Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
andy
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

I cannot locate their web site, I am just re-directed to the av123
site which sells the units.
Are they out of business? What about the room correction SW which P1A
users are waiting for?

What about active lodspeaker-toom correction? It is all silent and no
appearent interest in the audio communicty, which seems to continue to
tweak the system using cables while missing the big point )the room)

Thanks

marco stanzani
  #5   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:Gbtub.181649$ao4.610833@attbi_s51...
That's a strange name for an audio company. Was it supposed to

be
"perceptual"?


Nope, it was Perpetual. Run by a guy Mark Shifter (sp?) who
harks back to Audio Alchemy. Snake oil is probably a tad harsh
for AA...but there was some debates about their claims and
products (DAC-in-a-box for one).

Perpetual Technologies/AV123 on the other hand is supposed to
have some good stuff. Their Rocket line of speakers enjoys a
large internet following and review very well. They also have a
high end reference series and some smaller HTiB systems.
Designed here in the states and manufactured in China they are
supposed to be very high quality for the buck. A "perpetual"
comment is the Rockets hold their own both cosmetically and
performance wise with speakers several times their price. The
crossovers (patent pending) and drivers were designed by none
other than Dick Pierce who is without reproach. As his client it
appears Mark actually listening to what Dick said and got a good
product as a result.



  #7   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:58Pub.246217$HS4.2182771@attbi_s01...
Snake oil is more than a "tad" harsh to call AA. Mark owned

the company and
had a very talented designer in the days when digital was

evolving. They
produced excellent products at great prices and their DTI

jitter buster was a
breakthrough product that is still in use today by people using

separates.

That may be true but I still think they weren't totally honest
with some of their products. There should be no need for jitter
correction in CD audio as has been pointed out by Dick Pierce and
others that CD's can't have jitter. If a jitter buster helps
then something is wrong with the CD player.

Another example is a quote by Tom Nousaine in this newsgroup a
few weeks ago:

"I'm guessing that my experience with an Audio Alchemy outboard
DAC might be
illustrative. Using that device for a level matched test I
discovered that the
output of the AA was +10 dB compared to the analog output of a
Marantz CD-63
player.

Inside the case there was a jumper with 0 dB and +10 dB settings.
Moving the
jumper to the 0 dB position and, guess what, the output was still
+4 dB. So to
an end-user the device always delivered a higher output level.

I'm guessing that this kind of level de-match accounts for
practically all, if
not exactly all, of the reported cd-player sound differences."

  #8   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...
"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:58Pub.246217$HS4.2182771@attbi_s01...
Snake oil is more than a "tad" harsh to call AA. Mark owned

the company and
had a very talented designer in the days when digital was

evolving. They
produced excellent products at great prices and their DTI

jitter buster was a
breakthrough product that is still in use today by people using

separates.

That may be true but I still think they weren't totally honest
with some of their products. There should be no need for jitter
correction in CD audio as has been pointed out by Dick Pierce and
others that CD's can't have jitter. If a jitter buster helps
then something is wrong with the CD player.

Another example is a quote by Tom Nousaine in this newsgroup a
few weeks ago:

"I'm guessing that my experience with an Audio Alchemy outboard
DAC might be
illustrative. Using that device for a level matched test I
discovered that the
output of the AA was +10 dB compared to the analog output of a
Marantz CD-63
player.

Inside the case there was a jumper with 0 dB and +10 dB settings.
Moving the
jumper to the 0 dB position and, guess what, the output was still
+4 dB. So to
an end-user the device always delivered a higher output level.

I'm guessing that this kind of level de-match accounts for
practically all, if
not exactly all, of the reported cd-player sound differences."


Well, if this is your belief as well as Tom's guess, then perhaps this will
persuade you otherwise.

I use an AA DTI Pro jitter buster. Had it wired into a Proceed PDP using
balanced cable and then into Aux two on my preamp next to Aux one, direct
feed from the cd player. Identical cables used. The outputs were matched
within .5db on all three cd players I used over the decade with this
arrangement in my system.

Compared to my Phillips 880, the sound was the same but more transparent (it
should be since the PDP was 18 bit and the DTI Pro featured noise-shaping
specifically designed for 18-bit making it sound like 20-bit, while the 880
was designed at a time when 16 bit multibit DACs were not particularly
linear below -80db).

Compared to my Marantz 63SE (one-bit pcm), the sound was slightly more
neutral (the Marantz a tad "lean") and more natural sounding and about the
same in perceived transparency.

Compared to my Sony C222ES, the sound was very similar but had a slightly
more dynamic, warmer, and more natural sounding bass, and about the same
transparency.

On a casual level they can all "sound the same". In fine detail, they all
have subtle differences. So if the AA DAC had higher output and people did
not level adjust, then that may explain some specific results with that DAC.
But it is a big leap from there to saying that all DACs were liked better
because they had higher output. There were other things at work, especially
in the early days when outboard DACs first became popular...different DAC
chips, better power supplies, better analog outputs, etc.

  #9   Report Post  
andy
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?


OK, some of us knew that. OTOH, answers to the other questions would
be more interesting and useful.

Kal

Thanks Kal

did somebody experienced the DeQX devices? Is SigTech still opearting
with new prodocts (I still see Copyright 1996-2000 Cambridge Signal
Technologies on their URL) Is TacT available with some more affordable
products?
Is Perp. tech providing the room correction services )this was their
claim in Y2K but nothing happened so far (and AFAIK)

Overall the BOM cost of digital correction systems is VERY low, so we
are going to pay for the IP (which is OK). Still I feel very promising
for the medium- to low-end system the technologt fallout in the near
future. Still it does not seem to happen so near ..

Thanks
  #10   Report Post  
Andre Yew
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:YVqvb.264201$HS4.2355064@attbi_s01...
I use an AA DTI Pro jitter buster. Had it wired into a Proceed PDP using
balanced cable and then into Aux two on my preamp next to Aux one, direct
feed from the cd player. Identical cables used. The outputs were matched
within .5db on all three cd players I used over the decade with this
arrangement in my system.


