DSD and Nyquist frequency?

DSD and Nyquist frequency?

TLDR:

Does the concept of Nyquist frequency can be applied directly to DSD (like what it is applied for PCM)? i.e. using 44kHz sampling rate with DSD sampling is good enough for perfectly reconstructing audio signal with frequency up to 22kHz (i.e. the Nyquist frequecy of 44kHz sampling rate)?

Is DSD sampling same as PCM sampling? 

I bet people who know the difference between DSD and PCM would know the answers for the above questions are No and No. Why people still talk about Nyquist frequency (i.e. sampling rate / 2) with DSD like below:

Why the moderator mentioned sampling rate/2 (i.e. Nyquist frequency) with DSD sampling? 

Is the moderator really confused between DSD and PCM sampling? I am not sure but I'd suggest to him please don't give out incorrect infomration (as he carried the role of the so-called "Sound Science Moderator"). Some people (I am not talking about the OP) without (or with only limited) critical thinking would really believe wholeheartedly any information provided by a person with a label of Sound Science Moderator. 

If the moderator does not want to create more pseudo science information, please correct the post. I did try to reply direclty on the thread but they put me under "control of free speech" and they deleted my reply without approving it.

Sigh.. why people keep creating pseudo science information pretty much everyday on these on-line forum instead of contributing positively to the progress of the development of Science so that our next generations can have a better future. I hope the OP of the thread can see my reply on my blog.

Appendix:

Here are the information provided by Microsoft Copilot on the topic:


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"The expert in 'the Monty's video' shows clearly Hi-Res is useless; you won't get stair step audio signal output from CD"....Well, let's check together to find out!

Image
 " The 'Monty's video' shows Hi-Res is useless. The expert said you won't get stair step audio signal ..." I bet the above video , also known as "the Monty's video", is quite famous amongst the supporters who turly believe that " Hi-Res is useless". Whenever these supporters were questioned why "Hi-Res is useless", some of them would just show you that "scientific proof". Some supporter even made another YouTube video to support the very same "scientific" claim based on the same "Monty's video" (as they considered all the things the Monty's video said is factual). The supporter named his video as " Debunking the Digital Audio Myth: The Truth About the 'Stair-Step' Effect " A lot of these supporters may asked, "With so many experts on YouTube demonstrating so clearly with the help of a bunch of   lab equipments and doing various experiments in front of our eyes ,
Read more

768kHz for digital music sampling? Can you hear 384kHz? You're crazy...

Image
Do I want to hear up to 384kHz? LOL... of course not 😂 768kHz sampling is for something else... ( TL;DR ) The number one mis-understanding of why using Hi-Res music is:       " why we need to to hear frequencies that fall in the ultrasonic range (i.e. higher than 22kHz for most people)???" If you asked similar question or answered someone's question like below, then you are pretty much belong to a group of people who don't know what's Hi-Res music is. Hi-Res music is, in fact, to help your DAC to reconstruct better audio output for the audible range (yes, it is for the frequencies BELOW 22kHz with 768kHz sampling)... (It is a  real dialogue  as I just saw it today in an Audio Science forum) Someone asked: Ma ny DACs descriptions enhance in capital letters 32/768 kHz resolution. Is there any domain when such a resolution may be justified ?   Other (more experienced member) replied: Can you think of a circumstance where you'd even want a dynamic range of over
Read more

You should not hear it! It is your brain fooling you!

Image
You should not hear it! It is your brain fooling you! Well... but... but... I really do hear it. This is the following up of the previous blog:  Confirmation bias. Do you have it? My previous blog was based on the following picture (you don't have to read my previous blog before reading this one): If you see 4 boxes with graident of different greyscales in the middle column. Great, you don't have any confirmation bias .  What if I told you that there are something wrong with your vision, as you SHOULD see 4 different static grey color boxes instead of gradients.  The following picture show you the second box is actually a static grey color box (this is the actual capture of the second box in the above picture, you can try to capture it and see for yourself): You may say, " Cool, now, I know I got tricked by my visual perception ".  AFTER  knowing the fact that all the 4 boxes in the middle column of the first picture are indeed just static grey boxes (instead of
Read more