There has been much controversy between proponents of DSD and PCM over which encoding system is superior. In 2001, Stanley Lipshitz and John Vanderkooy from the University of Waterloo stated that one-bit converters (as employed by DSD) are unsuitable for high-end applications due to their high distortion. Even 8-bit, four-times-oversampled PCM with noise shaping, proper dithering and half data rate of DSD has better noise floor and frequency response.[32] In 2002, Philips published a convention paper arguing to the contrary.[33] Lipshitz and Vanderkooy's paper has been criticized by Jamie Angus.[34] Lipshitz and Vanderkooy later responded.[35]
There are fundamental distortion mechanisms present in the conventional implementation of DSD.[36] These distortion mechanisms can be alleviated to some degree by using digital converters with a multibit design. Historically, state-of-the-art ADCs were based around sigma-delta modulation designs. Oversampling converters are frequently used in linear PCM formats, where the ADC output is subject to bandlimiting and dithering.[37] Many modern converters use oversampling and a multibit design. It has been suggested that bitstream digital audio techniques are theoretically inferior to multibit (PCM) approaches: J. Robert Stuart notes, "1-bit coding would be a totally unsuitable choice for a series of recordings that set out to identify the high-frequency content of musical instruments, despite claims for its apparent wide bandwidth. If it is unsuitable for recording analysis then we should also be wary of using it for the highest quality work."[38]
When comparing a DSD and PCM recording of the same origin, the same number of channels and similar bandwidth/SNR, some still think that there are differences. A study conducted at the Erich-Thienhaus Institute in Detmold, Germany, seems to contradict this, concluding 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."[39]
In the popular Hi-Fi press, it had been suggested that linear PCM "creates [a] stress reaction in people", and that DSD "is the only digital recording system that does not [...] have these effects".[40] This claim appears to originate from a 1980 article by John Diamond.[41] The core of the claim that PCM recordings—the only digital recording technique available at the time—created a stress reaction rested on tests carried out using the pseudoscientific technique of Applied Kinesiology.[42][improper synthesis?] Diamond had previously used a similar technique to demonstrate that rock music was harmful due to the presence of the "stopped anapestic beat".[43] Diamond's claims regarding digital audio were taken up by Mark Levinson, who asserted that while PCM recordings resulted in a stress reaction, DSD recordings did not.[44][45][46]
A double-blind subjective test between high resolution linear PCM (DVD-Audio) and DSD did not reveal a statistically significant difference. Listeners involved in this test noted their great difficulty in hearing any difference between the two formats.[47]
The future of DSD
DSD has not been broadly successful in the consumer markets, though the SACD format has gained more traction than its direct competitor, DVD-Audio. DSD brings new challenges if immediate manipulation of the recorded data is desired. PCM is far easier to manipulate and is more easily built into existing applications such as the advent of very-high-resolution PCM media and tools, such as DXD. DSD however is used as a master archive format in the studio market and seen as a possible low noise replacement for analog tapes. As a little quality is lost when converting from DSD to PCM, and as PCM cannot be converted back into true DSD, the debate continues as to whether the ultimate quality digital audio can be found by using DSD players or recording directly into a high quality PCM format in the first place.[citation needed]
Early 2014, AudioFEEL presents a project proposing to combine the DSD principle with a 'solid state' media type (SD card). The idea is to create a new 'popular' format capable to succeed at historic optical formats: CD, SA-CD, DVD, etc...[48]
In the lack of interest in the DSD format too 'exclusive', the project will finally be renamed DA[SD]. The first player proposed (d-play) will be compatible with formats DSD64(2.8 MHz), DSD128(5.6 MHz) and PCM/Flac from 16Bits/44.1 kHz to 24Bits/192 kHz.
(Referred from: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia..)
寧與同好爭高下，勿與傻瓜論長短...
不然你可以介紹一下這種PS3還有哪家小賣店還買的到??kgame carter wrote:
好幾年前就可以用PS3...(恕刪)
Bear4212 wrote:露天上搜尋"ps3 厚"還找到到一些可以讀取sacd的機種
這種PS3破解大法如...(恕刪)
另外現在不只ps3可以用
使用聯發科控制器的媒體播放機也可以刷入自製韌體
抓sacd
https://www.google.com.tw/amp/s/kknews.cc/digital/e9rlx5r.amp
在索尼宣示sacd決不給pc讀取的情況下，sacd破解絕對不會簡單
但只要有破解，哪怕只有一款機器用
sacd資源就會整個網路到處飛了
其實現在市面上SACD數位檔已不難購買，只是流行樂還未普及，大部份都是爵士樂及古典樂居多
個人所購買收藏的SACD數位.dsf及.dff檔中，就屬蔡琴的老歌專輯最動聽，音質真的好到令人感動，值得大力推薦
但是至於其他的專輯，個人感覺反而聽起來一般
也或許是因為自己的播放設備不夠高端，因此無法徹底將訊源的優點發揮到極致...
我的隨身音樂播放設備Sony NW-ZX300搭配Sony XBA-N3BP和Sony Xperia XZ Premium搭配Spectra Type C USB DAC連接Sony XBA-N3AP
在家裡則將Hi-Res和SACD數位.dsf及.dff音樂檔案存入USB隨身碟，直接插入Pioneer VSX-1131-B的USB插槽播放
主聲道SNELL E5搭配Klipsch R-12SW重低音
Pioneer VSX-1131-B簡介評測
https://www.audionet.com.tw/thread-8544-1-1.html
我購買的DSD音樂檔案
Ken Liao wrote:
在下斗膽在各位前輩...(恕刪)
蔡琴的老歌原音樂母帶我可以確定不是DSD錄的,因為它是於1985年代錄的,那時根本就沒有DSD的格式,是後來數位轉錄成DSD的. 很多人對這個錄音非常著迷,一方面是原本在錄音的時候音質就佳,你就算買一般CD版本也應該會覺得音質很不錯. 至於在數位轉換成DSD時有沒有再加鹽加醋我就不知道了.
反而是你有一些Channel Classics或RR的錄音,只要確定你不是從不明網站下載,而是從原廠下載網站購買下來的話,這些都是貨真價實的原始DSD錄音. 如果這些音質不讓你覺得特別感動的話,那真的你的環擴要去升級了! (01許多人環擴前級+後級大約在5000美金的等級,而你的Pioneer我上網查一下新機時好像是四百多美元).
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X