isn't it pretty damn likely that I will have a more usable, higher quality audio file, than if I had recorded with the Sony PCM D-50 at its max of 92/24, and used that as my "RAW" file to edit in the DAW?
Craig
If you are a photographer then maybe this analogy will help:
I've got an original Canon digital rebel, with a 6.7MP resolution, among other things. Say you've got a brand new Canon 50d with 15MP resolution, and a whole lot other improvements over my digital rebel.
I'm shooting with the most expensive Canon L glass that cost thousands. You're using a 20 year old cheapo Tamron lens you got from Ebay that probably has fungus growing in it. Isn't it obvious that your photographs will be more high quality and true to life than mine since your camera's sensor is so much better?
Well, perhaps, but I wouldn't even say yes, let alone say it is pretty damn likely. I have no idea how the analog front end inside the MR1 compares to the analog front end of the Sony D50, but it is a huge leap to say that all of that doesn't matter and the only thing that matters is the DSD conversion vs the PCM conversion.
I see it like this as analogy DSD has a coating without UV Filter and ghosting, less contrastpicture then a PCM lens, Because DSD have lesser resolution in the higher frequencys (Blue UV)
There is also another essential difference; the increase in resolution you achieve from raising the sampling frequency will be frequency dependant. A one-bit system will therefore have high resolution at low frequencies (where the information theoretically is low) and have low resolution at high frequencies (where the information theoretically is high).
By the use of noise shaping of high order, it is possible to increase the resolution at "quite high frequencies" at the expense of resolution at very high frequencies, but only for static, non transient signals. Transient signals will have poor resolution in a one-bit system. If the signal does not endure for a long enough time, the error will not be minimised by the noise shaper of the one bit system.
That's why you can read in documents from Burr Brown (who manufactures both one-bit and multi-bit converters) that you should use multi-bit converters for "waveform synthesis applications requiring very low distortion and noise". They have not written this for nothing.
A one-bit converter (i.e. the DSD system) cannot regenerate a short pulse with stringent form. It will change form from moment to moment. Every identical recorded pulse will show up with a new form.
Just to avoid misunderstandings I want to make a reminder that SACD has higher resolution below 5-10kHz than the CD-system. Exactly where the limit is, where each system (CD or SACD) is better, depends on if you are looking at a static or dynamic signal.
At frequencies below 100-600Hz the SACD-system could theoretically be even better than DVD-Audio, but in reality this is not important. We are talking about so small flaws, far below the hearing threshold, so they can be disregarded. Any specific player however, can be very bad at low frequencies, but not due to the system if SACD or DVD-A is used.
The noise from SACD just above 100kHz is higher in level than most of the treble in the audible range, at least when listening to the majority of acoustical music. It can also be discussed if DSD uses a "high" sampling rate. But apart from that: Yes, without noise shaping it will not work at all and that would be a lot worse. Now it is only a little bit worse than CD in the highest treble.
But why introduce a new super high-resolution system, that is "a little bit worse" than CD? Of course there are advantages when compared to CD also, but the drawbacks of SACD/DSD are completely unnecessary. Shouldn't a new system be better than CD in all aspects?
The noise level in the range above 100kHz is –40dB under maximum signal level (and is thus even visible on an oscilloscope!). The noise is in fact much higher than any possible music signal in the same frequency range. This can be compared to DVD-A where the noise level is –144dB in the whole audible range and also in the ultrasound range.
