| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
chung wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Bob Stanton |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"Robert Stanton" wrote in message m... chung wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Great question. Filtering is a natural part of a properly designed PCM system. I can't put my finger on it exactly , but the DSD spec seems gimmicky and incomplete. Bob Stanton |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"Robert Stanton" wrote in message m... chung wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Great question. Filtering is a natural part of a properly designed PCM system. I can't put my finger on it exactly , but the DSD spec seems gimmicky and incomplete. Bob Stanton |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"Robert Stanton" wrote in message m... chung wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Great question. Filtering is a natural part of a properly designed PCM system. I can't put my finger on it exactly , but the DSD spec seems gimmicky and incomplete. Bob Stanton |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"Robert Stanton" wrote in message m... chung wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Great question. Filtering is a natural part of a properly designed PCM system. I can't put my finger on it exactly , but the DSD spec seems gimmicky and incomplete. Bob Stanton |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
Robert Stanton wrote:
chung wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Bob Stanton Some high-end SACD players provide that option. Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters, with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.). |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
Robert Stanton wrote:
chung wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Bob Stanton Some high-end SACD players provide that option. Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters, with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.). |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
Robert Stanton wrote:
chung wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Bob Stanton Some high-end SACD players provide that option. Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters, with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.). |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
Robert Stanton wrote:
chung wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Bob Stanton Some high-end SACD players provide that option. Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters, with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.). |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"chung" wrote in message rvers.com... Robert Stanton wrote: chung wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Bob Stanton Some high-end SACD players provide that option. Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters, with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.). A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without passing their expertise on to the next generation. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"chung" wrote in message rvers.com... Robert Stanton wrote: chung wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Bob Stanton Some high-end SACD players provide that option. Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters, with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.). A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without passing their expertise on to the next generation. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"chung" wrote in message rvers.com... Robert Stanton wrote: chung wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Bob Stanton Some high-end SACD players provide that option. Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters, with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.). A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without passing their expertise on to the next generation. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"chung" wrote in message rvers.com... Robert Stanton wrote: chung wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Bob Stanton Some high-end SACD players provide that option. Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters, with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.). A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without passing their expertise on to the next generation. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message ... On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:53:18 -0800, chung wrote: One, DSD/SACD proponents claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce significantly that claimed advantage. Having a gentle low pass filter at 60 or 100 KHz doesn't significantly reduce SACD's bandwith. You get more than PCM 96 or 192 in both cases! I would start a 3 dB/octave rolloff at 20kHz or so. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message ... On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:53:18 -0800, chung wrote: One, DSD/SACD proponents claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce significantly that claimed advantage. Having a gentle low pass filter at 60 or 100 KHz doesn't significantly reduce SACD's bandwith. You get more than PCM 96 or 192 in both cases! I would start a 3 dB/octave rolloff at 20kHz or so. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message ... On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:53:18 -0800, chung wrote: One, DSD/SACD proponents claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce significantly that claimed advantage. Having a gentle low pass filter at 60 or 100 KHz doesn't significantly reduce SACD's bandwith. You get more than PCM 96 or 192 in both cases! I would start a 3 dB/octave rolloff at 20kHz or so. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message ... On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:53:18 -0800, chung wrote: One, DSD/SACD proponents claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce significantly that claimed advantage. Having a gentle low pass filter at 60 or 100 KHz doesn't significantly reduce SACD's bandwith. You get more than PCM 96 or 192 in both cases! I would start a 3 dB/octave rolloff at 20kHz or so. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
Fran=E7ois Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:53:18 -0800, chung wrote: =20 One, DSD/SACD proponents=20 claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce=20 significantly that claimed advantage. =20 Having a gentle low pass filter at 60 or 100 KHz doesn't significantly reduce SACD's bandwith. You get more than PCM 96 or 192 in both cases! =20 That does very little to the noise between 20KHz and 50KHz. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
Fran=E7ois Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:53:18 -0800, chung wrote: =20 One, DSD/SACD proponents=20 claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce=20 significantly that claimed advantage. =20 Having a gentle low pass filter at 60 or 100 KHz doesn't significantly reduce SACD's bandwith. You get more than PCM 96 or 192 in both cases! =20 That does very little to the noise between 20KHz and 50KHz. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