Harry,

You've got to match to within 0.1 dB, or less than 1 percent
difference between voltage levels, in order to rule out effects due to
level differences. In your test, level differences can still be a
factor in what you heard. I'm not saying they were for sure, but
there is uncertainty to whether your experiment tested only jitter
differences or jitter differences combined with level differences.

--Andre



  #12   Report Post  
Andre Yew
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

(andy) wrote in message ...
did somebody experienced the DeQX devices?


Yes. I heard some DeQX-corrected NHT Pro A-20s at CES a couple of
years ago, when they were still known as ClarityEQ. Very interesting
comparison as the uncorrected system had a larger and more enveloping
soundstage, while with correction on, the sound got tighter and more
focused, but at the expense of the soundstage. I'd say it's not a
clear choice which one is better.

Overall the BOM cost of digital correction systems is VERY low, so we
are going to pay for the IP (which is OK). Still I feel very promising
for the medium- to low-end system the technologt fallout in the near
future. Still it does not seem to happen so near ..


I disgree about the cost of room correction systems. Research seems
to indicate that at least 1 second of room correction (or 1 Hz
correction resolution) is desirable. At 44.1 kHz, and done with FIR
filters, this amounts to about 44.1k*44.1k = 1.9 billion multiply and
additions (MACs) per second, and over 8 billion MACs per second for 96
kHz processing, a sample rate at which many receivers and surround
prepros are operating at today. That is well beyond affordable, and
even achievable. Top-of-the-line Pentiums and Athlons can barely
achieve Dhyrstone MIPS at half these numbers, and those numbers are
unrealistic and inflated anyway, given that Dhrystone isn't a
realistic, or even meaningful benchmark.

If you want less latency than 1 second (and that is desirable for
systems that have to deal with video), then the computational
requirements go up even more. People have had success at running bass
correction at lower sampling rates (like 1 kHz), and lowering
computational costs greatly, but this requires some non-trivial amount
of technical know-how as well as good taste in audio to judge the
different tradeoffs. Unfortunately in the audio world, good audio
taste and technical know-how seem to be contradictory traits.

And that's just for the implementation of the correction playback
side. The measurement side that determines what needs to be corrected
has its own set of challenges, which include a simple enough user
interface so that typical receiver owners can use it effectively, and
having enough smarts to correct the right things, and leave other
things alone, and do it all fast enough (less than 1 minute is
desirable) for a casual user. Many correction systems have
measurements that don't correspond at all to human hearing, but rather
are convenient mathematical computations. Taste, experience, and
technical know-how again are required here.

--Andre
  #13   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

"Harry Lavo" wrote:




"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...
"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:58Pub.246217$HS4.2182771@attbi_s01...
Snake oil is more than a "tad" harsh to call AA. Mark owned

the company and
had a very talented designer in the days when digital was

evolving. They
produced excellent products at great prices and their DTI

jitter buster was a
breakthrough product that is still in use today by people using

separates.

That may be true but I still think they weren't totally honest
with some of their products. There should be no need for jitter
correction in CD audio as has been pointed out by Dick Pierce and
others that CD's can't have jitter. If a jitter buster helps
then something is wrong with the CD player.

Another example is a quote by Tom Nousaine in this newsgroup a
few weeks ago:

"I'm guessing that my experience with an Audio Alchemy outboard
DAC might be
illustrative. Using that device for a level matched test I
discovered that the
output of the AA was +10 dB compared to the analog output of a
Marantz CD-63
player.

Inside the case there was a jumper with 0 dB and +10 dB settings.
Moving the
jumper to the 0 dB position and, guess what, the output was still
+4 dB. So to
an end-user the device always delivered a higher output level.

I'm guessing that this kind of level de-match accounts for
practically all, if
not exactly all, of the reported cd-player sound differences."


Well, if this is your belief as well as Tom's guess, then perhaps this will
persuade you otherwise.

I use an AA DTI Pro jitter buster. Had it wired into a Proceed PDP using
balanced cable and then into Aux two on my preamp next to Aux one, direct
feed from the cd player. Identical cables used. The outputs were matched
within .5db on all three cd players I used over the decade with this
arrangement in my system.

Compared to my Phillips 880, the sound was the same but more transparent (it
should be since the PDP was 18 bit and the DTI Pro featured noise-shaping
specifically designed for 18-bit making it sound like 20-bit, while the 880
was designed at a time when 16 bit multibit DACs were not particularly
linear below -80db).

Compared to my Marantz 63SE (one-bit pcm), the sound was slightly more
neutral (the Marantz a tad "lean") and more natural sounding and about the
same in perceived transparency.

Compared to my Sony C222ES, the sound was very similar but had a slightly
more dynamic, warmer, and more natural sounding bass, and about the same
transparency.

On a casual level they can all "sound the same". In fine detail, they all
have subtle differences. So if the AA DAC had higher output and people did
not level adjust, then that may explain some specific results with that DAC.
But it is a big leap from there to saying that all DACs were liked better
because they had higher output. There were other things at work, especially
in the early days when outboard DACs first became popular...different DAC
chips, better power supplies, better analog outputs, etc.


Ok here's the rest of my story. In a blind experiment the analog output of a
Maratntz CD-63 was fed into the analog input of a Marantz CDR610 CD-recorder.
The recorder was placed in "record" and the signal at the headphone jack of the
CD-R was fed into the system and level matched to the Audio Alchemy with the
level control of the headphone jack (whereas the analog output of the player
had been subject to a complete extra AD-DA cycle through the CDR610s internal
chips.)

I found it it illustrative that several experienced enthusiasts were then
unable to reliably differentiate between them by sound alone.
  #14   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:




"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...
"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:58Pub.246217$HS4.2182771@attbi_s01...
Snake oil is more than a "tad" harsh to call AA. Mark owned
the company and
had a very talented designer in the days when digital was
evolving. They
produced excellent products at great prices and their DTI
jitter buster was a
breakthrough product that is still in use today by people using
separates.

That may be true but I still think they weren't totally honest
with some of their products. There should be no need for jitter
correction in CD audio as has been pointed out by Dick Pierce and
others that CD's can't have jitter. If a jitter buster helps
then something is wrong with the CD player.

