Is the dynamic range of CD sufficient?

[JackD201]

Again I think and I can be very sure of this. No downconversion of DSD or higher resolution PCM happens inside any CD player. Well maybe HDCD but I'll leave that to Amir who worked with Microsoft and Pacific Microsonics as I am not sure "downconversion" would be the right way to describe how the 20 goes down to 16 exactly. At least with XR, K2 and SHM it is clear the discs are CDs.

You slap the DXD logo and it's similarity to the DSD logo will cause people to think it is an SACD as SACD making labels generally have the DSD logo prominently displayed.

 

[Bodhi]

Jack, I think pretty clearly i've reached the limitation of my knowledge on this subject, and you've exposed a flaw in my statement. You've mentioned some pretty big names and companies, so I must defer to Bruce, Amir and others with Industry or technical backgrounds. I am just an enthusiastic audiophile on a learning curve myself in many areas of this hobby.

 

[Bruce B]

These were processed in the higher sample rates, whether it be 32/192, 32/352.8 or whatever. Sources were a mix of tape, LP, MO disc or high-rez file.
Final production is 16/44.1

 

[egidius]

...... because DSD, the audio standard used on Super Audio CD is not ideally suited for editing. DXD is a PCM-like signal with 24-bit resolution sampled at 352.8 kHz - eight times 44.1 kHz, the sampling frequency of Red Book CD. The data rate is 11.2896 Mbit/s - four times that of DSD!

I have to show that to my sound engineer, wonder what he says about such a claim...

 

[rbbert]

I have to show that to my sound engineer, wonder what he says about such a claim...

I don't think there is anything controversial about this?

 

[egidius]

Knowledge..

To be honest, I am a violinist who stays away from the technical side as much as possible - that does not mean I haven't worked with most modern techniques (no DSD though, as this is really dependent on a different chain of technical gadgets) -

I have not heard this particular CD, but it looks like Name dropping, number crunching if you like. My engineer is an absolute sceptic conservative numbers (you cannot hear differences beyond 24/192, most times 24/94 enough, and for the time being best to record in 24/176.4) , as so many of the actual workers are.
I am just interested what he makes of the remarks:

the slight depreciation of DSD editing (which may be true if you have not got the whole caboodle)

vs

the reasoning for higher numbers editing advances in "DXD" (sounds like PCM technique, but wanting to take advantave of the DSD name by adding an X)

Do I make more sense?

 

[rbbert]

Apparently (according to the Grimm whitepaper) DXD was developed at least in part to provide an audibly transparent format to edit DSD sourced files. 2L (the Scandinavian label) has been recording in DXD since its inception. In the present we do have DSD editing capabillities as well as 4xDSD recording and playback.

 

[egidius]

thank you for your enlightenment! I did not know that.
E

 

[Bruce B]

I have to show that to my sound engineer, wonder what he says about such a claim...

Well that's one way to do it. Pyramix uses 24/352.8kHz but Sonoma keeps the sample rate and just adds bits. Short edits are not audible if done correctly. It's when whole files are processed using PCM that you hear a difference.

And yes, DXD is just a fancy name for 352.8kHz, though the bit depth is only stated as "at least 24-bit", because most of the time, the processing is done at 32 bit.

 

[mojave]

Well that's one way to do it. Pyramix uses 24/352.8kHz but Sonoma keeps the sample rate and just adds bits. Short edits are not audible if done correctly. It's when whole files are processed using PCM that you hear a difference.

And yes, DXD is just a fancy name for 352.8kHz, though the bit depth is only stated as "at least 24-bit", because most of the time, the processing is done at 32 bit.

Is it the sample rate or bitdepth or something else that makes one hear a difference for DSD to DXD? For example, JRiver uses 768kHz and 64 bit processing when converting to PCM for processing before converting back to 2XDSD for output. This is only if you want to use processing. Otherwise it bitstreams DSD. These sample rates and bitdepth are higher than the DXD spec.

 

[Bruce B]

Is it the sample rate or bitdepth or something else that makes one hear a difference for DSD to DXD? For example, JRiver uses 768kHz and 64 bit processing when converting to PCM for processing before converting back to 2XDSD for output. This is only if you want to use processing. Otherwise it bitstreams DSD. These sample rates and bitdepth are higher than the DXD spec.

IMO, the bit depth plays a larger role than sample rate.

 

[Lee]

IMO, the bit depth plays a larger role than sample rate.

Agreed but 24/44 or 24/48 is still not close to 24/88.2 or 24/96.

 

[Andre Marc]

IMO, the bit depth plays a larger role than sample rate.

Interestingly, I actually feel the opposite. Sample rate has much more of an impact IMO.

How the does the discussion of bit depth come into play in regards to DSD?

 

[Bodhi]

Interestingly, I actually feel the opposite. Sample rate has much more of an impact IMO.

How the does the discussion of bit depth come into play in regards to DSD?

Hi Andre, just to clarify were you referring to upsampling or oversampling?

 

[Andre Marc]

Hi Andre, just to clarify were you referring to upsampling or oversampling?

Cheers,
Bodhi

Hi bodhi:

Actually I was referring to the original encoding/recording.

 

[Orb]

Interestingly, I actually feel the opposite. Sample rate has much more of an impact IMO.

How the does the discussion of bit depth come into play in regards to DSD?

Was due to also the mention of DXD in the post Bruce was responding to.
That said bit depth in that scenario is important and also at the studio; case in point, Bruce although subtly different context think how you notice the difference with/without dither between 24-bit and 32-bit.
From your own experience I think you have mentioned you can hear the difference with the different bit depth; using dither example because we are talking manipulation of DSD-DXD, but as I mentioned context is not fully comparable just a way to note bit depth may have a part to play - especially when involved at the studio end and processing-editing of the music.

Cheers
Orb