 dB signal to noise ratio?

JS: Yep, it can't be any better than that.

MW: And so what a mastering engineer or an equipment manufacturer would do is simply would apply a low pass filter to remove the “purple haze” out of the equation.

JS: Unfortunately, the ultrasonic noise cannot be removed in mastering unless the DSD source is being transferred to PCM. The ultrasonic noise is always present in DSD signal; it cannot be removed until the DSD signal is converted to analog or to PCM. This means that the noise must be removed in the playback hardware. If the DSD DAC is equipped with a well-designed analog lowpass filter, we can achieve signal to noise ratios that start to rival some of the better PCM systems. DSD doesn’t approach the 144 dB SNR performance of a 24-bit system, but it certainly exceeds the -96 dB SNR performance of the CD format. With a well-designed filter, DSD can achieve a 120 dB signal to noise ratio, roughly equivalent to a 20-bit PCM system.

MW: They talk about making 20-20 kHz just stellar and they don't really worry about anything higher than that because of this whole noise-shaping dilemma.

JS: Yeah. The problem is that that DSD marketing materials often show a nice, well-formed high frequency square wave. But, this waveform only exists before the analog low pass filter. It looks very different after the analog low pass filter. To his credit, Andreas Koch didn't show the square wave in his paper but it’s something that does appear in many DSD marketing materials.

MW: Yeah. I've seen it in the standard Sony DSD white paper.

JS: So as far as that [Figure 8.4] is concerned, the conversion from DSD to PCM is a very benign conversion. The conversion from PCM back to DSD is where all the problems occur. If you can avoid ever going back to 1-bit, you're much better off. For this reason, all modern DACs avoid dithering all the way down to 1-bit. They usually stop at 4-bits. The modulators will modulate down to 4-bits and not to 1-bit, so the noise shaping doesn't have to be nearly so aggressive. With 4-bits, there is also adequate space for the required dither.

MW: Why would they continue to make the claim that the bandwidth, just like in analog systems, goes up to 100 kHz?



最後修改時間: 2021-03-01 01:53:43
長長影子
個人訊息 正式會員
165.xxx.xxx.175
2021-03-01 01:39
[#345] 有冇發覺FILES 始終不及CD 機播歌.    
JS: Well, it does before the analog low pass filter. Unfortunately, the low pass filter is an absolute necessity.

MW: Because of all the noise that's been shifted up there, right?

JS: They like to conveniently ignore the fact that a 50 kHz low pass filter is required in any practical DSD system and that it is, in fact, a requirement of the specification.

MW: Is it really?

JS: Yeah. The high-frequency noise is a disaster if it reaches power amplifiers and speakers. 128x DSD offers some improvements, which allow expanding the usable bandwidth above the 50 kHz limit of 64x DSD.

MW: But then the files are going to get huge.

JS: Yes, but file size is less of an issue these days. In my opinion, DSD and PCM are both good distribution formats. They're both perfectly adequate for distributing the final product to the consumer. PCM is a little bit easier for the consumer to work with and PCM simplifies the playback hardware. It's a lot easier to do PCM volume control. It's a lot easier to do soft fades, crossfades, or any other processing that is required for playback. All of these processing functions are far easier to do with a PCM source than with a DSD source. But, if you put the processing issues aside, DSD is adequate for conveying the entire signal to noise ratio and bandwidth captured in any of today's best recordings.

MW: Is that inclusive of any of the things that I do? I've got Wallace Roney and the spectrographs that I look at that and other things that we've done exceed 40-45 kHz. And my justification is that I don't really care whether the speakers and the rest of the hardware can actually reproduce the increased fidelity. But if there was a musical sound in the room when they were performing, I want to be able to capture it and preserve it through the entire production chain. And because Blu-ray and DVD-Audio can deliver frequencies higher than the traditional human limits, I say let's try to reproduce everything. Given the situation with SACD and DSD and this whole noise shaping thing, it doesn't sound like that is an option for them.

JS: Right. These frequencies are above the playback capability of DSD. Remember, you've got a 50 kHz low pass filter that means you haven't got a chance for accurately reproducing anything over about 47 kHz in DSD. The filter introduces phase distortion, amplitude errors, and ringing as we approach the 50 kHz cut-off frequency. In contrast, 96 kHz PCM will capture your ultrasonics just fine.

MW: Yeah. That's what I use when I'm recording.

JS: And we're not very good at capturing anything that's much above 48 kHz at this point.

MW: Right.



