chung wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by
the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a
benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the
increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD
"inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's
despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise
inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players.
If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily
eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter
it out?

Bob Stanton

"Robert Stanton" wrote in message
m...
chung wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed
by
the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a
benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the
increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making
DSD/SACD
"inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's
despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise
inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players.
If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily
eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter
it out?

Great question. Filtering is a natural part of a properly designed PCM
system. I can't put my finger on it exactly , but the DSD spec seems
gimmicky and incomplete.

Bob Stanton

"Robert Stanton" wrote in message
m...
chung wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed
by
the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a
benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the
increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making
DSD/SACD
"inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's
despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise
inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players.
If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily
eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter
it out?

Great question. Filtering is a natural part of a properly designed PCM
system. I can't put my finger on it exactly , but the DSD spec seems
gimmicky and incomplete.

Bob Stanton

"Robert Stanton" wrote in message
m...
chung wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed
by
the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a
benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the
increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making
DSD/SACD
"inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's
despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise
inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players.
If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily
eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter
it out?

Great question. Filtering is a natural part of a properly designed PCM
system. I can't put my finger on it exactly , but the DSD spec seems
gimmicky and incomplete.

Bob Stanton

"Robert Stanton" wrote in message
m...
chung wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed
by
the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a
benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the
increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making
DSD/SACD
"inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's
despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise
inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players.
If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily
eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter
it out?

Great question. Filtering is a natural part of a properly designed PCM
system. I can't put my finger on it exactly , but the DSD spec seems
gimmicky and incomplete.

Bob Stanton

Robert Stanton wrote:
chung wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by
the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a
benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the
increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD
"inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's
despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise
inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players.
If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily
eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter
it out?

Bob Stanton

Some high-end SACD players provide that option.

Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents
claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce
significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim
that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having
additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters,
with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.).

"chung" wrote in message
rvers.com...
Robert Stanton wrote:
chung wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always
whipsawed by
the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a
benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the
increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making
DSD/SACD
"inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's
despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise
inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players.
If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily
eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter
it out?

Bob Stanton

Some high-end SACD players provide that option.

Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents
claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce
significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim
that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having
additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters,
with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.).

A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling
digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog
filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they
were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without
passing their expertise on to the next generation.

Karl Uppiano wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
rvers.com...
Robert Stanton wrote:
chung wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always
whipsawed by
the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a
benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the
increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making
DSD/SACD
"inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's
despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise
inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players.
If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily
eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter
it out?

Bob Stanton

Some high-end SACD players provide that option.

Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents
claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce
significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim
that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having
additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters,
with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.).

A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling
digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog
filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they
were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without
passing their expertise on to the next generation.



I agree with you, and that's why I said "claimed" . Maybe I should
have said "imagined". I also said "philosophically".

Karl Uppiano wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
rvers.com...
Robert Stanton wrote:
chung wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always
whipsawed by
the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a
benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the
increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making
DSD/SACD
"inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's
despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise
inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players.
If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily
eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter
it out?

Bob Stanton

Some high-end SACD players provide that option.

Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents
claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce
significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim
that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having
additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters,
with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.).

A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling
digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog
filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they
were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without
passing their expertise on to the next generation.



I agree with you, and that's why I said "claimed" . Maybe I should
have said "imagined". I also said "philosophically".

Karl Uppiano wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
rvers.com...
Robert Stanton wrote:
chung wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always
whipsawed by
the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a
benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the
increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making
DSD/SACD
"inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's
despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise
inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players.
If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily
eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter
it out?

Bob Stanton

Some high-end SACD players provide that option.

Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents
claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce
significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim
that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having
additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters,
with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.).

A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling
digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog
filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they
were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without
passing their expertise on to the next generation.



I agree with you, and that's why I said "claimed" . Maybe I should
have said "imagined". I also said "philosophically".

Karl Uppiano wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
rvers.com...
Robert Stanton wrote:
chung wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always
whipsawed by
the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a
benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the
increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making
DSD/SACD
"inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's
despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise
inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players.
If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily
eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter
it out?

