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

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <linux-audio-dev@...>
Date: Monday, September 24, 2007 - 7:55 pm

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

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

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.

--
FA

Follie! Follie! Delirio vano รจ questo !

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAD] Re: [linux-audio-dev] Direct Stream Digital / Pulse De..., Maitland Vaughan-Turner, (Mon Sep 24, 6:51 pm)
Re: [LAD] Re: [linux-audio-dev] Direct Stream Digital / Puls..., Fons Adriaensen, (Mon Sep 24, 7:55 pm)