Another example is a quote by Tom Nousaine in this newsgroup a
few weeks ago:

"I'm guessing that my experience with an Audio Alchemy outboard
DAC might be
illustrative. Using that device for a level matched test I
discovered that the
output of the AA was +10 dB compared to the analog output of a
Marantz CD-63
player.

Inside the case there was a jumper with 0 dB and +10 dB settings.
Moving the
jumper to the 0 dB position and, guess what, the output was still
+4 dB. So to
an end-user the device always delivered a higher output level.

I'm guessing that this kind of level de-match accounts for
practically all, if
not exactly all, of the reported cd-player sound differences."


Well, if this is your belief as well as Tom's guess, then perhaps this

will
persuade you otherwise.

I use an AA DTI Pro jitter buster. Had it wired into a Proceed PDP using
balanced cable and then into Aux two on my preamp next to Aux one, direct
feed from the cd player. Identical cables used. The outputs were matched
within .5db on all three cd players I used over the decade with this
arrangement in my system.

Compared to my Phillips 880, the sound was the same but more transparent

(it
should be since the PDP was 18 bit and the DTI Pro featured noise-shaping
specifically designed for 18-bit making it sound like 20-bit, while the

880
was designed at a time when 16 bit multibit DACs were not particularly
linear below -80db).

Compared to my Marantz 63SE (one-bit pcm), the sound was slightly more
neutral (the Marantz a tad "lean") and more natural sounding and about

the
same in perceived transparency.

Compared to my Sony C222ES, the sound was very similar but had a slightly
more dynamic, warmer, and more natural sounding bass, and about the same
transparency.

On a casual level they can all "sound the same". In fine detail, they

all
have subtle differences. So if the AA DAC had higher output and people

did
not level adjust, then that may explain some specific results with that

DAC.
But it is a big leap from there to saying that all DACs were liked better
because they had higher output. There were other things at work,

especially
in the early days when outboard DACs first became popular...different DAC
chips, better power supplies, better analog outputs, etc.


Ok here's the rest of my story. In a blind experiment the analog output of

a
Maratntz CD-63 was fed into the analog input of a Marantz CDR610

CD-recorder.
The recorder was placed in "record" and the signal at the headphone jack

of the
CD-R was fed into the system and level matched to the Audio Alchemy with

the
level control of the headphone jack (whereas the analog output of the

player
had been subject to a complete extra AD-DA cycle through the CDR610s

internal
chips.)

I found it it illustrative that several experienced enthusiasts were then
unable to reliably differentiate between them by sound alone.


First, are you sure you weren't just bypassing the ad-da converters out the
headphone jack? That's how my Panansonic DAT's work. Otherwise the sound
would not be synched.

Second, what is this supposed to prove about the sound of DAC's in general
and whether or not they would improve upon a given cd player...that was the
original point of this post. All this does is suggest that your AA and your
Marantz sounded alike (neither the epitome of high-end sound IME). Perhaps
your answer to the original poster should be that you doubt the AA DAC would
be an improvement...perhaps he should borrow a Wadia, or a Mark Levinson, or
an MF, or at least a Benchmark to listen to. No?

And based on your dismissal of antidotal discussion of listening tests, your
experienced enthusiasts might or might not have heard a difference based on
their expectations, and in either case their opinions cannot be trusted.
Perhaps, another set of "experienced enthusiasts" might have heard an
equally untrustworthy difference.

Since you dismiss antidotal evidence as worthless, those "experienced
enthusiast's" opinions we should accept as the last word? Given that they
were acquaintances of yours, how are we to know that they have been led to
have negative expectations of differences by the known opinions, of you
their friend. Perhaps another set of "enthusiast" might have reached a
different conclusion. But it doesn't count anyway, right?

  #15   Report Post  
Denis Sbragion
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

Hello Andre,

(Andre Yew) wrote in
:

...
I disgree about the cost of room correction systems. Research seems
to indicate that at least 1 second of room correction (or 1 Hz
correction resolution) is desirable. At 44.1 kHz, and done with FIR
filters, this amounts to about 44.1k*44.1k = 1.9 billion multiply and
additions (MACs) per second, and over 8 billion MACs per second for 96
kHz processing, a sample rate at which many receivers and surround
prepros are operating at today. That is well beyond affordable, and
even achievable. Top-of-the-line Pentiums and Athlons can barely
achieve Dhyrstone MIPS at half these numbers, and those numbers are
unrealistic and inflated anyway, given that Dhrystone isn't a
realistic, or even meaningful benchmark.

...

I think you should take a look at this site:

http://www.ludd.luth.se/~torger/brutefir.html

Realtime FIR filtering with better than 1 Hz resolution at audio sampling
rates is available since at least 5-8 years. A top-of-the-line processor
should be able to run at least 30 channels at 96 Khz using a program like
that. The main problem is that this convolution method is patented by
Lake Audio, so it cannot be used outside free programs like the one
above, but AFAIK the patent is going to expire within few months.
If you use the program above with the following one:

http://freshmeat.net/projects/drc/

(incidentally developed by me you can build a good quality room
correction system almost for free. You can see some example results
achieved with the program above, along with traditional room treatment,
at the following URL:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=
24df513b860d46cb4eb85577a6528c9a&threadid=283878&p erpage=20&pagenumber=16

And that's just for the implementation of the correction playback
side. The measurement side that determines what needs to be corrected
has its own set of challenges, which include a simple enough user

...

I agree, making a good quality RCS is difficult, making it easy to use is
near to impossible (DRC is definitely difficult to use).

Bye,

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http://www.infotecna.it



  #16   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

"Harry Lavo" wrote:



"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo"
wrote:




"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...
"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:58Pub.246217$HS4.2182771@attbi_s01...
Snake oil is more than a "tad" harsh to call AA. Mark owned
the company and
had a very talented designer in the days when digital was
evolving. They
produced excellent products at great prices and their DTI
jitter buster was a
breakthrough product that is still in use today by people using
separates.

That may be true but I still think they weren't totally honest
with some of their products. There should be no need for jitter
correction in CD audio as has been pointed out by Dick Pierce and
others that CD's can't have jitter. If a jitter buster helps
then something is wrong with the CD player.