Bob Stanton

Some high-end SACD players provide that option.

Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents
claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce
significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim
that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having
additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters,
with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.).

A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling
digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog
filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they
were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without
passing their expertise on to the next generation.



I agree with you, and that's why I said "claimed" . Maybe I should
have said "imagined". I also said "philosophically".

"Karl Uppiano" writes:
[...]
A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling
digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog
filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they
were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without
passing their expertise on to the next generation.

Right-on, brother. I've been watching (sometimes not so passively)
this "DVD-A/SACD" blindside on the consumers for a couple of years now
and my conclusion, as one whose career is in digital signal
processing, is that it's a complete and utter farce.

In the end, consumers will have emptied out their pocketbooks for new
players and, more importantly, new media which are indistinguishable
in sound quality from CD audio.

The only possible rational justification for a new format is the
inclusion of multiple ( 2) tracks. The sound quality arguments are
empty.
--
% Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your
%%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow."
%%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"Randy Yates" wrote in message

"Karl Uppiano" writes:
[...]
A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear,
oversampling digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle,
phase-linear analog filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips
engineers that knew what they were doing when they designed the
CD-Audio spec must have retired without passing their expertise on
to the next generation.

Right-on, brother. I've been watching (sometimes not so passively)
this "DVD-A/SACD" blindside on the consumers for a couple of years now
and my conclusion, as one whose career is in digital signal
processing, is that it's a complete and utter farce.

In the end, consumers will have emptied out their pocketbooks for new
players and, more importantly, new media which are indistinguishable
in sound quality from CD audio.

The only possible rational justification for a new format is the
inclusion of multiple ( 2) tracks. The sound quality arguments are
empty.

Looks to me like a failed marketing effort. The drive behind attempts to
obsolete the CD Audio format have to be money. Once the Chinese started
producing CD players with what most consumers found to be acceptable sound
quality, the Japanese were largely cut out of the picture unless they had
some unique technology to sell. SACD and DVD-A were that technology, but
insufficient product was sold before the new-technology players were
commoditized.

With something like 600,000 DVD-A discs and perhaps as many as a few times
that in SACD discs sold last year, it's quite clear that there just aren't a
lot of players out there that consumers are trying to "feed". With
SACD-DAV-A players selling for under $300, this is hardly a true high end,
nice market play. It's a failed attempt to sell consumers a line of 'bigger
numbers always sound better" BS.

Now, we're faced with retro-tech flacks like François who push vinyl out of
one side of their mouths, and high sample rates out of the other. Anybody
who has a memory long enough to remember the last time they talked out of
both sides of their mouth will not grant them sufficient credibility to
actually sell product.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message

"Karl Uppiano" writes:
[...]
A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear,
oversampling digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle,
phase-linear analog filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips
engineers that knew what they were doing when they designed the
CD-Audio spec must have retired without passing their expertise on
to the next generation.

Right-on, brother. I've been watching (sometimes not so passively)
this "DVD-A/SACD" blindside on the consumers for a couple of years now
and my conclusion, as one whose career is in digital signal
processing, is that it's a complete and utter farce.

In the end, consumers will have emptied out their pocketbooks for new
players and, more importantly, new media which are indistinguishable
in sound quality from CD audio.

The only possible rational justification for a new format is the
inclusion of multiple ( 2) tracks. The sound quality arguments are
empty.

Looks to me like a failed marketing effort. The drive behind attempts to
obsolete the CD Audio format have to be money. Once the Chinese started
producing CD players with what most consumers found to be acceptable sound
quality, the Japanese were largely cut out of the picture unless they had
some unique technology to sell. SACD and DVD-A were that technology, but
insufficient product was sold before the new-technology players were
commoditized.

With something like 600,000 DVD-A discs and perhaps as many as a few times
that in SACD discs sold last year, it's quite clear that there just aren't a
lot of players out there that consumers are trying to "feed". With
SACD-DAV-A players selling for under $300, this is hardly a true high end,
nice market play. It's a failed attempt to sell consumers a line of 'bigger
numbers always sound better" BS.

