Home Digital Drive

Upsamplers, DACs, jitter, shakes and analogue withdrawals, this is it.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Digital Drive ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

RE: Sure, but it was mainly to John's comment ...

Like I said, it seems to be a step in the right direction. I don't know how long those parts have been available, but it's not surprising that they are -- it seems that when the time is ripe for an idea that there is often a lot of parallel development from several sources.

Assuming those parts have been available for a while, I'm surprised that not more people are using them. The only other commercial product I know of that has a minimum-phase filter is the Meridian 808 Mk.II Signature CD player. It has an "apodizing" filter that is quite similar to the "apodizing" filter that is the "Measure" position of our new MP players. As far as I know, Meridian only offers the one filter choice and no other selections.

When we put the "Listen-Measure" filter selection switch on the back, it was for a reason. I *hate* user adjustments like that. To me, it is an admission from the manufacturer that says, "We couldn't figure out what sounded best, so we'll let you fiddle with it and see if there is something that you'll like." However, one of magazines blasted a Pioneer CD player with its slow roll-off "Legato Link" filter (similar to our old "Listen" filter) for not having ruler flat frequency response. So we a selector switch (but put it on the back!) just so the magazines (especially the German ones!) could measure and not have a heart attack because it was 2 dB down at 20 kHz. But it's called "Listen" for a reason -- that is what sounds best and that's what you should use when you are listening to the danged thing.

All of this nonsense is strictly due to the limitations of the CD format. At higher sample rates, the roll-off from a "slow roll-off" filter is strictly academic. It really doesn't matter if something is a few dB down at 48 kHz or 96 kHz. But that is one thing that has slowed down the pursuit for better sound -- all pro gear is largely sold on the basis of specs. So they all used brickwall filters to make sure that their gear would be dead flat to as high a frequency as possible.

As some of the posts in this thread point out, it's not clear that filters (record or playback) are even necessary at high sample rates. I think that a 192/24 system with no filters could sound absolutely stunning. But as far as I know, it hasn't even been tried. I think the main reason SACD sounds as good as it does is because there are no filters on the record side. The problem is that they have to use fairly steep filters on the playback side to keep the high frequency noise from overloading most electronics.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Parts Connexion  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
FAQ

Post a Message!

 Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]