Fran=E7ois Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:53:18 -0800, chung wrote: =20 One, DSD/SACD proponents=20 claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce=20 significantly that claimed advantage. =20 Having a gentle low pass filter at 60 or 100 KHz doesn't significantly reduce SACD's bandwith. You get more than PCM 96 or 192 in both cases! =20 That does very little to the noise between 20KHz and 50KHz. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
Fran=E7ois Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:53:18 -0800, chung wrote: =20 One, DSD/SACD proponents=20 claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce=20 significantly that claimed advantage. =20 Having a gentle low pass filter at 60 or 100 KHz doesn't significantly reduce SACD's bandwith. You get more than PCM 96 or 192 in both cases! =20 That does very little to the noise between 20KHz and 50KHz. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
Karl Uppiano wrote:
"chung" wrote in message rvers.com... Robert Stanton wrote: chung wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Bob Stanton Some high-end SACD players provide that option. Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters, with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.). A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without passing their expertise on to the next generation. I agree with you, and that's why I said "claimed"  . Maybe I shouldhave said "imagined". I also said "philosophically". |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
Karl Uppiano wrote:
"chung" wrote in message rvers.com... Robert Stanton wrote: chung wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Bob Stanton Some high-end SACD players provide that option. Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters, with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.). A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without passing their expertise on to the next generation. I agree with you, and that's why I said "claimed" . Maybe I shouldhave said "imagined". I also said "philosophically". |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
Karl Uppiano wrote:
"chung" wrote in message rvers.com... Robert Stanton wrote: chung wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Bob Stanton Some high-end SACD players provide that option. Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters, with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.). A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without passing their expertise on to the next generation. I agree with you, and that's why I said "claimed" . Maybe I shouldhave said "imagined". I also said "philosophically". |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
Karl Uppiano wrote:
"chung" wrote in message rvers.com... Robert Stanton wrote: chung wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Bob Stanton Some high-end SACD players provide that option. Philosophically, there are two issues, I think. One, DSD/SACD proponents claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce significantly that claimed advantage. Two, DSD/SACD proponents claim that their D/A is simply a (single-pole) lowpass filter. Having additional filtering will make it similar to the PCM's output filters, with the attendant claimed problems (phase linearity, etc.). A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without passing their expertise on to the next generation. I agree with you, and that's why I said "claimed" . Maybe I shouldhave said "imagined". I also said "philosophically". |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
Fran=E7ois Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 14:42:29 -0800, chung wrote: =20 That does very little to the noise between 20KHz and 50KHz. =20 The noise is at much lower levels in these frequency bands. =20 =20 The noise starts rising from 10KHz, and is significant between 20KHz and = 50KHz. Check out some player measurements: http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...06/index5.html Noise is 30 dB higher than 24 bit LPCM at 20 KHz. http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...15/index6.html Here, the Pioneer SACD noise floor peaks at 40KHz. In any event, if you put a 1st order filter with a -3dB frequency of=20 60KHz, the attenuation at 100KHz is only 5.8 dB. Not much of a filter. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
Fran=E7ois Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 14:42:29 -0800, chung wrote: =20 That does very little to the noise between 20KHz and 50KHz. =20 The noise is at much lower levels in these frequency bands. =20 =20 The noise starts rising from 10KHz, and is significant between 20KHz and = 50KHz. Check out some player measurements: http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...06/index5.html Noise is 30 dB higher than 24 bit LPCM at 20 KHz. http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...15/index6.html Here, the Pioneer SACD noise floor peaks at 40KHz. In any event, if you put a 1st order filter with a -3dB frequency of=20 60KHz, the attenuation at 100KHz is only 5.8 dB. Not much of a filter. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
Fran=E7ois Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 14:42:29 -0800, chung wrote: =20 That does very little to the noise between 20KHz and 50KHz. =20 The noise is at much lower levels in these frequency bands. =20 =20 The noise starts rising from 10KHz, and is significant between 20KHz and = 50KHz. Check out some player measurements: http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...06/index5.html Noise is 30 dB higher than 24 bit LPCM at 20 KHz. http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...15/index6.html Here, the Pioneer SACD noise floor peaks at 40KHz. In any event, if you put a 1st order filter with a -3dB frequency of=20 60KHz, the attenuation at 100KHz is only 5.8 dB. Not much of a filter. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
Fran=E7ois Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 14:42:29 -0800, chung wrote: =20 That does very little to the noise between 20KHz and 50KHz. =20 The noise is at much lower levels in these frequency bands. =20 =20 The noise starts rising from 10KHz, and is significant between 20KHz and = 50KHz. Check out some player measurements: http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...06/index5.html Noise is 30 dB higher than 24 bit LPCM at 20 KHz. http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...15/index6.html Here, the Pioneer SACD noise floor peaks at 40KHz. In any event, if you put a 1st order filter with a -3dB frequency of=20 60KHz, the attenuation at 100KHz is only 5.8 dB. Not much of a filter. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message ... On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:53:18 -0800, chung wrote: One, DSD/SACD proponents claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce significantly that claimed advantage. Having a gentle low pass filter at 60 or 100 KHz doesn't significantly reduce SACD's bandwith. You get more than PCM 96 or 192 in both cases! I would start a 3 dB/octave rolloff at 20kHz or so. Ironically, most if not all people can't hear the difference a brickwall filter at 16 KHz makes, if the filter is well-designed. Don't believe me? Listen for yourself at http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm . |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message ... On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:53:18 -0800, chung wrote: One, DSD/SACD proponents claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce significantly that claimed advantage. Having a gentle low pass filter at 60 or 100 KHz doesn't significantly reduce SACD's bandwith. You get more than PCM 96 or 192 in both cases! I would start a 3 dB/octave rolloff at 20kHz or so. Ironically, most if not all people can't hear the difference a brickwall filter at 16 KHz makes, if the filter is well-designed. Don't believe me? Listen for yourself at http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm . |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message ... On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:53:18 -0800, chung wrote: One, DSD/SACD proponents claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce significantly that claimed advantage. Having a gentle low pass filter at 60 or 100 KHz doesn't significantly reduce SACD's bandwith. You get more than PCM 96 or 192 in both cases! I would start a 3 dB/octave rolloff at 20kHz or so. Ironically, most if not all people can't hear the difference a brickwall filter at 16 KHz makes, if the filter is well-designed. Don't believe me? Listen for yourself at http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm . |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message ... On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:53:18 -0800, chung wrote: One, DSD/SACD proponents claim the much wider bandwidth over CD's, and filtering will reduce significantly that claimed advantage. Having a gentle low pass filter at 60 or 100 KHz doesn't significantly reduce SACD's bandwith. You get more than PCM 96 or 192 in both cases! I would start a 3 dB/octave rolloff at 20kHz or so. Ironically, most if not all people can't hear the difference a brickwall filter at 16 KHz makes, if the filter is well-designed. Don't believe me? Listen for yourself at http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm . |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"Robert Stanton" wrote in message
m chung wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Wouldn't the filter affect the overtones of the music just as much as it affects the noise? |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"Robert Stanton" wrote in message
m chung wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Wouldn't the filter affect the overtones of the music just as much as it affects the noise? |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"Robert Stanton" wrote in message
m chung wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Wouldn't the filter affect the overtones of the music just as much as it affects the noise? |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"Robert Stanton" wrote in message
m chung wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: Isn't it interesting that we "subjectivists" here are always whipsawed by the "objectivists" for thinking that extended frequency response is a benefit "because it can't be heard". Then, in defense of DVD-A, the increased noise in the ultrasonic range is bandied about as making DSD/SACD "inferior". Actually it's interesting that subjectivists said that they need the ultrasonic bandwidth to fully perceive music, and yet they like SACD's despite the much higher (by orders of magnitude) ultrasonic noise inherent in the SACD format. I often see ultrasonic noise mentioned as a problem for SACD players. If ultrasonic noise were really a problem, it could be easily eliminated with a small, active lowpass filter. Why wouldn't the manfactures of "high end" SACD players, just filter it out? Wouldn't the filter affect the overtones of the music just as much as it affects the noise? |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"Karl Uppiano" writes:
[...] A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without passing their expertise on to the next generation. Right-on, brother. I've been watching (sometimes not so passively) this "DVD-A/SACD" blindside on the consumers for a couple of years now and my conclusion, as one whose career is in digital signal processing, is that it's a complete and utter farce. In the end, consumers will have emptied out their pocketbooks for new players and, more importantly, new media which are indistinguishable in sound quality from CD audio. The only possible rational justification for a new format is the inclusion of multiple ( 2) tracks. The sound quality arguments are empty. -- % Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow, %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your %%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow." %%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"Karl Uppiano" writes:
[...] A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without passing their expertise on to the next generation. Right-on, brother. I've been watching (sometimes not so passively) this "DVD-A/SACD" blindside on the consumers for a couple of years now and my conclusion, as one whose career is in digital signal processing, is that it's a complete and utter farce. In the end, consumers will have emptied out their pocketbooks for new players and, more importantly, new media which are indistinguishable in sound quality from CD audio. The only possible rational justification for a new format is the inclusion of multiple ( 2) tracks. The sound quality arguments are empty. -- % Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow, %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your %%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow." %%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
DSD Recording Good. PCM recordings bad?
"Karl Uppiano" writes:
[...] A well-designed PCM system (e.g., CD-Audio) uses phase-linear, oversampling digital FIR filters to allow the use of very gentle, phase-linear analog filtering. I think the original Sony/Philips engineers that knew what they were doing when they designed the CD-Audio spec must have retired without passing their expertise on to the next generation. Right-on, brother. I've been watching (sometimes not so passively) this "DVD-A/SACD" blindside on the consumers for a couple of years now and my conclusion, as one whose career is in digital signal processing, is that it's a complete and utter farce. In the end, consumers will have emptied out their pocketbooks for new players and, more importantly, new media which are indistinguishable in sound quality from CD audio. The only possible rational justification for a new format is the inclusion of multiple ( 2) tracks. The sound quality arguments are empty. -- % Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow, %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your %%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow." %%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| F.S. tons of gear for sale, keys, modules, pro audio, etc | Pro Audio | |||
| "DSD recordings good. PCM recordings bad." - Dr. Diamond | High End Audio | |||
| Why all the bad recordings | High End Audio | |||
| Live Recording: Critique/Comments Needed | Pro Audio | |||
| new member question on recording blues duet | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