Now, we're faced with retro-tech flacks like François who push vinyl out of
one side of their mouths, and high sample rates out of the other. Anybody
who has a memory long enough to remember the last time they talked out of
both sides of their mouth will not grant them sufficient credibility to
actually sell product.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message

"Karl Uppiano" writes:
[...]
A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear,
oversampling digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle,
phase-linear analog filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips
engineers that knew what they were doing when they designed the
CD-Audio spec must have retired without passing their expertise on
to the next generation.

Right-on, brother. I've been watching (sometimes not so passively)
this "DVD-A/SACD" blindside on the consumers for a couple of years now
and my conclusion, as one whose career is in digital signal
processing, is that it's a complete and utter farce.

In the end, consumers will have emptied out their pocketbooks for new
players and, more importantly, new media which are indistinguishable
in sound quality from CD audio.

The only possible rational justification for a new format is the
inclusion of multiple ( 2) tracks. The sound quality arguments are
empty.

Looks to me like a failed marketing effort. The drive behind attempts to
obsolete the CD Audio format have to be money. Once the Chinese started
producing CD players with what most consumers found to be acceptable sound
quality, the Japanese were largely cut out of the picture unless they had
some unique technology to sell. SACD and DVD-A were that technology, but
insufficient product was sold before the new-technology players were
commoditized.

With something like 600,000 DVD-A discs and perhaps as many as a few times
that in SACD discs sold last year, it's quite clear that there just aren't a
lot of players out there that consumers are trying to "feed". With
SACD-DAV-A players selling for under $300, this is hardly a true high end,
nice market play. It's a failed attempt to sell consumers a line of 'bigger
numbers always sound better" BS.

Now, we're faced with retro-tech flacks like François who push vinyl out of
one side of their mouths, and high sample rates out of the other. Anybody
who has a memory long enough to remember the last time they talked out of
both sides of their mouth will not grant them sufficient credibility to
actually sell product.

"Randy Yates" wrote in message

"Karl Uppiano" writes:
[...]
A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear,
oversampling digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle,
phase-linear analog filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips
engineers that knew what they were doing when they designed the
CD-Audio spec must have retired without passing their expertise on
to the next generation.

Right-on, brother. I've been watching (sometimes not so passively)
this "DVD-A/SACD" blindside on the consumers for a couple of years now
and my conclusion, as one whose career is in digital signal
processing, is that it's a complete and utter farce.

In the end, consumers will have emptied out their pocketbooks for new
players and, more importantly, new media which are indistinguishable
in sound quality from CD audio.

The only possible rational justification for a new format is the
inclusion of multiple ( 2) tracks. The sound quality arguments are
empty.

Looks to me like a failed marketing effort. The drive behind attempts to
obsolete the CD Audio format have to be money. Once the Chinese started
producing CD players with what most consumers found to be acceptable sound
quality, the Japanese were largely cut out of the picture unless they had
some unique technology to sell. SACD and DVD-A were that technology, but
insufficient product was sold before the new-technology players were
commoditized.

With something like 600,000 DVD-A discs and perhaps as many as a few times
that in SACD discs sold last year, it's quite clear that there just aren't a
lot of players out there that consumers are trying to "feed". With
SACD-DAV-A players selling for under $300, this is hardly a true high end,
nice market play. It's a failed attempt to sell consumers a line of 'bigger
numbers always sound better" BS.

Now, we're faced with retro-tech flacks like François who push vinyl out of
one side of their mouths, and high sample rates out of the other. Anybody
who has a memory long enough to remember the last time they talked out of
both sides of their mouth will not grant them sufficient credibility to
actually sell product.

"Karl Uppiano" writes:
[...]
A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling
digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog
filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they
were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without
passing their expertise on to the next generation.

Right-on, brother. I've been watching (sometimes not so passively)
this "DVD-A/SACD" blindside on the consumers for a couple of years now
and my conclusion, as one whose career is in digital signal
processing, is that it's a complete and utter farce.

In the end, consumers will have emptied out their pocketbooks for new
players and, more importantly, new media which are indistinguishable
in sound quality from CD audio.

