seanadams;396050 Wrote: > Anyway the point is, the designers of s/pdif didn't deliberately choose > a "sub optimal" scheme. Maybe they were unaware of the problem of > jitter (I could believe that actually) but just as easily they could > have considered it and made a decision that it was outweighed by the > cost and usability advantages of using a single conductor. We are > getting to the root of why high-end audio is such a special niche.
The guy who designed the SPDIF told a colleague that it was only intended as a test port. The idea was to take the digital output, convert it to audio, and then compare that to the audio coming out of the CD player. Using test tones. To make sure that the player (and its output stage) were functioning properly. Automated test equipment was not as refined as it is today, and this was Philips attempt to do automated testing on early players. How the marketing department got the idea that it would be good for consumers to use, well, they did stick a TOSLINK on it. That ought to tell you all you need to know about how they think of consumers. Or you can read old JAES from that period. And see how they thought that anything over 15 kHz was a waste. Sony and its cohorts had to justify their notion that 32 kHz sampling rate was good enough. -It is only consumer grade audio.- Not studio grade. We should consider ourselves lucky that it became 44.1 kHz. Any wonder why SPDIF is lousy? Pat -- ar-t http://www.analogresearch-technology.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ar-t's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13619 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=50147 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
