[LAD] Re: [linux-audio-dev] Direct Stream Digital / Pulse Density Modulation musing/questions

Fons Adriaensen fons at kokkinizita.net
Mon Sep 24 19:59:01 UTC 2007

On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 11:50:55AM -0700, Maitland Vaughan-Turner wrote:

> Intuitively, one could also say that more sample points yield a
> waveform that is closer to a continuous, analog waveform.  Thus it
> sounds more analog.

This is completely wrong. Sorry to be rude, but such a statement
only shows your lack of understanding.

> Thanks for the link.  My whole point of digging up this old thread
> though, was to say that I've tried it, and my ears tell me that the
> papers are incorrect.

Then please point out the errors in the paper by Lipshitz and Vanderkooy.

I'm not saying that DSD is crap. It sounds well. But it doesn't meet
the claims set for it (as shown by L&V - you need at least two bits 
to have a 'linear' channel) and  as a storage or transmission format
it's inefficient compared to PCM. That means that if you use PCM with
the same number of bits per second as used by DSD, you get a better
result than what DSD delivers.


Follie! Follie! Delirio vano è questo !

More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list