[Mr.T]

wrote in message
ups.com...
Arny, you are just a troll.

Very amusing, coming from the resident troll :-)
At least Arny has some idea of what the "tech" in rec.audio.tech stands for.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
He is an expert on makeup?

That what we're told about him.

Yes, he "likes to make things up" here too :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

wrote in message
oups.com...
I said that I can't distinguish between an LP and a 24/96 copy of that LP

It's nice of you to finally admit there is no problem with digital recording
then. All we need to know now is whether you think you can hear above 22
kHz, and why it is more important than the bottom octave or so, where vinyl
fails miserably. After all the only other difference for 24/96 over CD is
dynamic range beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that! :-)

MrT.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article .com,
wrote:
I have actually. that is one of the many reasons I get such a laugh at
the idiots on Usenet and their complete misapplication and
misinerpretation of psychoacoustics. The idea that human hearing is
wrong while technical measurements are right when it comes to this
hobby is a prime example of that misapplication.

What you obviously don't realise is just how poor the ear's 'memory' is
and how easily it is fooled by other factors.

--
*My dog can lick anyone

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article . com,
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
One would think from your post that one's ability to solder has
something to do with one's ability to make aesthetic judgements.
Do I hve to tell you just how stupid that idea is? Engineers do
the work the hobbyists consume it.

So they're mutually exclusive?

The ability to solder and the ability to make aestheic judgemens?
Yes they are.

Wonder what your only 'supporter' Mr G will make of that?

I'll bet he agrees. I think he is smart enough to know his soldering
skills are independent of his listening skills.

But not mutually exclusive as I asked?

He loves to
build kit


Yes I have noticed that. I have yet to see him claim that his skills at
building has any impact on his listening skills.

and is the vinyl disciple to end all disciples.


Disciple? I know he generally prefers LPs over CDs. I guess you can't
wrap your punny brain around that so you have to attack it. sad

Just prefers? I'm getting a feeling you simply don't read or understand UK
English.

--
*He who laughs last has just realised the joke.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
I said that I can't distinguish between an LP and a 24/96 copy of that
LP

It's nice of you to finally admit there is no problem with digital
recording then. All we need to know now is whether you think you can
hear above 22 kHz, and why it is more important than the bottom octave
or so, where vinyl fails miserably. After all the only other difference
for 24/96 over CD is dynamic range beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that!
:-)

Be interesting to know which LP Scott thinks would need 24/96 for a clone.
Perhaps CD-4...

--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[John Phillips]

On 2006-10-30, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , John Phillips
wrote:
I have sometimes wondered about the Philips x4 upsampling DAC in early
CD players (I use "upsampling" here to distinguish from the use of
oversampling in the ADC case).

I'd prefer to call it 'oversampling' in both cases for various reasons. One
being that in some situations 'upsampling' may be a distinctly different
practice.

I assume (but have never looked for proof) that the conversion of a
single 16-bit sample xx..xxYY (YY are the two LSBs) would be
accomplished by replacing the single 16-bit sample by four 14-bit
samples as follows:

xx..xx00: xx..xx, xx..xx, xx..xx, xx..xx

xx..xx01: xx..xx, xx..xx, xx..xx, xx..xx+1

xx..xx10: xx..xx, xx..xx, xx..xx+1, xx..xx+1

xx..xx11: xx..xx, xx..xx+1, xx..xx+1, xx..xx+1

Or something similar. The DAC will effectively interpolate so the LSBs
are not lost. The noise floor will be right for 16 bits because of the
upsampling. ...

The above is essentially the same explanation that I would have given,
but since John puts it quite neatly, I need not bother. :-) A more
detailed explanation is given in the special issue of Philips Tech Rev
that was released at the same time as CD audio was launched, and
describes CD audio and the initial chipsets.

The samples are 'noise shaped'[1] by a process along the lines that the top 14
bits of each sample are DAC converted and fed out as an analog level, and
the 'unused' 2 LSB are fed back and combined with the next sample value.
The simplest method is the one described above, but alternative feedback
shaping processes can be used.