最後修改時間: 2021-03-01 01:47:36
長長影子
個人訊息 正式會員
165.xxx.xxx.175
2021-03-01 01:40
[#346] 有冇發覺FILES 始終不及CD 機播歌.    
JS: If you look at the paper here and look at [Figure 8.6], that is a very, very misleading figure because it’s really — what you have is an FFT of the DSD and you have a straight line that's drawn based on 6.02 dB per bit at approximately 144 dB representing the 24-bit PCM. That’s not what the 24-bit PCM will look like on an FFT.

Figure 8.6 A DSD 64 FFT plot vs. a PCM (96/192/384 kHz) line chart.

MW: What would be different?

JS: Oh, it will be way quieter, way lower level than that DSD that you see there. You’ve got to be comparing FFTs to FFTs, not a line that's drawn on there based on a calculation that's not valid in this case. I have been rather outspoken about this from time to time. I have a product that supports DSD playback and I support DSD playback because… the theory being that if you have DSD material that you want to playback I want to give you a way to do it. It shouldn't be absolutely necessary to convert it first. If you want to play it back directly we'll give you a way to do that.

JS: We do not recommend it at all for any kind of studio production work. It's just completely unsuitable for professional applications — for any production work. The only way it should exist, if it exists at all, should be as the final output from a mastering room, where for whatever reason we want to distribute this in a DSD format. Okay, let’s create a master in a DSD format that we can distribute.

MW: So what goes on earlier in the production process could be analog tape or anything else, including PCM?

JS: Right. And PCM is a wonderful format to do all your production work. Do all your mixing, all your EQ, all your processing that you’re going to do, everything that you're going to do in the mastering process and then the very final output can be DSD. There will be some loss in quality when you do the PCM to DSD conversion, but this loss is just because of the limitations of the DSD and not due to any limitations of the conversion process. You'll have a better result doing that than trying to do all the processing in DSD.

MW: Exactly.

JS: We make what a lot of people have called the best D to A converter for DSD playback. They're thrilled with the way our converter sounds for DSD playback. We worked hard to make sure that we did it all natively but DSD is not a format that I think is a great idea. It's not.

MW: But it's out there.

JS: It's out there and we want to support it because it's out there, but not because we want to encourage the proliferation of it.

MW: How do you handle volume control in that final output stage? Do you convert to analog and then turn it up and down?

JS: We actually don’t. We do process that at the high sample rate and we have multiple 1-bit converters that are available to us. So the increase in word length that we get as a function of that volume control makes use of the redundant 1-bit converters that we have running in parallel.

MW: I see.

JS: So we’re not converting it... in a way you could look at that as if it's PCM because there's multiple 1-bit converters summed together in the analog domain. But that’s what you have to do to get volume control to work. The good thing is we don't take it from 1-bit to multi-bit and back to 1-bit before we convert it to analog.

MW: Yep, as you were saying before.

JS: Instead of sending identical DSD signals to sixteen balanced 1-bit converters that are wired in parallel, we start sending different DSD signals to reduce the signal amplitude. All summing occurs in the analog domain. It is very cool!

MW: There are a lot of varying positions on the validity of DSD and I appreciate your frank assessment and experienced input.

JS: And Stanley Lipshitz and John Vandercoy did a lot of work on this. They wrote a lot of papers and a lot of it fell on deaf ears.

MW: I've read those and actually met Stanley at an AES meeting in the UK some years back.

JS: I actually had a Sony engineer say to me one time and this is quite few years ago — he said, “we realized after we got a ways down the road that DSD was kind of a mistake but we had too much invested in it”.

MW: Wasn't archiving their whole reason for coming up with it in the first place? It was going to be used to take their analog masters in their vault and putting in a format that they thought would preserve the most fidelity, right?

JS: Yeah. And conceptually it looked like a simple approach. And, DSD significantly outperformed the 16-bit PCM systems that were common at the time. As a distribution format, DSD is definitely a big step above 44/16 CDs, and we want to give people the best possible playback of the wonderful DSD recordings that already exist.

MW: And they tried to put in the successor to the CD and that's where we got a format war.

JS: Yep. Moving forward, we should focus on 24/96, and 24/192 downloads as these formats offer the best quality available.

I would like to thank John Siau for sharing his expertise on this topic. Using DSD 64/128 for production work is clearly not a viable option for high-end music and it is doubtful that moving forward with DSD for downloading will have any benefit for music lovers. In fact, it may just confuse things all the more.