Another example is a quote by Tom Nousaine in this newsgroup a
few weeks ago:

"I'm guessing that my experience with an Audio Alchemy outboard
DAC might be
illustrative. Using that device for a level matched test I
discovered that the
output of the AA was +10 dB compared to the analog output of a
Marantz CD-63
player.

Inside the case there was a jumper with 0 dB and +10 dB settings.
Moving the
jumper to the 0 dB position and, guess what, the output was still
+4 dB. So to
an end-user the device always delivered a higher output level.

I'm guessing that this kind of level de-match accounts for
practically all, if
not exactly all, of the reported cd-player sound differences."


Well, if this is your belief as well as Tom's guess, then perhaps this

will
persuade you otherwise.

I use an AA DTI Pro jitter buster. Had it wired into a Proceed PDP using
balanced cable and then into Aux two on my preamp next to Aux one, direct
feed from the cd player. Identical cables used. The outputs were matched
within .5db on all three cd players I used over the decade with this
arrangement in my system.

Compared to my Phillips 880, the sound was the same but more transparent

(it
should be since the PDP was 18 bit and the DTI Pro featured noise-shaping
specifically designed for 18-bit making it sound like 20-bit, while the

880
was designed at a time when 16 bit multibit DACs were not particularly
linear below -80db).

Compared to my Marantz 63SE (one-bit pcm), the sound was slightly more
neutral (the Marantz a tad "lean") and more natural sounding and about

the
same in perceived transparency.

Compared to my Sony C222ES, the sound was very similar but had a slightly
more dynamic, warmer, and more natural sounding bass, and about the same
transparency.

On a casual level they can all "sound the same". In fine detail, they

all
have subtle differences. So if the AA DAC had higher output and people

did
not level adjust, then that may explain some specific results with that

DAC.
But it is a big leap from there to saying that all DACs were liked better
because they had higher output. There were other things at work,

especially
in the early days when outboard DACs first became popular...different DAC
chips, better power supplies, better analog outputs, etc.


Ok here's the rest of my story. In a blind experiment the analog output of

a
Maratntz CD-63 was fed into the analog input of a Marantz CDR610

CD-recorder.
The recorder was placed in "record" and the signal at the headphone jack

of the
CD-R was fed into the system and level matched to the Audio Alchemy with

the
level control of the headphone jack (whereas the analog output of the

player
had been subject to a complete extra AD-DA cycle through the CDR610s

internal
chips.)

I found it it illustrative that several experienced enthusiasts were then
unable to reliably differentiate between them by sound alone.


First, are you sure you weren't just bypassing the ad-da converters out the
headphone jack? That's how my Panansonic DAT's work. Otherwise the sound
would not be synched.


Yes I'm sure because I spoke with the Marantz people prior and without the CDR
being placed in record mode no sound gets to the headphone output.


Second, what is this supposed to prove about the sound of DAC's in general
and whether or not they would improve upon a given cd player...that was the
original point of this post.


All this does is suggest that your AA and your
Marantz sounded alike (neither the epitome of high-end sound IME).


I'm glad you regognize that Audio Alchemy was high-end hyperbole.


Perhaps
your answer to the original poster should be that you doubt the AA DAC would
be an improvement...perhaps he should borrow a Wadia, or a Mark Levinson, or
an MF, or at least a Benchmark to listen to. No?


Why bother; there's nothing they could possibly do but degrade an already
transparent signal.


And based on your dismissal of antidotal discussion of listening tests, your
experienced enthusiasts might or might not have heard a difference based on
their expectations, and in either case their opinions cannot be trusted.


But this was a double blind test and the numbers show they were unable to
reliably identify them. I didn't rely on their 'opinions.'


Perhaps, another set of "experienced enthusiasts" might have heard an
equally untrustworthy difference.


IMO another set of listeners would have heard (or not) exactly the same thing.


Since you dismiss antidotal evidence as worthless, those "experienced
enthusiast's" opinions we should accept as the last word? Given that they
were acquaintances of yours, how are we to know that they have been led to
have negative expectations of differences by the known opinions, of you
their friend. Perhaps another set of "enthusiast" might have reached a
different conclusion. But it doesn't count anyway, right?


Well at least half of them seemed heavily biased in the other direction, at
least in comments. But, as you well know, I'm not one to accept opinions when
true sonics can be verified.

Don't forget that when the experiment is double blind there is no way that I
can prevent listeners from hearing true differences.
  #17   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

"Andre Yew" wrote in message
...
I disgree about the cost of room correction systems. Research

seems
to indicate that at least 1 second of room correction (or 1 Hz
correction resolution) is desirable. At 44.1 kHz, and done

with FIR
filters, this amounts to about 44.1k*44.1k = 1.9 billion

multiply and
additions (MACs) per second, and over 8 billion MACs per second

for 96
kHz processing, a sample rate at which many receivers and

surround
prepros are operating at today. That is well beyond

affordable, and
even achievable. Top-of-the-line Pentiums and Athlons can

barely
achieve Dhyrstone MIPS at half these numbers, and those numbers

are
unrealistic and inflated anyway, given that Dhrystone isn't a
realistic, or even meaningful benchmark.


I agree that it's not as cheap as the previous poster was
claiming. However, your argument using general processors is not
valid. In the realm of DSPs and ASICs this level of processing
power is certainly achievable at modest cost.

  #18   Report Post  
Andre Yew
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message ...
However, your argument using general processors is not
valid. In the realm of DSPs and ASICs this level of processing
power is certainly achievable at modest cost.


I disagree. If we're using brute-force FIR techniques, name me an
affordable computation system that can achieve 16 billion 32-bit
integer MACs per second. That's for a two-channel, 96 kHz system for
24-bit audio, and assumes 32 bits are enough accumulation precision
for such a long filter. The newly announced TI C6412 claims to do 2
billion 16-bit MACs per second, so if we generously assume things
scale linearly, you'd need at least 16 of them to achieve the required
computational throughput. They're about $40 in quantity, so parts
cost for the CPU alone is $40*16=$640, which translates into
approximately 6*$640=$3840 MSRP difference, not counting support
circuitry, the case, power supply, R&D time, etc. to support the extra
CPUs. Now if we want to do it for a typical home theatre system with
6 or 8 channels, multiply that by 3 or 4. I don't think that's a
modest cost.