The output filter then acts to take a 'running average'. Four 14 bit values
then sum or average to give a 16-bit result in the passband of the analogue
filtering arrangement.

In principle, the behaviour is the same as when any 'low bit depth' DAC is
used (with oversampling and noise shaping) to get results with higher
depths.

Thus by using oversampling and noise shaping we can symultaneously ease the
burden on the analog reconstruction filter that follows DAC conversion, and
allow the use of a DAC with less than 16 bits. This also is the basis of
other methods like low-bit DAC delta-sigma, 'bitstream', and various other
commercial techniques which use the same general approach to obtain both
a shift of reconstruction images to higher frequencies (thus easing analog
filter requirements) and obtaining high resolutions.

Hence the original Philips 14-bit x4 oversampling system would be able,
in principle, to deliver full 16-bit resolution *if* the chips and the
associated electronics was made with suitable care. As usual, the practical
limits end up being determined by the care put into engineering the
actual implimentation. :-)

I looked up the details of the chipset. It seems that the SAA7030 does
the interpolation and does a large part of the reconstruction filtering.
It has a 96-point FIR filter at 4x input rate with a 28-bit accumulator
(16-bit data, 12-bit coefficients).

The thing that struck me from the datasheet is that the 28 bit accumulator
seems to get truncated without dither to 14 bits and then sent to the DAC
(a TDA1540).

Am I correct in thinking this undithered truncation is likely to generate
significant quantization error?

--
John Phillips

[Mr.T]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Be interesting to know which LP Scott thinks would need 24/96 for a clone.
Perhaps CD-4...

Not if they've been played a few times though. I wonder how many people
still use CD4 demodulators anyway?

MrT.

[Keith G]

wrote in message
ups.com...

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
One would think from your post that one's ability to solder has
something to do with one's ability to make aesthetic judgements. Do
I hve to tell you just how stupid that idea is? Engineers do the
work the hobbyists consume it.

So they're mutually exclusive?

The ability to solder and the ability to make aestheic judgemens? Yes
they are.

Wonder what your only 'supporter' Mr G will make of that?

I'll bet he agrees. I think he is smart enough to know his soldering
skills are independent of his listening skills.

He loves to
build kit


Yes I have noticed that. I have yet to see him claim that his skills at
building has any impact on his listening skills.

and is the vinyl disciple to end all disciples.


Disciple? I know he generally prefers LPs over CDs. I guess you can't
wrap your punny brain around that so you have to attack it. sad



Scott, I really wouldn't waste my life's breath arguing with Plowie - he
thinks he knows summat and wants to be my uncle and I won't let him is how
it is....

(The reason I'm sorry to see you and Don trading blows is that Don really
*does* know summat and he *can* be my uncle, despite being about 5 years
younger than me!! ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message

wrote in message
ups.com...
Arny, you are just a troll.

Very amusing, coming from the resident troll :-)
At least Arny has some idea of what the "tech" in
rec.audio.tech stands for.

The really disappointing part is where Scott acts proud of his ignorance of
the technology he claims superior expertise with.

AFAIK cosmetology is based on technology. It's about light and how various
substances reflect and transmit it and how they interact with the surfaces
they are on.

I wonder how Scott would feel if someone who had as little knowlege of
cosmetology as he has of audio would try to tell him how to do his job.
After all, cosmetology is all just about aesthetics, right? Anybody with a
good eye for aesthetics should be able to do his job better than Scott does,
right?

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message

wrote in message
ups.com...
Arny, you are just a troll.

Very amusing, coming from the resident troll :-)
At least Arny has some idea of what the "tech" in
rec.audio.tech stands for.

The really disappointing part is where Scott acts proud of his ignorance
of the technology he claims superior expertise with.

AFAIK cosmetology is based on technology. It's about light and how various
substances reflect and transmit it and how they interact with the surfaces
they are on.