最後修改時間: 2021-03-01 01:49:33
長長影子
個人訊息 正式會員
165.xxx.xxx.175
2021-03-01 01:41
[#347] 有冇發覺FILES 始終不及CD 機播歌.    
John Siau: This anecdotal evidence is meaningless. Very few people (if any) have ever had the opportunity to compare identical recordings delivered on PCM and DSD. There are many wonderful sounding DSD recordings that are being produced by highly skilled recording engineers who are putting a high emphasis on quality. The wonderful recordings that they are producing are a reflection of the care and skill that they put into the recording and production process. The quality is not due to the DSD delivery format. Based upon the mathematics, a 96/24 PCM dub of the DSD should be indistinguishable from the DSD original. This comparison would yield meaningful data. Anecdotal accounts of DSD sounding better than PCM are meaningless unless the same exact recording is available in both formats.

MW: I'm not sure I understand why Richard uses quotes around the word “facts” — everything I stated in my post is accurate and true. I have no problem acknowledging that certain forces within the high-end audiophile community have succeeded in hyping DSD to the point where many make the claim that DSD is “warmer” or “more like analog.” They are certainly entitled to their opinion — just as one of the most prominent DSD supporters claimed on a panel at the Newport Show that with DSD “there is sort of an ease, a naturalness, roundness that I associate more with analog than I do with digital.” His personal opinions can't be supported with facts.

I wrote a post about a German research project that compared DSD vs. PCM. The team recorded selections of music with exactly the same signal path and at the same level. You can read the post by at http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=3797. Here are some of their conclusions: “The results showed that hardly any of the subjects could make a reproducible distinction between the two encoding systems. Hence it may be concluded that no significant differences are audible.” But still audiophiles, writers, engineers, producers, and editors continue to insist — incorrectly — that DSD rules.


JS: The signal needs to be band-limited in either system. DSD requires a 50 kHz low-pass filter (usually implemented in the analog domain). 96 kHz PCM requires a 48 kHz low pass filter, but this can be implemented in the digital domain, the analog domain, or both. Modern sigma-delta PCM ADCs typically use a 5 MHz analog lowpass filter in front of the ADC, and a fs/2 digital lowpass filter following the ADC. The fs/2 digital filter is usually a steep filter, but it is almost always a linear-phase filter. Linear-phase filters do not distort the phase of the audio. At 96 and 192 kHz sampling rates, the lowpass filter does not need to be a brick wall. Many converters offer a gentler response at higher sample rates. This tends to reduce in-band variations in the amplitude response. The DSD system needs two analog lowpass filters. A 5 MHz analog lowpass filter at the input to the A/D, and a 50 kHz analog lowpass filter following the D/A converter. The analog lowpass filter in a DSD system must by a fairly steep filter in order to block the ultrasonic noise in the DSD system. This filter is usually implemented in the analog domain and therefore it is not a linear-phase filter. The DSD analog lowpass filter distorts the phase response. The PCM system delivers a linear phase response, but the DSD system doesn't. 96 kHz PCM and DSD 64 have very similar bandwidth (just under 50 kHz). Nevertheless, the differences between PCM 96/24 and DSD 64 should be inaudible.

Both systems are capable of delivering high-resolution audio, and both systems exceed the performance of the CD by a significant margin.

最後修改時間: 2021-03-01 01:57:16
長長影子
個人訊息 正式會員
165.xxx.xxx.175
2021-03-01 01:42
[#348] 有冇發覺FILES 始終不及CD 機播歌.    
Where does Benchmark stand on DSD vs. PCM, and why?

1. Benchmark recognizes that DSD (64x and higher) has significant advantages over 44.1/16 PCM.

2. Benchmark recognizes that high-resolution PCM (96/24 and higher) has significant advantages over 44.1/16 PCM.

3. Benchmark's measurements and calculations show that the performance of 64x DSD is almost identical to the performance of 20-bit 96 kHz PCM (the in-band SNR of 64x DSD is about 120 dB). 64x DSD does not have any time-domain, frequency domain, or linearity advantage over 96 kHz PCM. DSD marketing materials have been very misleading. [My emphasis]

4. 24-bit 96 kHz PCM has a 24 dB noise advantage over 64x DSD (144 dB vs. 120 dB), but this 24 dB noise difference is completely masked by the noise produced by other components in our recording and playback systems, and by the noise limitations of our recording and listening spaces.

