Wombat wrote: > Fun fact to me with your test is the idea not using a 192kHz source > against a lowpassed one. You may do better as a famous AES paper lately > claimed to :) > Well, not exactly but one of the reasons in the AES paper differences > may be heard is still the possibility of IM of music content in the > ultra hard metal tweeter. > Your test has no IM content only the added ringing at the filters > frequency. Brillant!
Don't know about the "brilliant" part... I figure it was just obvious in order to isolate the variables :-). Now if someone out there can explain to me what kind of "Filter responses tested were representative of anti-alias filters used in A/D (analog-to-digital) converters or mastering processes" settings these people used, I would be most appreciative as I do not have access to said "famous AES paper": http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17497 I'm also a bit confused as to why this paper even bothers to mention 16-bit quantization and dithering at all... How's that supposed to fit into the title "Audibility of Typical Digital Audio Filters in a High-Fidelity Playback System"? Perplexed... Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103537 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