I wonder how Scott would feel if someone who had as little knowlege of
cosmetology as he has of audio would try to tell him how to do his job.
After all, cosmetology is all just about aesthetics, right? Anybody with a
good eye for aesthetics should be able to do his job better than Scott
does, right?



Uh oh...

Arny's found a shiny new word to play with....

:-)

[Arny Krueger]

"John Phillips" wrote
in message

I looked up the details of the chipset. It seems that
the SAA7030 does the interpolation and does a large part
of the reconstruction filtering. It has a 96-point FIR
filter at 4x input rate with a 28-bit accumulator (16-bit
data, 12-bit coefficients).

The thing that struck me from the datasheet is that the
28 bit accumulator seems to get truncated without dither
to 14 bits and then sent to the DAC (a TDA1540).

The filter acts like an integrator and averages 4 samples to create a sample
with higher accuracy. My understanding of how this works suggests that the
final result would have about the same dynamic range as an ideal 15 bit DAC.
IOW, the LSB is toggling noisily.

Am I correct in thinking this undithered truncation is
likely to generate significant quantization error?

No, because there is no truncation in the final result.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
I seem to recall that Scott claims to have heard
differences due to cables, in a single-blind test.

More likely in a sighted test, like all the rest of
his listening "tests".

We call "single blind" tests "Egregiously flawed
double blind tests". ;-)

Yes, but what do you call sighted "tests" then :-)

They aren't tests at all.

That's why I put the word in inverted commas.

It wasn't reproduced that way in OE.


Funny, it's still showing them in my copy of OE6.
Not that it's important.


Might be due to a difference in the character sets we use.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
wrote in message
ups.com...

Now where is your proof to the contrary?

I see no proof in the link you have quoted?

I don't think that Scott can respond at that level of detail.

However, this link seems to describe a suitable recording for determining
whether or not 44 KHz brick wall filtering is an un-aesthetic as Scott
claims.

http://www.performancerecordings.com/albums.html

pr7lp (LP), pr7cd (CD): Boyk plays Mussorgsky 1991
"Pictures at an Exhibition"

"World's only comparison of (a) pure digital, (b) digital-from-analog, and
(c) pure analog recordings, made at the same time from the same microphones;
(a) and (b) on the CD, (c) on the LP. The analog master tape was the first
tape made on MagnesaurusTM. From the album notes: "Interested listeners may
use this double release of LP and CD to investigate some timely questions:
Given an analog master tape, which medium preserves its virtues better, LP
or CD? (Compare the LP with the analog half of the CD.) Does a CD sound
better made from digital or analog master tape? (Compare the two versions on
the CD.) And most important, which preserves the emotional impact of the
music better, purely analog or purely digital recording? (Compare the LP
with the digital half of the CD.)"

The obvious problem none of us low-lifes could possibly aspire to have
access to a SOTA LP playback system that would do this recording justice.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Now where's the specs on the cutting lathe though :-(

The cutting lathe probably performs better than the
user's cartridge, etc.

I'm not so sure about that myself. I'm sure there were
worse cutting heads than my Shure V15VMR, and there are
FAR more expensive cartridges available.

Or there were and probably still are some bad cutting
heads, but most that were used to produce most records
were pretty good.

Yes, and $1,000 cartridges are pretty good. The question
is HOW good at the time they are used.

My question was always whether they were really that much better than the
V15s that I used to use. Of course those aren't exactly cheap any more,
either.

It was my experience that they were not always replaced
as often as they should be. Trying to reduce costs is not
a new concept.
A more common problem was trying to make each stamper
last far longer than optimum though. And using crappy
vinyl compounds, and a hundred other problems some seem
capable of forgetting.

In fact half
speed mastering was to reduce the deficiencies of the
cutting lathes,

Sort of. Half speed mastering mostly addressed HF losses
and excess heating in the cutting heads.

Sort of? Aren't those deficiencies?

I mean it didn't fully address the problems.


BTW there are some other benefits though, such as less
groove flow/deformation around the cutter.