5. Benchmark recognizes that 64x DSD and 96/24 PCM formats outperform most of the recording and playback chain. Bandwidth of either digital transmission system meets or exceeds the bandwidth of our microphones, amplifiers, and speakers. Likewise, the SNR of either digital transmission system meets or exceeds the noise performance of microphones, microphone preamplifiers, and power amplifiers. In addition, these digital transmission systems both exceed the performance of most A/D and D/A converters. 64x DSD and 96/24 PCM are not the factors limiting the performance of our audio systems. Focusing on DSD vs. PCM will distract us from much bigger issues in the recording and playback chain. Any sonic advantage of one digital system over the other will be very small when compared to improvements that can be made in other parts of the signal chain.

6. 64x DSD and 96/24 PCM both offer excellent sonic performance as distribution formats. PCM is more compact, but DSD provides better copy protection (a frustration to those of us who use music servers, but an important consideration for copyright holders).

7. Every A/D and D/A converter that Benchmark has produced uses Sigma-Delta conversion with equally weighted 1-bit conversion elements. Benchmark never used multi-level conversion because of the THD issues caused by the linearity errors that are common to all multi-level systems. Benchmark has always placed high priorities on THD and linearity, at the expense of SNR. Sigma-delta 1-bit DACs tend to produce more noise than multi-level systems (such as ladder DACs), but the 1-bit systems achieve near-perfect linearity, which in our opinion is much more important than SNR. Benchmark has overcome the noise limitations of 1-bit conversion through the use of parallel 1-bit conversion systems. Our DAC2 sums the outputs of four balanced converters. Each of these four converters has sixteen equally-weighted balanced 1-bit converters (for a total of 64) that are summed together to improve the SNR of the system. These 64 1-bit converters can be driven from a 32-bit PCM signal, or from a 1-bit DSD signal. Either way, the performance is nearly identical, and none of the multi-bit THD issues exist. In this sigma-delta configuration there is almost no difference between the in-band performance of PCM vs. DSD. The only measurable difference at the output of the DAC2 is that 64x DSD signals produce about 8 dB more noise in-band than96/24 PCM (due to the SNR limitations of DSD). Ultrasonic noise is not an issue at the output of the DAC2 because we are careful to remove the ultrasonic noise produced by DSD noise shaping. These same filters also remove the ultrasonic images that are always produced by D/A conversion (DSD or PCM).

8. The ultrasonic noise produced by DSD noise shaping must be removed after D/A conversion. It cannot be removed from the DSD signal before D/A conversion. This noise is due to the 6-dB SNR of the 1-bit DSD transmission system. Aggressive noise-shaping must be used in the DSD A/D, and at least once more in the mastering process. This noise-shaping is used to achieve an excellent SNR in the audible band by moving most of the 1-bit quantization noise to ultrasonic frequencies. Each time this process is applied, the quality of the DSD audio degrades (noise and distortion both increase). For this reason, the quality of DSD degrades very quickly in the mixing and mastering process. DSD has produced impressive results when the mixing and mastering processes have been omitted from the signal chain. To date, most of the DSD vs. PCM listening tests have omitted these processing steps. Unfortunately, very few recordings can be produced without some mixing, editing, and mastering. Cascaded DSD noise-shaping processes should be avoided. For this reason, Benchmark does not recommend recording and mixing in DSD.

9. The 24-dB noise advantage that 24/96 PCM has over 64x DSD begins to become significant in the mixing and mastering processes. In terms of in-band noise, each DSD noise-shaping process is equivalent to at least 16 cascaded 24-bit dither processes. In terms of distortion, there is no comparison; the DSD noise-shaping process adds distortion while the PCM dithering process is distortion-free.

10. If the ultrasonic noise of DSD is not removed after D/A conversion, it will usually cause distortion in the playback system. The slew-rate limitations of most power amplifiers will fold the ultrasonic noise into the audible band causing distortion that is not harmonically related to the music. If the power amplifier has sufficient slew rates to pass the ultrasonic frequencies, similar problems will occur in the speakers. For these reasons, the ultrasonic noise must be removed from a DSD source after D/A conversion or before amplification.

11. Benchmark introduced 64X DSD on the new Benchmark DAC2 converter family. This gives our customers the ability to play DSD recordings in native format. Existing DSD recordings should not need to be converted to PCM to be enjoyed on a Benchmark converter.

12. Currently there is no practical way to play SACD disks through a high-quality outboard converter. SACD copy protection holds most existing DSD recordings captive to the limited quality of the lowcost conversion systems built into SACD players. It is our hope that many of the fine recordings that exist on SACD disks will be released for purchase as DSD downloads.