The only possible rational justification for a new format is the
inclusion of multiple ( 2) tracks. The sound quality arguments are
empty.
--
% Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your
%%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow."
%%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"Karl Uppiano" writes:
[...]
A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling
digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog
filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they
were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without
passing their expertise on to the next generation.

Right-on, brother. I've been watching (sometimes not so passively)
this "DVD-A/SACD" blindside on the consumers for a couple of years now
and my conclusion, as one whose career is in digital signal
processing, is that it's a complete and utter farce.

In the end, consumers will have emptied out their pocketbooks for new
players and, more importantly, new media which are indistinguishable
in sound quality from CD audio.

The only possible rational justification for a new format is the
inclusion of multiple ( 2) tracks. The sound quality arguments are
empty.
--
% Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your
%%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow."
%%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"Karl Uppiano" writes:
[...]
A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling
digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog
filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they
were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without
passing their expertise on to the next generation.

Right-on, brother. I've been watching (sometimes not so passively)
this "DVD-A/SACD" blindside on the consumers for a couple of years now
and my conclusion, as one whose career is in digital signal
processing, is that it's a complete and utter farce.

In the end, consumers will have emptied out their pocketbooks for new
players and, more importantly, new media which are indistinguishable
in sound quality from CD audio.

The only possible rational justification for a new format is the
inclusion of multiple ( 2) tracks. The sound quality arguments are
empty.
--
% Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your
%%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow."
%%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"chung" wrote in message
rvers.com...
Robert Stanton wrote:
chung wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always
whipsawed by
the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a
benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the
increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making
DSD/SACD
"inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's
despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise
inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players.
If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily
eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter
it out?

Bob Stanton

Some high-end SACD players provide that option.

Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents
claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce
significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim
that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having
additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters,
with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.).

A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling
digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog
filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they
were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without
passing their expertise on to the next generation.

"chung" wrote in message
rvers.com...
Robert Stanton wrote:
chung wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always
whipsawed by
the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a
benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the
increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making
DSD/SACD
"inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's
despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise
inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players.
If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily
eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter
it out?

Bob Stanton

Some high-end SACD players provide that option.

Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents
claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce
significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim
that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having
additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters,
with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.).

A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling
digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog
filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they
were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without
passing their expertise on to the next generation.

"chung" wrote in message
rvers.com...
Robert Stanton wrote:
chung wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always
whipsawed by
the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a
benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the
increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making
DSD/SACD
"inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's
despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise
inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players.
If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily
eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter
it out?

Bob Stanton

Some high-end SACD players provide that option.

Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents
claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce
significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim
that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having
additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters,
with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.).

A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling
digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog
filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they
were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without
passing their expertise on to the next generation.

Robert Stanton wrote:
chung wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by
the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a
benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the
increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD
"inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's
despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise
inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players.
If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily
eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter
it out?

Bob Stanton

Some high-end SACD players provide that option.

Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents
claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce
significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim
that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having
additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters,
with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.).

Robert Stanton wrote:
chung wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by
the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a
benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the
increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD
"inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's
despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise
inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players.
If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily
eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter
it out?

Bob Stanton

Some high-end SACD players provide that option.

Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents
claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce
significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim
that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having
additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters,
with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.).

Robert Stanton wrote:
chung wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by
the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a
benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the
increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD
"inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's
despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise
inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players.
If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily
eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter
it out?

Bob Stanton

Some high-end SACD players provide that option.

Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents
claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce
significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim
that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having
additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters,
with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.).

"Robert Stanton" wrote in message
m
chung wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always
whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended
frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then,
in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is
bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like
SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic
noise inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players.
If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily
eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter
it out?

Wouldn't the filter affect the overtones of the music just as much as it
affects the noise?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"Robert Stanton" wrote in message
m
chung wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always
whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended
frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then,
in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is
bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like
SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic
noise inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players.
If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily
eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter
it out?

Wouldn't the filter affect the overtones of the music just as much as it
affects the noise?

Yes, it will chop off all overtones above 30kHz. But, we humans can't
hear above 25kHz, so we won't hear the difference.

