Glissando and others,
Thanks for your responses.
Per part four of Rushton Paul's newly released article in 'Positive Feedback', several studios now record in DXD or DSD128.
Whereas arguments for DXD vs PCM devolve on 'what you hear',
I believe the resolution obtained with DXC and DSD256 is audibly superior to that obtained with 'lesser' iterations of the PCM and DSD formats. I believe also that the differences between PCM and DSD diminish to near-inaudibility at the highest resolution available in those formats. Which brings me back to file size, ie bit depth times sampling rate. Though one might argue that frequency and dynamic range, not digital sample size are what's important, I believe it unarguable that greater bandwidth (translate file size per duration of a 'song') offers greater potential resolution, and I emphasize the word 'potential'.
To my elderly ears, particularly listening to violins or soprano voices, that potential is realizable.
Further comments would of course be much appreciated.
Thanks for your responses.
Per part four of Rushton Paul's newly released article in 'Positive Feedback', several studios now record in DXD or DSD128.
Whereas arguments for DXD vs PCM devolve on 'what you hear',
I believe the resolution obtained with DXC and DSD256 is audibly superior to that obtained with 'lesser' iterations of the PCM and DSD formats. I believe also that the differences between PCM and DSD diminish to near-inaudibility at the highest resolution available in those formats. Which brings me back to file size, ie bit depth times sampling rate. Though one might argue that frequency and dynamic range, not digital sample size are what's important, I believe it unarguable that greater bandwidth (translate file size per duration of a 'song') offers greater potential resolution, and I emphasize the word 'potential'.
To my elderly ears, particularly listening to violins or soprano voices, that potential is realizable.
Further comments would of course be much appreciated.