最後修改時間: 2021-03-01 01:55:23
長長影子
個人訊息 正式會員
165.xxx.xxx.175
2021-03-01 01:42
[#349] 有冇發覺FILES 始終不及CD 機播歌.    
玩hifi就係玩失真,唔明嘅人就由佢唔明,解釋都係嘥氣!
Firstwatt
個人訊息 會員
112.xxx.xxx.223
2021-03-01 02:02
[#350] 有冇發覺FILES 始終不及CD 機播歌.    
I thought I accidentally came into the AES Conference and Dr. this and Dr. that were arguing, debating or bickering the next generation of technology which has no practicality to real world consumers, yet.

Sorry, wrong entry and I shall leave quietly.............as I don't want my brain being roasted with all these unrelated terms.........

Ha,ha.......life is too short....numbers are perpetual.......



最後修改時間: 2021-03-01 02:42:12
fotheringay
個人訊息 會員
88.xxx.xxx.113
2021-03-01 02:41
[#351] 有冇發覺FILES 始終不及CD 機播歌.    
「市場導向往往有太多複雜因素」 - 又用啲模稜兩可的說話去蒙混反駁? 乜嘢叫複雜因素? 怕product cannibalisation ?CD/SACD 仍有大量用家,看不到會被Streamer 取代,而出部旗艦Streamer 可以擴展hi-end 市場的market share,爭取要方便又要高質音樂的發燒友deferment ,何樂而不為? 倘若CAS 真的會取代CD/SACD,那就更需要出部Streamer迎合市場需求,否則自己公司面臨倒閉,正如現在的高端汽油車品牌,佢哋都要爭住出電車,否則會被淘汰,其實已經遲了,市場趨勢電車係會取代油車;在數碼音響市場的龍頭品牌,他們推出Streamer 百利而無一害,而且會爭相做first mover ! 但是,現實中他們還未推出,唯一可能因素是技術樽頸,在streamer 中未能造出他們的Signature sound,或造出他們的音質標準。你可以爭論他們技術已成熟,但為什麼所有龍頭都未有Streamer ? 你的「cannibalisation 」論點不合理。

你出一堆技術文章去證明DSD 比 PCM 好,這只是以技術權威去蒙混,更何況他們似乎在講DAC,而不是Streamer. DSD 技術數據比PCM 好就等如「Files比播CD好聲」? 我不認同。我之前已經指出「音響製造係技術與音樂的融合」,100% 數據完美的器材不是最好聲的器材,Grimm Audio 是其中失敗例子,技術上DSD 格式比CD 的PCM 好又如何?真正要求係「展現悦耳音樂的技術」,在streamer製造方面或者這些龍頭遇到「展現悅耳音樂」的技術樽頸呢?畢竟streamer 這一環節上有不同因素影響音質,跟Trabsport 不一樣。他們在streamer 一環遇到技術樽頸只是比較合理的解釋,當然不是絕對答案。
S.Cheung
個人訊息 會員
172.xxx.xxx.62
2021-03-01 02:49
[#352] 有冇發覺FILES 始終不及CD 機播歌.    
三幅屁已經足夠反駁你的謬誤,長篇大論扮高深只是廢話連篇,沒有真的資格,假的資格也沒有,跟主題風馬牛不相及,辯不出事實來。
S.Cheung
個人訊息 會員
172.xxx.xxx.62
2021-03-01 02:53
[#353] 有冇發覺FILES 始終不及CD 機播歌.    
有乜好拗,各有所好,各有所得, un un 脚聽下歌好过

最後修改時間: 2021-03-01 11:19:56
254mm
個人訊息 正式會員
112.xxx.xxx.9
2021-03-01 11:19
[#354] 有冇發覺FILES 始終不及CD 機播歌.    
hi-fi 真義不在於傳真. 好像藝術名畫般理解比較易明.他的價值在於能給與聽者感動與否厘定的.
bryanck
個人訊息 會員
221.xxx.xxx.58
2021-03-01 12:35
[#355] 有冇發覺FILES 始終不及CD 機播歌.    
利用器材听音乐,各人有各人口味,有人喜欢黑胶,有人喜欢CD或SACD,有人喜欢CAS。去勉强其它人认同自己喜欢的器材或媒体格式是没有意思的,难道别人不认同就听得不开心,听得不过瘾吗?