I took a standard Chebychev 0.1 dB ripple, 5th order, active filter
from a text book, and scaled it to 20kHz, 2000 Ohms, using two SE3353
op-amps.

Here are the simulation results:

Freq. Gain Group Delay
Hz dB usec

1000 -0.09 20.9
5000 -0.15 20.7
10000 -0.18 21.3
20000 -0.21 25.6
30000 -3.01 43.5
40000 -19.7 10.4
50000 -31.7 4.7
60000 -40.7 2.8
70000 -48.1
80000 -54.4
90000 -60.0


The filter is flat from 20 to 20kHz, and the group delay is almost flat
from 20 to 20kHz.

Bob Stanton

Robert Stanton wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"Robert Stanton" wrote in message
m
chung wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always
whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended
frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then,
in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is
bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the
ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like
SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic
noise inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players.
If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily
eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter
it out?

Wouldn't the filter affect the overtones of the music just as much as it
affects the noise?

Yes, it will chop off all overtones above 30kHz. But, we humans can't
hear above 25kHz, so we won't hear the difference.

You and I may agree on that, but one of the touted features of SACD is
the much broader bandwidth, higher than 25 KHz. If you limit it to
25KHz, it could not compete against the other hi-rez formats, such as
24/96 or 24/192, which are flat up to close to half the sampling frequency.


I took a standard Chebychev 0.1 dB ripple, 5th order, active filter
from a text book, and scaled it to 20kHz, 2000 Ohms, using two SE3353
op-amps.

Here are the simulation results:

Freq. Gain Group Delay
Hz dB usec

1000 -0.09 20.9
5000 -0.15 20.7
10000 -0.18 21.3
20000 -0.21 25.6
30000 -3.01 43.5
40000 -19.7 10.4
50000 -31.7 4.7
60000 -40.7 2.8
70000 -48.1
80000 -54.4
90000 -60.0


The filter is flat from 20 to 20kHz, and the group delay is almost flat
from 20 to 20kHz.

If you take into account tolerances of the 5 caps, you would have a
noticeable ripple in the passband, as well as mismatches between L/R.
Plus the cost of the 10 capacitors is not insignificant. And more if you
have 5 channels.

The much better way is simply apply digital filtering, or use better
dithering schemes, but then we are back to LPCM, and not DSD .


Bob Stanton

chung wrote in message news:ec705$401ebdd9$c247604



If you take into account tolerances of the 5 caps, you would have a
noticeable ripple in the passband, as well as mismatches between L/R.
Plus the cost of the 10 capacitors is not insignificant. And more if you
have 5 channels.

The much better way is simply apply digital filtering, or use better
dithering schemes, but then we are back to LPCM, and not DSD .


I agree. If you look at the data you will see that with perfect
component values, the flatness is: -0.1/-0.2 which 0.1 dB p-p. Using
real componet will increase the ripple. A pratical best flatness spec.
(for real world components) would be +0.1/-0.3 dB.

Using 1% tolerance components, I ran a Monte Carlo analysis (on
100,000 units). I got the following results:

+0.20/-0.40 dB flatness 100% yield

+0.15/-0.35 dB flatness 99.91% yield

+0.10/-0.30 dB flatness 98.80% yield


It would be fairly expensive to use 1% tolerance components. Probably
add $3 or $4 to the cost of manufacture. For an SACD player that sells
for $500 to $1500, that would be acceptable.

However, I don't know if a flatness spec of +/- 0.2dB would be
acceptable to high-end buyers?

Bob Stanton

Robert Stanton wrote:

chung wrote in message news:ec705$401ebdd9$c247604



If you take into account tolerances of the 5 caps, you would have a
noticeable ripple in the passband, as well as mismatches between L/R.
Plus the cost of the 10 capacitors is not insignificant. And more if you
have 5 channels.

The much better way is simply apply digital filtering, or use better
dithering schemes, but then we are back to LPCM, and not DSD .


I agree. If you look at the data you will see that with perfect
component values, the flatness is: -0.1/-0.2 which 0.1 dB p-p. Using
real componet will increase the ripple. A pratical best flatness spec.
(for real world components) would be +0.1/-0.3 dB.