One solution, as Denis points out, is smarter algorithms that require
less computation load. Optimized FIRs, or decimation are two ways to
getting there. The Lake DSP stuff was what I was thinking about
actually for reducing latency.

--Andre

  #19   Report Post  
Ban
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

Andre Yew wrote:
|| "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
|| ...
||| However, your argument using general processors is not
||| valid. In the realm of DSPs and ASICs this level of processing
||| power is certainly achievable at modest cost.
||
|| I disagree. If we're using brute-force FIR techniques, name me an
|| affordable computation system that can achieve 16 billion 32-bit
|| integer MACs per second. That's for a two-channel, 96 kHz system for
|| 24-bit audio, and assumes 32 bits are enough accumulation precision
|| for such a long filter. The newly announced TI C6412 claims to do 2
|| billion 16-bit MACs per second, so if we generously assume things
|| scale linearly, you'd need at least 16 of them to achieve the
|| required
|| computational throughput. They're about $40 in quantity, so parts
|| cost for the CPU alone is $40*16=$640, which translates into
|| approximately 6*$640=$3840 MSRP difference, not counting support
|| circuitry, the case, power supply, R&D time, etc. to support the
|| extra
|| CPUs. Now if we want to do it for a typical home theatre system with
|| 6 or 8 channels, multiply that by 3 or 4. I don't think that's a
|| modest cost.
||
|| One solution, as Denis points out, is smarter algorithms that require
|| less computation load. Optimized FIRs, or decimation are two ways to
|| getting there. The Lake DSP stuff was what I was thinking about
|| actually for reducing latency.

Andre,
maybe a FIR-approach is not the right way here, at least not a very long
FIR.
Basically, as the correction signal is radiated through the speakers as
well, it will be reflected by the room the same way as the original, and so
will be the signal to correct the reflections of the correction signal and
so on. This seems to be more the work of an IIR-filter, which is
computionally very very cheap.
So the FIR is only needed for a limited period, maybe 100ms or even less
which is a lot easier to compute.
I have been using Angelo Farina's Aurora plugins for CEP(32bit float) to get
the FIR-part and then Matlab to model the IIR-part, but I couldn't get a
satisfactory result. Everything sounded a bit dull and distant, but I might
have made mistakes.

Maybe the whole correction is conceptionally a wrong approach. I would
rather try something else, by positioning additional speakers on the first
reflection points on the wall/ceiling to cancel the first reflections to get
a longer ITD(initial time delay gap).
In the moment I'm doing this and the result is much more promising. I have
also placed active bass "suckers" in the room corners to cancel the standing
waves creation.
Unfortunately I do not have enough hardware to create all the signals needed
in real time. This is also a bit much of a task for a single person.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
electronic hardware designer
http://www.bansuri.my-page.ms/

  #20   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:


snip, too much..read earlier posts in thread for background



First, are you sure you weren't just bypassing the ad-da converters out

the
headphone jack? That's how my Panansonic DAT's work. Otherwise the

sound
would not be synched.


Yes I'm sure because I spoke with the Marantz people prior and without the

CDR
being placed in record mode no sound gets to the headphone output.


That's how my dat works too...but it doesn't go through the convertors. It
simple routes the signal to the headphone outlets as well as to the
convertors....there is no way to "read" the data off a DAT or a CD-R in
"real time". That is just so you can hear what the DAT or CD-R is being
fed.


Second, what is this supposed to prove about the sound of DAC's in

general
and whether or not they would improve upon a given cd player...that was

the
original point of this post.


All this does is suggest that your AA and your
Marantz sounded alike (neither the epitome of high-end sound IME).


I'm glad you regognize that Audio Alchemy was high-end hyperbole.


Well, then I guess you think the Marantz SE was also high-end hyperbole.


Perhaps
your answer to the original poster should be that you doubt the AA DAC

would
be an improvement...perhaps he should borrow a Wadia, or a Mark Levinson,

or
an MF, or at least a Benchmark to listen to. No?


Why bother; there's nothing they could possibly do but degrade an already
transparent signal.

How do you square this with your assertion above....since you seem to think
the original signal was a transparent as possible. Then either both the SE
and the AA were transparant, or they were both high-end hyperbole. which is
it?


And based on your dismissal of antidotal discussion of listening tests,

your
experienced enthusiasts might or might not have heard a difference based

on
their expectations, and in either case their opinions cannot be trusted.


But this was a double blind test and the numbers show they were unable to
reliably identify them. I didn't rely on their 'opinions.'


It would have helped if you had mentioned this in your post...instead of
alluding to a nebulous listening session.


Perhaps, another set of "experienced enthusiasts" might have heard an
equally untrustworthy difference.


IMO another set of listeners would have heard (or not) exactly the same

thing.


Might or might not, in part depending on what their going-in expectations
were.


Since you dismiss antidotal evidence as worthless, those "experienced
enthusiast's" opinions we should accept as the last word? Given that

they
were acquaintances of yours, how are we to know that they have been led

to
have negative expectations of differences by the known opinions, of you
their friend. Perhaps another set of "enthusiast" might have reached a
different conclusion. But it doesn't count anyway, right?


Well at least half of them seemed heavily biased in the other direction,

at
least in comments. But, as you well know, I'm not one to accept opinions

when
true sonics can be verified.


You mean biased to hear differences? Or biased in that they thought they
heard differences?

Don't forget that when the experiment is double blind there is no way that

I
can prevent listeners from hearing true differences.


Ah, I see. The test set them straight, right?

Assuming the test protocol doesn't interfere....which as you well know you
have not proven to the satisfaction of those of us who have asked for
controls in order to provide such proof.


  #21   Report Post  
Randy Yates
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

Andre Yew wrote:
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message ...

However, your argument using general processors is not
valid. In the realm of DSPs and ASICs this level of processing
power is certainly achievable at modest cost.


Not true.

I disagree. If we're using brute-force FIR techniques, name me an
affordable computation system that can achieve 16 billion 32-bit
integer MACs per second.