Hi-Fi 全名是 High Fidelity - 中文的解释是高度忠实重播声音,怎样才能高度忠实重播呢?相信只有以低噪音,低失真及无添加味精才算。所以师兄随自己的喜好使用器材线材加盐加醋去听音乐,没有人能说你不是。但说Hifi 这个名词的真义不在于传真,那就有点儿歪曲了这个名词的真正定义了。
MetalNuts
個人訊息 會員
210.xxx.xxx.250
2021-03-01 13:00
[#356] 有冇發覺FILES 始終不及CD 機播歌.    
每人聽音樂喜好都不同,無謂咁執著,
254mm
個人訊息 正式會員
112.xxx.xxx.9
2021-03-01 13:02
[#357] 有冇發覺FILES 始終不及CD 機播歌.    
其實喇叭一環成个hi-fi 系统就失真最高,物理設計所至,同時同最早期喇叭,大致原理相同,总之各有所好,亦唔會有最好,順應吧。
254mm
個人訊息 正式會員
112.xxx.xxx.9
2021-03-01 13:08
[#358] 有冇發覺FILES 始終不及CD 機播歌.    
係啦! 而且感性同理性, 真係審死官 都好難分辨佢哋邊個贏, 自己喜歡就ok! 最緊要大家開開心心, 少啲爭拗, 多啲分享! 粉筆字抹咗佢, 開番杯靚嘅啤酒, 大家啤啤佢, 開心返!!!!!!
一休大師
個人訊息 會員
182.xxx.xxx.114
2021-03-01 13:34
[#359] 有冇發覺FILES 始終不及CD 機播歌.    
每人聽音樂喜好都不同,無謂咁執著, X 2

成日有人講話玩 Hi-fi 要聽真聲真係自欺欺人,用下 common sense 就知呢個係謬誤,就算兩部機有同樣的 spec 同失真率,大家啲聲都可以唔同,邊部先係真聲?

玩 Hi-fi 只係聽某牌子的 signature sound,當然 spec 唔可以太差,太多理論唔係玩 Hifi,係畀 Hifi 玩你。
Forfun
個人訊息 會員
84.xxx.xxx.173
2021-03-01 13:34
[#360] 有冇發覺FILES 始終不及CD 機播歌.    
不要太快要入一個 單一性 結論... Hifi hobby and listen to music 對一啲人嚟講係完全無關 haha

其實可以係好極端嘅... Haha

其實如果只針對聽音樂 this extreme... 討論嘅應該講下編曲及樂器層俬鋪排... Scale usage... Musical note... Arrangement... Etc... Etc. Phasing in and out... Etc...


其實享受玩硬件改變為什麼往往的要加一些藝術元素呢... 喜歡硬件帶出嚟嘅沒有標準嘅改變都係一種樂趣, 加上一些藝術元素都是一個個人取向, freedom too

But it is really so many different way.. And really comparing a RC car to a Apple.. Haha...the common thing May be ownership haha

其實都幾快樂嘅可以單純及膚淺咁樣享受一個興趣... 好就好覺得唔好就唔好... 不必要藝術家 上身都可以快樂

有啲人變藝術家佢會更快樂啦..then so be it


聲音檔案很有趣嘅..... 一定如果一套set得好嘅hifi.... 嗰一啲空間環境嘅雀仔聲呀行雷落雨呀等等等等..... 個效果真係好似真嘅一樣嘅

鍾意點玩點享受甚至係浪費都係個人自由

有啲人嘅興趣就係上網同人去爭拗..
Haha

最後修改時間: 2021-03-01 14:58:00
hahayanyan
個人訊息 會員
49.xxx.xxx.19
2021-03-01 14:43
主旨內容一共有 32 頁,每頁顯示 20 個信息,選擇頁數:  上頁  下頁  首頁  尾頁
按照傳送日期顯示:由舊至新由舊至新  由新至舊由新至舊
最新資訊 - 影音
支援 8K / 48 Gbps 傳輸,Anker 推出全新 Ultra High Speed HDMI Cable 2021-05-18

最新資訊 - 影音
日本 Esoteric 宣布集網絡串流、CAS 解碼、前級及耳機放大於一身的 N-05XD 將延期推出 2021-05-17

最新資訊 - 影音
476 期音響技術 - Vertere DG-1 Dynamic Groove唱盤組合 2021-05-17

最新資訊 - 影音
SIVGA P-II 開放式平板振膜耳機 2021-05-17