On 28/11/2012, Carl Pultz wrote:
> According to a recent Stereophile interview with the lead guy doing
> EMI's classical remasters, they are also creating transfers from
> analog in PCM, 192/24. And they are receiving howls of indignation for
> it. But, he asserts, the restoration tools they're using are PCM, so
> originating the files in that format makes sense.
It doesn't, because the crucial advantage of DSD is in the conversion
from analog to digital. (Assuming the claims to be valid, as I think
Once you have digital data, it is all a matter of maths, so provide you
avoid the known hazards of floating point there is nothing to go wrong.
However, 192 is clearly much better than 44.1, and might be
indistinguishable from DSD. The question is how well each responds to
noise in the signal.
> I wonder if there isn't another aspect to the decision. PCM is a
> ubiquitous process, even beyond audio or video; DSD is not. Perhaps
> the ability to work with hi-rate PCM files in thirty years is a surer
> thing than with DSD files? Is DSD technology "open source?"
[log in to unmask]