This is the problem with these outrageous sample rates. Why do we
need to process at a rate in which over 50 percent of the available
bandwidth is unused?

A single TI TMS320C6416 can achieve 2.88 billion 16-bit MACs/ second.

http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tms320c6416.pdf

It has a clock speed of 720 MHz and does 4 16x16 multiplies per cycle.
If you use one per channel you can achieve a 1 second FIR at 44.1 kHz.
However, even this won't do what you actually asked for, which is
32-bit MACs, not 16-bit.

In any case, at over $300 a pop, they aren't cheap. I agree, Rusty is
wrong - this level of processing is currently not available at modest cost.

One solution, as Denis points out, is smarter algorithms that require
less computation load. Optimized FIRs,


Optimized FIRs? Never heard of that phrase. One way of efficiently
computing a convolution is "frequency domain filtering." Essentially
you use the convolution == multiplication property of Fourier transforms,
converting your time data into the frequency domain, performing the
multiplication, and then inverse transforming. That algorithm is
o(N*log(N)), instead of o(N^2) as the brute force method is.

or decimation are two ways to


Yes, decimation is reasonable. 48 kHz was a fine sample rate - we
didn't need to throw it away and go to 96 kHz.
--
% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
%%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
%%%% % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
  #22   Report Post  
Andre Yew
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

Randy Yates wrote in message ...
This is the problem with these outrageous sample rates. Why do we
need to process at a rate in which over 50 percent of the available
bandwidth is unused?


I think there are valid reasons to process at high sample rates:

1. There's some software out there now (DVD-A) that delivers content
at high sampling rates, and decimating it to lower rates seems to
defeat the purpose of having such high-sample-rate content in the
first place (assuming such high sample rate content is audibly
different due in part to their high sampling rate). For the really
optimistic, some day there may even be a standardized hi-res digital
interconnection which may pass along hi-res data unaltered.

2. There're DSP operations which require high sampling rates, such as
non-linear algorithms like compression, because non-linear algorithms
generate harmonics which may alias. One could argue that such
algorithms should upsample, do their non-linear processing, and then
downsample, but for the sake of fidelity through simplicity, it may be
easier to implement a good-sounding system if the digital processing
were kept to a minimum.

Optimized FIRs? Never heard of that phrase. One way of efficiently
computing a convolution is "frequency domain filtering."


Sorry. That's what I meant --- faster ways to do FIRs than just brute
force time-domain computations.

Yes, decimation is reasonable. 48 kHz was a fine sample rate - we
didn't need to throw it away and go to 96 kHz.


The stuff that has been implemented by Michael Gerzon and Peter Craven
in the early 90s for the B&W correction system is a multi-rate system,
where the bass, which needs the most precision and longest filters, be
decimated to 1 kHz, the mid-range from 500 Hz to 3 kHz would be
decimated to 6 kHz, and everything above that is running at 48 kHz.
The difficulty then moves to making the filters for the downsampling
and upsampling transparent and efficient. Here's a link to the Gerzon
article:

http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/Digital...alisation.html

--Andre

  #23   Report Post  
Rusty Boudreaux
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Andre Yew wrote:
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

...

However, your argument using general processors is not
valid. In the realm of DSPs and ASICs this level of

processing
power is certainly achievable at modest cost.


Not true.

snip

In any case, at over $300 a pop, they aren't cheap. I agree,

Rusty is
wrong - this level of processing is currently not available at

modest cost.

Yep, mea culpa. I wasn't paying attention I read million, not
billion.

Our ASICs do upwards of 20 million 32-bit MACs at a fraction of
the cost of a comparable DSP solution. However, these ASICs are
specialized for the communications equipment market and probably
not directly comparable to a higher feature set DSP.

  #24   Report Post  
Randy Yates
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

Andre Yew wrote:

Randy Yates wrote in message ...

This is the problem with these outrageous sample rates. Why do we
need to process at a rate in which over 50 percent of the available
bandwidth is unused?



I think there are valid reasons to process at high sample rates:

1. There's some software out there now (DVD-A) that delivers content
at high sampling rates, and decimating it to lower rates seems to
defeat the purpose of having such high-sample-rate content in the
first place (assuming such high sample rate content is audibly
different due in part to their high sampling rate).


Yeah, that's a big assumption. Why not sample at 4 GHz, ASSUMING
there is content that would make an audible difference?

For the really
optimistic, some day there may even be a standardized hi-res digital
interconnection which may pass along hi-res data unaltered.


So it can be thrown away by the time it reaches the listener's brain?

2. There're DSP operations which require high sampling rates, such as
non-linear algorithms like compression, because non-linear algorithms
generate harmonics which may alias.


You mean like an algorithm I designed into our (Sony Ericsson's)
mobiles?

One could argue that such
algorithms should upsample, do their non-linear processing, and then
downsample,


Not if you want to waste processing power needlessly performing
operations that will have no audible effect.

but for the sake of fidelity through simplicity,


Ahh yes - fidelity through simplicity...

it may be
easier to implement a good-sounding system if the digital processing
were kept to a minimum.


Not if you're hamstrung from doing significant operations down the line
because you've got your sample rate up too high! Common Sense 101.

Let me tell you why we've got a 96 kHz sample rate system (and - aggh! -
192 kHz too): It makes some people some $$$.

At the outside, these high sample rate systems may have been slightly
beneficial because the anti-aliasing or reconstruction filtering for
some data conversion systems were improved. However, there's no need
to require this through the entire chain! Just do it at the conversion
(e.g., oversample the A/D, then decimate digitally).
--
% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
%%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
%%%% % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
  #25   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

Andre Yew wrote:
2. There're DSP operations which require high sampling rates, such as
non-linear algorithms like compression, because non-linear algorithms
generate harmonics which may alias.


Fine, and the way that's done, and has been done for quite some
time in the professional world, is to oversample, process, filter
back to the original base bandwidth, then decimate. Poof! aliased
harmonics are gone because they were never there to begin with.


  #26   Report Post  
Andre Yew
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

Randy Yates wrote in message ...
[re. non-linear DSP algorithms]
One could argue that such
algorithms should upsample, do their non-linear processing, and then
downsample,


Not if you want to waste processing power needlessly performing
operations that will have no audible effect.


