"Jim Lesurf" wrote

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.


You really do seem to want to pick that particular point to pieces and look
at the entrails, well don't let me stop you!


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

See below:-

FWIW I think the idea of using non-oversampling is an interesting one.

Do you? Oh well it takes all sorts I suppose :-)

And
as I've pointed out there is no reason in principle why that can't work
fine.

In theory it can work fine, but a high-performance analogue filter for a
non-oversampling converter is neither simple nor cheap.

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.

And your potential advantages for the non-oversampling approach are?

I've been happy enough with oversampling DACs like the Meridian (and now
the DACMagic) for some years. Still enjoy the results they give.

Are they multi-bit oversampling designs, or, like the majority of audio DACs
these days, of the 1-bit variety?

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.

Been there, done that - got the T-shirt. :-)


David.