See "HF losses".

t a cartridge doesn't need to cut a
groove as it goes. (although some do :-)

That may seem to be intuitively clear, but there are
some hidden details. One hidden detail is that it is
quite easy for a cutter to create a groove that can't be
properly tracked by *any* cartridge.

Sure, including those used to test the master. One would
hope it is rejected, but amazingly some pretty bad
examples were produced in days gone by.
Yet the vinyl brigade insists that only CD mastering is
crook :-)

Note how they clam up every time I given them an independent reference that
shows how kludgy the LP production process really is.

For example, there's not a chance that Scott could read and understand the
JAES papers I've cited for him. Quite a pity that he had all that
technological training at his disposal at his old school, and benefitted
from none of it, it seems.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message ...
Be interesting to know which LP Scott thinks would need
24/96 for a clone. Perhaps CD-4...

Not if they've been played a few times though. I wonder
how many people still use CD4 demodulators anyway?

I know a few that say they have one or more that actually work.

Those that do, don't use them very often for the obvious reason.

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message


What kills me is these clowns don't seem to realise there
is no small degree of *engineering* in vinyl and vinyl
playback systems...

The opposite is true. I know from personal experience a great deal about the
engineering that is required in vinyl production and playback systems. It's
all a kluge with obvious limitations in terms of noise and distortion.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Scott, I really wouldn't waste my life's breath arguing with Plowie - he
thinks he knows summat and wants to be my uncle and I won't let him is
how it is....

Strange that you've killfiled me but seem to mention my name in near every
post. Unrequited love, perhaps?

--
*I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
I wonder how Scott would feel if someone who had as little knowlege of
cosmetology as he has of audio would try to tell him how to do his job.
After all, cosmetology is all just about aesthetics, right? Anybody with
a good eye for aesthetics should be able to do his job better than
Scott does, right?

Happens all the time here in low budget TV. Every woman does her own
makeup - so why is it different just because a camera is involved? The
same happens with other skills - after all most now shoot holiday movies.
And when those skills are dispensed with to be replaced by amateurs it
doesn't half show. But only possibly to those with the skills to notice
the difference. As is apparently the case with those who find vinyl more
'realistic' than CD. They just don't know what they're listening to.

--
*I went to school to become a wit, only got halfway through.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message


What kills me is these clowns don't seem to realise there
is no small degree of *engineering* in vinyl and vinyl
playback systems...

The opposite is true. I know from personal experience a great deal about
the engineering that is required in vinyl production and playback systems.
It's all a kluge with obvious limitations in terms of noise and
distortion.


Kluge? I see you've got an 'Ewar Woowar' keyboard then!!

(Time for a new one, methinks - you've obviously pounded that one into
submission!! :-)

However, typos aside, I see the subtleties of the true *English* language
are still eluding you - note the word 'seem' in my post. If you do realise
the degree of exquisite engineering that goes into even a modest vinyl
replay system then, as a wannabee technical type always banging on about
'engineering', I don't see how you possibly fail to be impressed by what I
consider is an *engineering miracle* that such sweet, detailed sounds could
come from what you rightly describe as a truly kludgy mechansim - dragging
the proverbial rock across a bit of wiggly plastic!!

But with such *precision*....!!??

(The noise and distortion problems are yours - they are not mine....!! ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message


What kills me is these clowns don't seem to realise
there is no small degree of *engineering* in vinyl and
vinyl playback systems...

The opposite is true. I know from personal experience a
great deal about the engineering that is required in
vinyl production and playback systems. It's all a kluge
with obvious limitations in terms of noise and
distortion.


Kluge? I see you've got an 'Ewar Woowar' keyboard then!!

Oh, you live in a select universe where the word kluge is only spelled with
a d in it?

Hmm 5.6 million hits on google for kluge.

(Time for a new one, methinks - you've obviously pounded
that one into submission!! :-)

Not a technical problem but rather, it must be that Keith has run out of
sensible things to say. Pity he lacks the self-respect to stop posting when
that happens.