I don't understand your statement. Non-linear processing will produce
harmonics of the same order as the non-linearity's highest
power-series expansion. Therefore some upsampling is required in
order to perform such DSP without aliasing. Downsampling is then
necessary to return to the playback rate. Level compression is an
example of a non-linear process.

Whatever we may feel about high sampling rates, they are here, and
devices will need to deal with them. If you want to decimate them all
to 48 kHz, that's fine. I'd rather avoid one more filter in the
processing chain --- it's just one more place to screw up. Another
issue that hasn't been addressed yet are the possible ameliorating
effects of higher sampling rates on processing errors and bugs.

--Andre

  #27   Report Post  
Andre Yew
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

Randy Yates wrote in message news:bTXxb.250002$9E1.1349810@attbi_s52...
Are they? If you walk into the living rooms of most people at this
point in time, you will find CDs - not DVD-A or SACD. And I think the
average consumer, who finds compressed MP3s sound just fine and makes
around $30,000/year, isn't going to be willing to shuck out a few
thousand dollars for new equipment and replacement media to gain an
extra 20 kHz of bandwidth that he never missed in the first place.


Yes this true, but many receivers and surround pre-pros are running
internally at higher sampling rates already. Some Pioneer receivers
run at 88.2 kHz, for example, and current Lexicons run at 96 kHz.
They often use A/Ds at high sampling rates, so analog sources are
digitized at high rates and are processed that way. CDs are dealt,
usually, in their native rates.

I would also suggest that most high-end audio design isn't aimed at
your average consumer. I'm not saying it's necessarily economically
viable, but I think DVD-A and SACD compatibility looms large on their
design specs. Besides, didn't you know Meridian upsamples MP3s? :-)

Frankly, I hope these (SACD and DVD-A) formats fail. CDs are more than
adequate for audio reproduction in any venue barring perhaps a laboratory,
and creating a profuse array of formats does nothing but confuse consumers
and dissipate resources.


I hope not. DVD-A and SACD are very useful in providing high-quality,
non-lossy encoded multichannel music. Processing them digitally is
another matter altogether unfortunately.

DSP engineers know how to properly design and implement a low pass
filter. Filtering is one of the most basic tasks for a DSP engineer,
and lowpass is the most basic type of filter.


Yes, but there are so many tradeoffs to make --- will they make the
right choices, perceptually speaking? One of our fellow rahe members,
Bruno Putzeys, recently described on the pro-audio list his
experiences with a TI SRC4192 chip, where in the inband ripple
produced possibly large amounts of pre- and post-echo, but TI thought
their customers couldn't deal with the large group delay if they
lowered the in-band ripple. I would copy his post, replete in
technical detail, here, but the pro-audio list restricts such usage.
Perhaps Bruno would repost his report here --- the original article
appeared on November 18, 2003 if you have access to the archive.

This was in a discussion about using ASRCs as jitter-suppression
devices, and their possible consequences if cascaded with other ASRCs
or other processing.

It is my experience that bugs are best dealt with by repairing
rather than covering up.


Yes, but only if they're under your control. Shoddy mastering and
engineering practices abound. Higher sampling rates, and deeper bit
depths can deal with some common audio engineering problems.

--Andre

  #28   Report Post  
Randy Yates
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

Andre Yew wrote:

Randy Yates wrote in message news:bTXxb.250002$9E1.1349810@attbi_s52...

Are they? If you walk into the living rooms of most people at this
point in time, you will find CDs - not DVD-A or SACD. And I think the
average consumer, who finds compressed MP3s sound just fine and makes
around $30,000/year, isn't going to be willing to shuck out a few
thousand dollars for new equipment and replacement media to gain an
extra 20 kHz of bandwidth that he never missed in the first place.



Yes this true, but many receivers and surround pre-pros are running
internally at higher sampling rates already.


Forgive me for not taking your word for that. If you can provide some
verifiable evidence, I would like to see it.

Some Pioneer receivers
run at 88.2 kHz, for example, and current Lexicons run at 96 kHz.
They often use A/Ds at high sampling rates, so analog sources are
digitized at high rates and are processed that way.


Sampling at a high rate in no way obligates the rest of the data path
to operate at that rate. Again, you're making some assertions I don't
believe are true.

CDs are dealt,
usually, in their native rates.


This would make no sense. If the remainder of the data path you speak
of above is operating at 88.2, then it would make sense to upsample
the CDs to 88.2. I suspect your data is wrong - the internal rate
is 44.1 while the converter only runs at a high rate to mitigate
antialias filter requirements.

I would also suggest that most high-end audio design isn't aimed at
your average consumer.


Your statement was that high sample rates are here. I did, and still
do, challenge that remark, if by "here" you mean in widespread market
use. Sure, a small percentage has DVD-A or SACD. (I myself have purchased
a DVD-A - and was abysmally disappointed.) There will always be a small
part of the market buying the most expensive products available. That
wasn't my point, and I don't think it was yours either.

I'm not saying it's necessarily economically
viable, but I think DVD-A and SACD compatibility looms large on their
design specs.


Whose design specs? If you mean the average digital audio equipment
maker, then I'm not sure you're correct. But if they do, the market
will decide with their pocketbooks, and I'm betting which choice they're
going to make.

Frankly, I hope these (SACD and DVD-A) formats fail. CDs are more than
adequate for audio reproduction in any venue barring perhaps a laboratory,
and creating a profuse array of formats does nothing but confuse consumers
and dissipate resources.



I hope not. DVD-A and SACD are very useful in providing high-quality,
non-lossy encoded multichannel music.


They may provide multi-channel music, but we've already got high quality
stereo music. It's called "CD." These formats provide *no* (zero) practical
advantage in music quality over a CD.

DSP engineers know how to properly design and implement a low pass
filter. Filtering is one of the most basic tasks for a DSP engineer,
and lowpass is the most basic type of filter.



Yes, but there are so many tradeoffs to make --- will they make the
right choices, perceptually speaking?