Using 1% tolerance components, I ran a Monte Carlo analysis (on
100,000 units). I got the following results:

+0.20/-0.40 dB flatness 100% yield

+0.15/-0.35 dB flatness 99.91% yield

+0.10/-0.30 dB flatness 98.80% yield


It would be fairly expensive to use 1% tolerance components. Probably
add $3 or $4 to the cost of manufacture. For an SACD player that sells
for $500 to $1500, that would be acceptable.

1% capacitors are very expensive. Maybe Sony can get them cheaper, but
SACD is not that huge a market, yet. And a 98.8% yield for a filter is
absolutely unacceptable for companies like Sony. (It's way too low.) I
think you have to get at least a 6-sigma yield for a small circuit like
a filter. That's why digital filtering is so wonderful.


However, I don't know if a flatness spec of +/- 0.2dB would be
acceptable to high-end buyers?

It looks worse than good redbook CD players. The bigger problem, of
course, is that you can't reduce the BW to 25KHz and still claim wide-band.

Robert Stanton wrote:

chung wrote in message news:ec705$401ebdd9$c247604



If you take into account tolerances of the 5 caps, you would have a
noticeable ripple in the passband, as well as mismatches between L/R.
Plus the cost of the 10 capacitors is not insignificant. And more if you
have 5 channels.

The much better way is simply apply digital filtering, or use better
dithering schemes, but then we are back to LPCM, and not DSD .


I agree. If you look at the data you will see that with perfect
component values, the flatness is: -0.1/-0.2 which 0.1 dB p-p. Using
real componet will increase the ripple. A pratical best flatness spec.
(for real world components) would be +0.1/-0.3 dB.

Using 1% tolerance components, I ran a Monte Carlo analysis (on
100,000 units). I got the following results:

+0.20/-0.40 dB flatness 100% yield

+0.15/-0.35 dB flatness 99.91% yield

+0.10/-0.30 dB flatness 98.80% yield


It would be fairly expensive to use 1% tolerance components. Probably
add $3 or $4 to the cost of manufacture. For an SACD player that sells
for $500 to $1500, that would be acceptable.

1% capacitors are very expensive. Maybe Sony can get them cheaper, but
SACD is not that huge a market, yet. And a 98.8% yield for a filter is
absolutely unacceptable for companies like Sony. (It's way too low.) I
think you have to get at least a 6-sigma yield for a small circuit like
a filter. That's why digital filtering is so wonderful.


However, I don't know if a flatness spec of +/- 0.2dB would be
acceptable to high-end buyers?

It looks worse than good redbook CD players. The bigger problem, of
course, is that you can't reduce the BW to 25KHz and still claim wide-band.

Robert Stanton wrote:

chung wrote in message news:ec705$401ebdd9$c247604



If you take into account tolerances of the 5 caps, you would have a
noticeable ripple in the passband, as well as mismatches between L/R.
Plus the cost of the 10 capacitors is not insignificant. And more if you
have 5 channels.

The much better way is simply apply digital filtering, or use better
dithering schemes, but then we are back to LPCM, and not DSD .


I agree. If you look at the data you will see that with perfect
component values, the flatness is: -0.1/-0.2 which 0.1 dB p-p. Using
real componet will increase the ripple. A pratical best flatness spec.
(for real world components) would be +0.1/-0.3 dB.

Using 1% tolerance components, I ran a Monte Carlo analysis (on
100,000 units). I got the following results:

+0.20/-0.40 dB flatness 100% yield

+0.15/-0.35 dB flatness 99.91% yield

+0.10/-0.30 dB flatness 98.80% yield


It would be fairly expensive to use 1% tolerance components. Probably
add $3 or $4 to the cost of manufacture. For an SACD player that sells
for $500 to $1500, that would be acceptable.

1% capacitors are very expensive. Maybe Sony can get them cheaper, but
SACD is not that huge a market, yet. And a 98.8% yield for a filter is
absolutely unacceptable for companies like Sony. (It's way too low.) I
think you have to get at least a 6-sigma yield for a small circuit like
a filter. That's why digital filtering is so wonderful.


However, I don't know if a flatness spec of +/- 0.2dB would be
acceptable to high-end buyers?