However, typos aside, I see the subtleties of the true
*English* language are still eluding you - note the word 'seem' in my
post.

Yet another example of Keith trying to burn the bridges between himself and
rational thought. Of course that's mission impossible because those bridges
were fully burnt ages ago.

If you do realise the degree of
exquisite engineering that goes into even a modest vinyl
replay system then,

Hmm, an almost cogent thought appears to be trying to emerge.

as a wannabee technical type always
banging on about 'engineering',

But Keith's ego gets in the way of it, again.

I don't see how you
possibly fail to be impressed by what I consider is an
*engineering miracle* that such sweet, detailed sounds
could come from what you rightly describe as a truly
kludgy mechansim - dragging the proverbial rock across a
bit of wiggly plastic!!

These "sweet detailed sounds" Keith - what are you intoxicated with when you
hear these things?

But with such *precision*....!!??

Speaking of broken keyboards, look at what gets crapped on his post when
Keith trys to use shifted letter keys.

(The noise and distortion problems are yours - they are not mine....!! ;-)

Won't work Keith - you can't make a good brag out of your increasing hearing
losses. The noise and distortion is still there, it is just that you canna
hear it any more.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article , John Phillips
wrote:
On 2006-10-30, Jim Lesurf wrote:
[snip]

Hence the original Philips 14-bit x4 oversampling system would be
able, in principle, to deliver full 16-bit resolution *if* the chips
and the associated electronics was made with suitable care. As usual,
the practical limits end up being determined by the care put into
engineering the actual implimentation. :-)

I looked up the details of the chipset. It seems that the SAA7030 does
the interpolation and does a large part of the reconstruction filtering.
It has a 96-point FIR filter at 4x input rate with a 28-bit accumulator
(16-bit data, 12-bit coefficients).

The thing that struck me from the datasheet is that the 28 bit
accumulator seems to get truncated without dither to 14 bits and then
sent to the DAC (a TDA1540).

My (unreliable) recollection is that noise shaping is employed, but (see
below) I can't recall the details off-hand.

Am I correct in thinking this undithered truncation is likely to
generate significant quantization error?

I'd need to re-read the references to be sure. My (unreliable) recollection
is that the bits not sent to the DAC are returned into the noise shaping.
(e.g. the top 14 bits are 'subtracted' once sent to the DAC, but the LSBs
are retained to combine with the next oversample value result.)

In general, any set of multiplication and addition processes like those
used in the filters, etc, might cause some truncation problems - if only
because both integer and float math uses values with a finite number of
quantised values. Hence, for example, the coefficients used for the
multiply may not be exactly the 'sinc' values if that was the intended
pattern. In practice, the aim would be to ensure that any such rounding
errors do not accumulate and remain tiny wrt the intended range. As might
reasonably be expect for 28 bit values being reduced down to 14 or 16.

Hence there is a distinction being quantization errors existing and being
'significant'. :-) Can't comment on that without looking at the details
again. All depends on the details.

The above is, IIRC, one of the arguments for applying dither to almost
*any* computation process which deals with serial pattern signals, save for
the most trivial computations.

I'll try an remember to dig out the relevant Philips Tech Rev, etc,
tomorrow, and have a look to check.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
If you do realise the degree of exquisite engineering that goes into
even a modest vinyl replay system then, as a wannabee technical type
always banging on about 'engineering', I don't see how you possibly
fail to be impressed by what I consider is an *engineering miracle*
that such sweet, detailed sounds could come from what you rightly
describe as a truly kludgy mechansim - dragging the proverbial rock
across a bit of wiggly plastic!!

The accuracy required (and achieved) of even an 'SOTA' LP playing system
isn't in the same league as a CD mechanism.

--
*Many hamsters only blink one eye at a time *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Keith G]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message


What kills me is these clowns don't seem to realise
there is no small degree of *engineering* in vinyl and
vinyl playback systems...

The opposite is true. I know from personal experience a
great deal about the engineering that is required in
vinyl production and playback systems. It's all a kluge
with obvious limitations in terms of noise and
distortion.


