Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Can DSD damage your ears and equipment? (Read 13691 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Can DSD damage your ears and equipment?

Reply #25 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Strictly speaking DSD is not an example of lossless compressioin. While the information loss is modest by MP3 standards, DSD sacrifices dynamic range > 20 KHz in order to reduce the amount of information transmitted. Therefore DSD is an example of lossy compression.

To me you look like quoting DST but talking about DSD. Why?
As far as I know, DST is lossless compression, defined in ISO/IEC 14496-3 Subpart 10: Lossless coding of oversampled audio.
OTOH, DSD is simply a kind of pulse dense modulation.

Can DSD damage your ears and equipment?

Reply #26 –
Quote from: nu774 on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Strictly speaking DSD is not an example of lossless compressioin. While the information loss is modest by MP3 standards, DSD sacrifices dynamic range > 20 KHz in order to reduce the amount of information transmitted. Therefore DSD is an example of lossy compression.

To me you look like quoting DST but talking about DSD. Why?
As far as I know, DST is lossless compression, defined in ISO/IEC 14496-3 Subpart 10: Lossless coding of oversampled audio.
OTOH, DSD is simply a kind of pulse dense modulation.


Sue me for putting 2 and 2 together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Transfer

"DST is used to reduce the space and bandwidth requirements of Direct Stream Digital (DSD), a lossless data compression method called Direct Stream Transfer (DST) is used. DST compression is compulsory for multi-channel regions and optional for stereo regions. This typically compresses by a factor of between two and three, allowing a disc to contain 80 minutes of both 2-channel and 5.1-channel sound.[27]"

The lossy compression is due DSD which you seem to be objecting any reference to, even though it is the reason DST exists.

Obviously, lossless compression of data  that is lossy with respect to the original audio  results in data that is lossy with respect to the original audio.

Can DSD damage your ears and equipment?

Reply #27 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Strictly speaking DSD is not an example of lossless compressioin. While the information loss is modest by MP3 standards, DSD sacrifices dynamic range > 20 KHz in order to reduce the amount of information transmitted. Therefore DSD is an example of lossy compression.

This is a very interesting interpretation of DSD. Better don't mention anything similar at an audiophile forum
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Can DSD damage your ears and equipment?

Reply #28 –
In what context is DSD lossy, simply because it doesn't preserve data beyond some frequency in some specific way in which you'd like?

Can't the same be said about any form of digitization since it requires that you remove any content beyond Nyquist?

Can DSD damage your ears and equipment?

Reply #29 –
DSD is a format that is not a lossy transform of some other format so not lossy as our understanding goes.
One possible similarity to mp3 is that you have to bring these formats to PCM for common sound manipulation like tonal changes.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Can DSD damage your ears and equipment?

Reply #30 –
Quote from: greynol on
In what context is DSD lossy, simply because it doesn't preserve data beyond some frequency in some specific way in which you'd like?


DSD is lossy because it intentionally and significantly throws away dynamic range above about 20 KHz.

The loss of dynamic range is accomplished by noise shaping that differs from regular noise shaping in that it does not minimize noise within the pass band. Minimizing noise within the bandpass of the converter is the standard way to implement Delta-Sigma conversion, so DSD is a modification or a transformation of some other format. The confusing twist is that the modification is applied to the conversion process itself instead of being another process that is added onto the data processing.

Both DSD and MP3 lossy compression share the characteristic of sacrificing dynamic range within the pass band in order to minimize the amount of data that needs to be transmitted or stored.

Quote
Can't the same be said about any form of digitization since it requires that you remove any content beyond Nyquist?


Yes. However, we generally talk about lossy coding as a process that applies to a signal that has already been digitized with minimal losses.

Can DSD damage your ears and equipment?

Reply #32 –
It's non-linear within the audible range too. The levels of non-linearity are so low that they can't possibly matter for home listening, but it's interesting to have a digital system which is fundamentally non-linear and non-"perfectible" even within the digital domain.

It's a stretch to call it lossy, but the range over which it's lossless is a grey area. PCM is computationally lossless above the dither noise floor, below full scale and below the Nyquist frequency. Within those limits, it's amplitude resolution below the dither noise floor and temporal resolution between samples is huge. The corresponding limits for DSD are more flexible and ill defined.

Cheers,
David.
 

Can DSD damage your ears and equipment?

Reply #33 –
Great!  I'm going to refer to DSD as lossy from now on to annoy audiophiles.   

(No, I'm not, but it's a claim that will definitely be worth floating whenever someone complains about Redbook 'only' going to 22kHz, or 'only' having 96dB of headroom, etc compared to 'high rez').