It looks worse than good redbook CD players. The bigger problem, of
course, is that you can't reduce the BW to 25KHz and still claim wide-band.

Robert Stanton wrote:

chung wrote in message news:ec705$401ebdd9$c247604



If you take into account tolerances of the 5 caps, you would have a
noticeable ripple in the passband, as well as mismatches between L/R.
Plus the cost of the 10 capacitors is not insignificant. And more if you
have 5 channels.

The much better way is simply apply digital filtering, or use better
dithering schemes, but then we are back to LPCM, and not DSD .


I agree. If you look at the data you will see that with perfect
component values, the flatness is: -0.1/-0.2 which 0.1 dB p-p. Using
real componet will increase the ripple. A pratical best flatness spec.
(for real world components) would be +0.1/-0.3 dB.

Using 1% tolerance components, I ran a Monte Carlo analysis (on
100,000 units). I got the following results:

+0.20/-0.40 dB flatness 100% yield

+0.15/-0.35 dB flatness 99.91% yield

+0.10/-0.30 dB flatness 98.80% yield


It would be fairly expensive to use 1% tolerance components. Probably
add $3 or $4 to the cost of manufacture. For an SACD player that sells
for $500 to $1500, that would be acceptable.

1% capacitors are very expensive. Maybe Sony can get them cheaper, but
SACD is not that huge a market, yet. And a 98.8% yield for a filter is
absolutely unacceptable for companies like Sony. (It's way too low.) I
think you have to get at least a 6-sigma yield for a small circuit like
a filter. That's why digital filtering is so wonderful.


However, I don't know if a flatness spec of +/- 0.2dB would be
acceptable to high-end buyers?

It looks worse than good redbook CD players. The bigger problem, of
course, is that you can't reduce the BW to 25KHz and still claim wide-band.

chung wrote in message news:ec705$401ebdd9$c247604



If you take into account tolerances of the 5 caps, you would have a
noticeable ripple in the passband, as well as mismatches between L/R.
Plus the cost of the 10 capacitors is not insignificant. And more if you
have 5 channels.

The much better way is simply apply digital filtering, or use better
dithering schemes, but then we are back to LPCM, and not DSD .


I agree. If you look at the data you will see that with perfect
component values, the flatness is: -0.1/-0.2 which 0.1 dB p-p. Using
real componet will increase the ripple. A pratical best flatness spec.
(for real world components) would be +0.1/-0.3 dB.

Using 1% tolerance components, I ran a Monte Carlo analysis (on
100,000 units). I got the following results:

+0.20/-0.40 dB flatness 100% yield

+0.15/-0.35 dB flatness 99.91% yield

+0.10/-0.30 dB flatness 98.80% yield


It would be fairly expensive to use 1% tolerance components. Probably
add $3 or $4 to the cost of manufacture. For an SACD player that sells
for $500 to $1500, that would be acceptable.

However, I don't know if a flatness spec of +/- 0.2dB would be
acceptable to high-end buyers?

Bob Stanton

chung wrote in message news:ec705$401ebdd9$c247604



If you take into account tolerances of the 5 caps, you would have a
noticeable ripple in the passband, as well as mismatches between L/R.
Plus the cost of the 10 capacitors is not insignificant. And more if you
have 5 channels.

The much better way is simply apply digital filtering, or use better
dithering schemes, but then we are back to LPCM, and not DSD .


I agree. If you look at the data you will see that with perfect
component values, the flatness is: -0.1/-0.2 which 0.1 dB p-p. Using
real componet will increase the ripple. A pratical best flatness spec.
(for real world components) would be +0.1/-0.3 dB.

Using 1% tolerance components, I ran a Monte Carlo analysis (on
100,000 units). I got the following results:

+0.20/-0.40 dB flatness 100% yield

+0.15/-0.35 dB flatness 99.91% yield

+0.10/-0.30 dB flatness 98.80% yield


It would be fairly expensive to use 1% tolerance components. Probably
add $3 or $4 to the cost of manufacture. For an SACD player that sells
for $500 to $1500, that would be acceptable.

However, I don't know if a flatness spec of +/- 0.2dB would be
acceptable to high-end buyers?