Kluge? I see you've got an 'Ewar Woowar' keyboard then!!

Oh, you live in a select universe where the word kluge is only spelled
with a d in it?


Direct response to me...



Hmm 5.6 million hits on google for kluge.

(Time for a new one, methinks - you've obviously pounded
that one into submission!! :-)

Not a technical problem but rather, it must be that Keith has run out of
sensible things to say. Pity he lacks the self-respect to stop posting
when that happens.


Braying to his following (Plowie)...



However, typos aside, I see the subtleties of the true
*English* language are still eluding you - note the word 'seem' in my
post.

Yet another example of Keith trying to burn the bridges between himself
and rational thought. Of course that's mission impossible because those
bridges were fully burnt ages ago.


Braying to his following (Plowie)...



If you do realise the degree of
exquisite engineering that goes into even a modest vinyl
replay system then,

Hmm, an almost cogent thought appears to be trying to emerge.


Talking to himself....



as a wannabee technical type always
banging on about 'engineering',

But Keith's ego gets in the way of it, again.


Braying to his following (Plowie)...



I don't see how you
possibly fail to be impressed by what I consider is an
*engineering miracle* that such sweet, detailed sounds
could come from what you rightly describe as a truly
kludgy mechansim - dragging the proverbial rock across a
bit of wiggly plastic!!

These "sweet detailed sounds" Keith - what are you intoxicated with when
you hear these things?


Direct response to me...



But with such *precision*....!!??

Speaking of broken keyboards, look at what gets crapped on his post when
Keith trys to use shifted letter keys.


Braying to his following (Plowie)...



(The noise and distortion problems are yours - they are not mine....!!
;-)

Won't work Keith - you can't make a good brag out of your increasing
hearing losses. The noise and distortion is still there, it is just that
you canna hear it any more.


Direct response to me...

You're all over the place Arny - really not very much worth reading at all.
A mildly psychotic and complex little smokescreen at best - puts me in mind
of a corny courtroom scene in a cheesy Yank B movie....

I think it's time....

(I've been very patient....)

Oops, here it goes!!

**splash**

:-)

Aaah, *that's* better......

:-)

LOL!!

[Keith G]

"Keith G" wrote


I think it's time....

(I've been very patient....)

Oops, here it goes!!

**splash**

:-)

Aaah, *that's* better......

:-)

LOL!!



Streuth! Why did it take me so long?

I've just had a clear-out and the 'wasted space' in my OE has gone down from
69 Mb to 35 Mb...!!

(Pretty obvious, when you think about it!! :-)

YHFL....!!

:-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article ,
John Phillips wrote:
On 2006-10-30, Jim Lesurf
wrote:
[snip]

Hence the original Philips 14-bit x4 oversampling
system would be able, in principle, to deliver full
16-bit resolution *if* the chips and the associated
electronics was made with suitable care. As usual, the
practical limits end up being determined by the care
put into engineering the actual implimentation. :-)

I looked up the details of the chipset. It seems that
the SAA7030 does the interpolation and does a large part
of the reconstruction filtering. It has a 96-point FIR
filter at 4x input rate with a 28-bit accumulator
(16-bit data, 12-bit coefficients).

The thing that struck me from the datasheet is that the
28 bit accumulator seems to get truncated without dither
to 14 bits and then sent to the DAC (a TDA1540).

My (unreliable) recollection is that noise shaping is
employed, but (see below) I can't recall the details
off-hand.

I found the spec sheet for the TDA1540 and SAA 7030 online, and can confirm
that noise shaping is done in the SAA 7030.

The TDA 1540 spec sheet was found at the Signetics web site.

BTW the speced dynamic range of the TDA 1540 is 85 dB.

[[email protected]]

Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Now where is your proof to the contrary?

I see no proof in the link you have quoted?


It's an email address Einstien not a link. wow.

