That’s not audible, and you can do better than that with a higher order modulator. Also, with DSD, the noise is always correlated.
Yes, it can be uncorrelated…
Or do you need to Jussi to tell you differently again:
Because the noise is no longer present at 20KHz. It has been moved much higher in the frequency range.
Does that mean negative infinity dB at 20kHz?
Well, that, or the fact that generally “highly resolving” means “can’t output a sinewave when fed a pure sinewave on input”…
I find the idea that one can’t perceive, in any way, a certain frequency blasting in their ear for a long time, but add the same frequency, at a lower level at that, to a music signal, and suddenly there’s a veil-lifting, audible difference to be… rather preposterous really.
-110 dB is insignificant already so it cannot go much lower anyway.
Your problem is that you are thinking in frequency-domain, stationary terms when much of what happens in hearing is a lot more transient dependent. Don’t take my word for it https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/human-and-machine-hearing/3660166B40020EE587D94BB7A309FC12#.
Which ever (HQPlayer) modulator is used, the dynamic range way exceeds that of 24-bit PCM. With my newer developments at DSD512 it is over 180 dB for 100 kHz bandwidth (and over 144 dB over 200 kHz bandwidth). Idea is that for 22 kHz bandwidth it exceeds dynamic range of 32-bit PCM with good margin for mixing and such (over 200 dB).
With the better DSD DACs, ultrasonic noise doesn’t exceed -100 dB at any frequency. In best cases it doesn’t appear at all from the analog noise floor.
1 Like
Just want to point out that there is nothing “stationary” about the frequency domain, since time-domain and frequency-domain representations of a signal are 100% equivalent. Whether one or the other is useful/required for DSP depends on the DSP.
I do ALL of my listening with a fully and properly calibrated set of audio testing equipment. That way I can see, as well as hear, jitter and quantization noise, regardless of its level. Think of it has having turbocharged golden ears!
I do love the way audiophiles and especially the high end audio press (print and online) play the numbers game:
With respect to tubes and analog playback, where the “numbers” are often terrible they say it’s not about the numbers, it’s about the sound.
With respect to digital it’s all about the numbers!
2 Likes
You are again making up your own theories based on over simplified assumptions…
Can you offer more details about the over-simplifying assumptions? We can get highly technical in the other thread.
Sigh, not about to discuss the fine-print in the equivalence, which makes all the difference to practical application in biophysics. Next I’ll be reading about the physical reality of a Dirac delta.
(Call me pedantic, but a digital delta signal is perfectly realizable.)
Yes, there is a “fine print”, and that’s exactly why we have ABX testing, to see how well theories hold up to reality. So far, I think they’re doing quite well.
1 Like
Quod erat demonstrandum
No, I’ve already spent way too much time repeatedly explaining same things over past 25+ years that it gets a bit too boring to do it every six months you (or someone else) pop up on the same matter. And I’m not going to tell all the technical details of the nice things I’ve developed over the past 25+ years.
2 Likes
No problem. For whoever is interested: I’ve provided a mathematical proof; I expect a mathematical rebuttal.
1 Like
As I said, you have roughly proven that ROT-13 is bad encryption. Not that same would apply to AES.
Your “proof” is practically missing the modulator altogether.
P.S. With PCM it is very easy to calculate mathematical correlation of error signal from the DAC analog output. And it is obvious also from spectrum analysis.
Sorry, but this sounds very much like some audiophile juju about some unspecified something that is unmeasurable, imperceptible by itself, but still lifts veils.
It would also be helpful to point to a specific point in the book where they are discussing this…