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


What I actually said was "you seem to want to present the choices
Philips made as being simply cost-driven"; please note the presence
of "simply".

Then it seems to me that you are reading into what I have said things
which I didn't say.

Well I guess we both were!

Also not clear to me what you mean by "simply".

Definition 2 of "simply" from the on-line OED: "merely; just:"

If a design decision is "simply" cost-driven then cost is the only
consideration, performance, reliabilty etc. do not figure.

In that case "simply" seems to me to be meaninglessly strict. Making
nothing would have cost nothing. Making something that was unreliable would
have been cheap, etc. But they wanted to choose something that they could
make reliably, meet the nominal specs for the 16 bit CDDA, *and* be as
cheap to make as they could arrange.


So you'd need to explain what you mean here by "best" if it is
something else,

Lets go back to where this started: "fed up lurker" asserts that
taking the digital filters out of oversampling CD players makes them
sound "better". The actual word he used was "magical" which implies
"much better". I dispute that.

Then your argument wrt that is with him, not me.

Yes of course my argument is with him, it always was. But you seemed
keen to take it on :-)

Again I'm not clear what you mean by "take it on" here.

FWIW I think the idea of using non-oversampling is an interesting one. And
as I've pointed out there is no reason in principle why that can't work
fine. The devil is then in the details when it comes to assessing one
implimentation versus others and the nominal spec for CDDA. I can think of
potential advantages and snags of either approach. But they all depend
entirely on the details of what you do in practice.

I've been happy enough with oversampling DACs like the Meridian (and now
the DACMagic) for some years. Still enjoy the results they give. Before
that I enjoyed the ancient Marantz with the 1st gen Philips chipset -
albeit having added extra analogue filtering. But if anything that is why I
am interested in alternatives. To explore how they work and what they might
have pro or anti in practice, or if others like/dislike them, etc.

To me this is simply a matter of being curious, open minded, and willing to
consider things. I am also interested in things that might encourage hifi
users to 'get their hands dirty' and try things for themselves. Even if the
end results are no better than what they can buy in a technical sense I
suspect some people will enjoy the results more because of the added
pleasure from knowing they made/modded something and have some added
understanding or involvement. Provided people learn and are open minded
that seems fine to me. They can then decide for themselves what they prefer
or if something is good/bad. Better that way than for me or reviewers to
tell them.

You seem to be chasing me because of an opinion someone else has
asserted.
:-)

Odd, I thought you were the one doing the chasing ;-)

Your opinion, not mine. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html