[[email protected]]

Mr.T wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
...
What kills me is these clowns don't seem to realise there is no small
degree
of *engineering* in vinyl and vinyl playback systems...

Some of us were those Engineers!

Really? OK do tell us about your engineering work in the world of
vinyl. Didn't mean you? Who did you mean? Plowman?


We are the ones with enough experience to
know when technology has moved on. You obviously don't.


Tell us the details of that experience.



Scott

[[email protected]]

Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Arny, you are just a troll.

Very amusing, coming from the resident troll :-)


Very clever and original. What gave the idea for this post? I guess I
shouldn't expet much from a guy who can't tell the difference betwen a
link and an email address.



At least Arny has some idea of what the "tech" in rec.audio.tech stands for.


Dude, I am posting on uk.rec.audio. Guess the idea of cross posting is
also beyond you.

[[email protected]]

Mr.T wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
He is an expert on makeup?

That what we're told about him.

Yes, he "likes to make things up" here too :-)

Bull****.

[[email protected]]

Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I said that I can't distinguish between an LP and a 24/96 copy of that LP

It's nice of you to finally admit there is no problem with digital recording
then.

Finally? Did you "finally" pull your head out of your ass?


All we need to know now is whether you think you can hear above 22
kHz, and why it is more important than the bottom octave or so, where vinyl
fails miserably. After all the only other difference for 24/96 over CD is
dynamic range beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that! :-)


Prove it.

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
I have actually. that is one of the many reasons I get such a laugh at
the idiots on Usenet and their complete misapplication and
misinerpretation of psychoacoustics. The idea that human hearing is
wrong while technical measurements are right when it comes to this
hobby is a prime example of that misapplication.

What you obviously don't realise is just how poor the ear's 'memory' is
and how easily it is fooled by other factors.

Another meter reader building an argument based on made up facts. Yep
you guys do pretty much all sound the same. As usual the point went
right over your head.



Scott

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com
Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Now where is your proof to the contrary?

I see no proof in the link you have quoted?

It's an email address Einstien not a link. wow.

Fear not, we were able to circumvent your inability to provide a proper
cite, Scott.

[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
One would think from your post that one's ability to solder has
something to do with one's ability to make aesthetic judgements.
Do I hve to tell you just how stupid that idea is? Engineers do
the work the hobbyists consume it.

So they're mutually exclusive?

The ability to solder and the ability to make aestheic judgemens?
Yes they are.

Wonder what your only 'supporter' Mr G will make of that?

I'll bet he agrees. I think he is smart enough to know his soldering
skills are independent of his listening skills.

But not mutually exclusive as I asked?

It was a loaded question. Like do you still beat your wife? The point
is they are independent. You have been trying to assert they are
related.



He loves to
build kit


Yes I have noticed that. I have yet to see him claim that his skills at
building has any impact on his listening skills.

and is the vinyl disciple to end all disciples.


Disciple? I know he generally prefers LPs over CDs. I guess you can't
wrap your punny brain around that so you have to attack it. sad

Just prefers?

Yes.

I'm getting a feeling you simply don't read or understand UK
English.


I'm getting the feeling you rely on semantics since your arguments
don't hold up.

[Arny Krueger]

"Here in Ohio" wrote in message

On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 07:29:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Now where's the specs on the cutting lathe though
:-(

The cutting lathe probably performs better than the
user's cartridge, etc.

I'm not so sure about that myself. I'm sure there were
worse cutting heads than my Shure V15VMR, and there
are FAR more expensive cartridges available.

Or there were and probably still are some bad cutting
heads, but most that were used to produce most records
were pretty good.

Yes, and $1,000 cartridges are pretty good. The question
is HOW good at the time they are used.

My question was always whether they were really that
much better than the V15s that I used to use. Of course
those aren't exactly cheap any more, either.

AFAIK, most cutting heads are better than the media
they're cutting.

Agreed.

So the limitations are well before the playback cartridge is involved.

Agreed.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com
Mr.T wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I said that I can't distinguish between an LP and a
24/96 copy of that LP

It's nice of you to finally admit there is no problem
with digital recording then.

