"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Fed Up Lurker" wrote

NONOS is "non-oversampling", which isn't a truly full or accurate
acronym.

True. The letters "non" should not be capitalised as they are not the
initial letters of words.


What a pillock you are Dave, I can't stop larfing,
Now back to Jim's post:



Erm. Even the 1st generation Philips players used x4 oversampling. So that
wasn't introduced 'later' IIRC.

because it sounded better.

IIRC they were primarily concerned by two factors. One being that
oversampling made post reconstruction analogue filtering easier/cheaper.
The other was that they weren't confident at the time that they could make
16 bit dacs at consumer prices/quantities. So my impression was that the
initial decision was based on what they thought they could make more
cheaply and reliably for a mass market.

Agreed. But a whole heap of other factors too that would only baffle Dave.
A key one being how early "16 binary digit" recordings were made.


Above based on my recollections of reading the special issue of 'Philips
Tech Rev' on the launch of CD Audio.

I was just about to mention that.


That said, companies like Philips do have 'form' when it comes to
promoting
new ideas that "sound better" when they really mean "extend our revenue
stream". Think SACD/DSD. ;-


But it is a cosy two way relationship. The pen pushers need an evolving
hardware industry and steady advertising revenue, not that I have a
problem with that, but healthy cynicism is required by we the punters
whose dosh is being steered along the latest fashion path.

Slainte,

Why thank you.