Yes, they will. It is easy to design and implement a half-band filter
using polyphase filtering techniques with fraction-saving or even
noise-shaping that will perform extremely well.

One of our fellow rahe members,
Bruno Putzeys, recently described on the pro-audio list his
experiences with a TI SRC4192 chip,


Irrelevent. Generic asynchronous sample rate conversion
is a far, far more complex task than a simple half-band lowpass
filter interpolation (resampling) filter. You're comparing
apples to oranges.

It is my experience that bugs are best dealt with by repairing
rather than covering up.



Yes, but only if they're under your control. Shoddy mastering and
engineering practices abound. Higher sampling rates, and deeper bit
depths can deal with some common audio engineering problems.


A mastering engineer can easily screw anything up, even DVD-A and SACD, if
they're not careful or don't know what they're doing. You'll never overcome
ignorance with more technology - only with education.
--
% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
%%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
%%%% % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

  #29   Report Post  
Andre Yew
 
Posts: n/a
Default What happened to perpetual technologies?

Randy Yates wrote in message news:QmAyb.377482$Fm2.393962@attbi_s04...
Some Pioneer receivers
run at 88.2 kHz, for example, and current Lexicons run at 96 kHz.
They often use A/Ds at high sampling rates, so analog sources are
digitized at high rates and are processed that way.


Sampling at a high rate in no way obligates the rest of the data path
to operate at that rate. Again, you're making some assertions I don't
believe are true.


Believe what you want. Lexicon prepros operate up to 96 kHz
internally, as confirmed in conversations with Lexicon engineers,
including David Griesinger, and in this Q and A done for the release
of the MC-12:

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Lexicon/mc12/qa1.html

"SMR: Lexicon owners are familiar with the outstanding performance
afforded by Logic 7, clearly the most popular of all the available
processing modes. I believe it has been updated and refined yet
further, is that correct?

"Andy Clark: Yes. The MC-12 uses four 32-bit Analog Devices SHARC® DSP
engines, which provide enormous processing power. We have taken full
advantage of this and have re-written the Logic 7 algorithms for 96kHz
internal processing."

CDs are dealt,
usually, in their native rates.


This would make no sense. If the remainder of the data path you speak
of above is operating at 88.2, then it would make sense to upsample
the CDs to 88.2.


The internal architecture of at least the Lexicon, if not other
prepros, operate at multiple sampling rates, and have done so since
the DC-1 introduced in the mid 90s. This is a well-known fact, since
some of its processing modes cannot process above certain sampling
rates. For example, in the DC-1/DC-2/MC-1 architecture, Panorama and
the ambience synthesis modes (Church, Concert Hall, etc.) could not
process 48 kHz sampling rates, and could deal only with 44.1 kHz. In
the MC-12/MC-8 architecture, DTS Neo:6 cannot go above 48 kHz. If
everything were upsampled to 96 kHz, then clearly Neo:6 could not work
at all. Further, since the MC-12/8 can accept 96 kHz digital inputs,
it's trivial to check that there is no decimation and upsampling
happening around the Neo:6 code.

Your statement was that high sample rates are here. I did, and still
do, challenge that remark, if by "here" you mean in widespread market
use. Sure, a small percentage has DVD-A or SACD. (I myself have purchased
a DVD-A - and was abysmally disappointed.) There will always be a small
part of the market buying the most expensive products available. That
wasn't my point, and I don't think it was yours either.


We will just agree to disagree on this. That the internal processing
modes of receivers is already running at 88.1 or higher is a good
enough condition for "here" for me, and that these receivers also have
digital links for DVD-A and SACD with supporting players available
makes it more solid for me.

Frankly, I hope these (SACD and DVD-A) formats fail. CDs are more than
adequate for audio reproduction in any venue barring perhaps a laboratory,
and creating a profuse array of formats does nothing but confuse consumers
and dissipate resources.


They may provide multi-channel music, but we've already got high quality
stereo music. It's called "CD." These formats provide *no* (zero) practical
advantage in music quality over a CD.


Technically speaking, it is incontrovertible that stereo is far
inferior to multichannel. I don't even know how that can be an issue
for discussion, but we can get into it if you like. You had also
originally said: "CDs are more than adequate for audio reproduction
in any venue barring perhaps a laboratory". Tell me how a two-channel
speaker array creates a lateral moving soundwave. Tell me how a
two-channel speaker array gets rid of comb-filtering effects of
phantom imaging. Two channel has been barely adequate for audio
reproduction, and this has been known since the early 30s.

Yes, they will. It is easy to design and implement a half-band filter
using polyphase filtering techniques with fraction-saving or even
noise-shaping that will perform extremely well.


Consider silicon resources vs. latency vs. precision. The choice is
not so easy to make, especially since your typical audio company isn't
going to spin their own ASIC, much less have the technical know-how to
even know such choices exist.

Irrelevent. Generic asynchronous sample rate conversion
is a far, far more complex task than a simple half-band lowpass
filter interpolation (resampling) filter. You're comparing
apples to oranges.


If you had lots of resources to throw at the problem, I agree,
however, most companies don't. This is proven by the vast majority of
companies who use upsampling in their products using the Cirrus
Crystal ASRC part, which makes this relevant. Looking at the specs
published in data sheets for DACs, the fact that they print only THD+N
proves to me that the designers perhaps don't know or care that much
about the human hearing system. And that in turn leads me to view
choices and tradeoffs they make with suspicion.

A mastering engineer can easily screw anything up, even DVD-A and SACD, if
they're not careful or don't know what they're doing. You'll never overcome
ignorance with more technology - only with education.


I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that hi-res audio does
ameliorate many engineering sins, and if that's a way we can get
better sounding music, then so be it.

--Andre

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Atlantic Technologies 5.1 => 7.1 -- what 2 speakers would be good to add on? Eric Cartman Audio Opinions 0 June 24th 04 12:16 AM
Whatever happened to the "cheater" amps? Scott Gardner Car Audio 4 May 14th 04 05:08 PM
what happened?? Tha Ghee Car Audio 0 April 11th 04 12:10 AM
"The 9/11 Poll: What really happened? Sandman Audio Opinions 0 February 6th 04 05:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:14 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"