Finally? Did you "finally" pull your head out of your ass?


All we need to know now is whether you think you can
hear above 22
kHz, and why it is more important than the bottom octave
or so, where vinyl fails miserably. After all the only
other difference for 24/96 over CD is dynamic range
beyond 96dB. It's obviously NOT that! :-)


Prove it.

It is your claim to prove, Scott.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article

.com,
wrote:
I have actually. that is one of the many reasons I get
such a laugh at the idiots on Usenet and their complete
misapplication and misinerpretation of psychoacoustics.
The idea that human hearing is wrong while technical
measurements are right when it comes to this hobby is a
prime example of that misapplication.

What you obviously don't realise is just how poor the
ear's 'memory' is and how easily it is fooled by other
factors.

Another meter reader building an argument based on made
up facts.

Not at all. It's not our fault that you appear to be so poorly informed,
Scott.

Have you ever read this book or anything similar?

E. Zwicker and H. Fastl, Psychoacoustics Facts and Models, Springer Verlag,
1990.

[Keith G]

wrote in message
oups.com...

Mr.T wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
...
What kills me is these clowns don't seem to realise there is no small
degree
of *engineering* in vinyl and vinyl playback systems...

Some of us were those Engineers!

Really? OK do tell us about your engineering work in the world of
vinyl. Didn't mean you? Who did you mean? Plowman?


We are the ones with enough experience to
know when technology has moved on. You obviously don't.



Kills me the way these digital bigots all hide behind vague 'we' and us'
statements - like they are trying to pump the idea there's lots of them and
they got *mates* or summat!

Not one of them has the balls to speak plainly for themselves - I still
wonder what it is they are all so *scared* of...???

Can't be my ****ter 'cos most of 'em are already in it...!!??

(Glad I paid extra for the 'Tardis' model....!! :-)

LOL!

:-))

[[email protected]]

Keith G wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
One would think from your post that one's ability to solder has
something to do with one's ability to make aesthetic judgements. Do
I hve to tell you just how stupid that idea is? Engineers do the
work the hobbyists consume it.

So they're mutually exclusive?

The ability to solder and the ability to make aestheic judgemens? Yes
they are.

Wonder what your only 'supporter' Mr G will make of that?

I'll bet he agrees. I think he is smart enough to know his soldering
skills are independent of his listening skills.

He loves to
build kit


Yes I have noticed that. I have yet to see him claim that his skills at
building has any impact on his listening skills.

and is the vinyl disciple to end all disciples.


Disciple? I know he generally prefers LPs over CDs. I guess you can't
wrap your punny brain around that so you have to attack it. sad



Scott, I really wouldn't waste my life's breath arguing with Plowie - he
thinks he knows summat and wants to be my uncle and I won't let him is how
it is....

You are right. especially now that a couple big jobs are about to start
up. I have a suggestion for you. Check out Stevehoffman.tv. This is
your kind of forum. friendly folks that actually have passion for music
and audio and a wealth of information when it comes to the sound
quality of the many LPs and CDs out there. I think I am done after
today with these losers. I walked away from rec.auio.opinion for the
same reason. Haven't looked at for a year. I'll bet that it's the same
people saying the same things. But i 'm not even going to check.



(The reason I'm sorry to see you and Don trading blows is that Don really
*does* know summat and he *can* be my uncle, despite being about 5 years
younger than me!! ;-)


If Don chooses to play nice I will too. Not that it matters. I'm done
with uk.rec.audio after today. Slapping aound meter readers gets boring
and I have a lot more on my plate. The nature of the business you know.
Things are about to get crazy. looks like they will be crazy for a
couple years, maybe four or five years.

[Don Pearce]

On 1 Nov 2006 08:40:42 -0800, wrote:

It was a loaded question. Like do you still beat your wife? The point
is they are independent. You have been trying to assert they are
related.

So at the end of all this, which are they, mutually exclusive or
independent? Just so I know.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com