Bob Stanton

chung wrote in message news:ec705$401ebdd9$c247604



If you take into account tolerances of the 5 caps, you would have a
noticeable ripple in the passband, as well as mismatches between L/R.
Plus the cost of the 10 capacitors is not insignificant. And more if you
have 5 channels.

The much better way is simply apply digital filtering, or use better
dithering schemes, but then we are back to LPCM, and not DSD .


I agree. If you look at the data you will see that with perfect
component values, the flatness is: -0.1/-0.2 which 0.1 dB p-p. Using
real componet will increase the ripple. A pratical best flatness spec.
(for real world components) would be +0.1/-0.3 dB.

Using 1% tolerance components, I ran a Monte Carlo analysis (on
100,000 units). I got the following results:

+0.20/-0.40 dB flatness 100% yield

+0.15/-0.35 dB flatness 99.91% yield

+0.10/-0.30 dB flatness 98.80% yield


It would be fairly expensive to use 1% tolerance components. Probably
add $3 or $4 to the cost of manufacture. For an SACD player that sells
for $500 to $1500, that would be acceptable.

However, I don't know if a flatness spec of +/- 0.2dB would be
acceptable to high-end buyers?

Bob Stanton

"chung" wrote in message
vers.com
Robert Stanton wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Stanton" wrote in message
m
chung wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always
whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended
frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard".
Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic
range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need
the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they
like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude)
ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD
players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be
easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manufactures of "high end" SACD players, just
filter it out?

Wouldn't the filter affect the overtones of the music just as much
as it affects the noise?

Yes, it will chop off all overtones above 30kHz. But, we humans can't
hear above 25kHz, so we won't hear the difference.

You and I may agree on that, but one of the touted features of SACD is
the much broader bandwidth, higher than 25 KHz. If you limit it to
25KHz, it could not compete against the other hi-rez formats, such as
24/96 or 24/192, which are flat up to close to half the sampling
frequency.

Agreed.

"chung" wrote in message
vers.com
Robert Stanton wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Stanton" wrote in message
m
chung wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always
whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended
frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard".
Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic
range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need
the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they
like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude)
ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD
players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be
easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manufactures of "high end" SACD players, just
filter it out?

Wouldn't the filter affect the overtones of the music just as much
as it affects the noise?

Yes, it will chop off all overtones above 30kHz. But, we humans can't
hear above 25kHz, so we won't hear the difference.

You and I may agree on that, but one of the touted features of SACD is
the much broader bandwidth, higher than 25 KHz. If you limit it to
25KHz, it could not compete against the other hi-rez formats, such as
24/96 or 24/192, which are flat up to close to half the sampling
frequency.

Agreed.

"chung" wrote in message
vers.com
Robert Stanton wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Stanton" wrote in message
m
chung wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always
whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended
frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard".
Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic
range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need
the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they
like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude)
ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD
players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be
easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manufactures of "high end" SACD players, just
filter it out?

Wouldn't the filter affect the overtones of the music just as much
as it affects the noise?

Yes, it will chop off all overtones above 30kHz. But, we humans can't
hear above 25kHz, so we won't hear the difference.

You and I may agree on that, but one of the touted features of SACD is
the much broader bandwidth, higher than 25 KHz. If you limit it to
25KHz, it could not compete against the other hi-rez formats, such as
24/96 or 24/192, which are flat up to close to half the sampling
frequency.

Agreed.

"chung" wrote in message
vers.com
Robert Stanton wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Stanton" wrote in message
m
chung wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:



Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always
whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended
frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard".
Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic
range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior".


Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need
the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they
like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude)
ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format.


I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD
players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be
easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter.

Why wouldn't the manufactures of "high end" SACD players, just
filter it out?

Wouldn't the filter affect the overtones of the music just as much
as it affects the noise?

Yes, it will chop off all overtones above 30kHz. But, we humans can't
hear above 25kHz, so we won't hear the difference.

You and I may agree on that, but one of the touted features of SACD is
the much broader bandwidth, higher than 25 KHz. If you limit it to
25KHz, it could not compete against the other hi-rez formats, such as
24/96 or 24/192, which are flat up to close to half the sampling
frequency.

Agreed.