JohnSwenson wrote: > Yes, I would consider a windowed SINC to be a simple filter. That's not > to say that is actually going to be the exact function used. The ones > that seem to have the most detrimental effect sonically are more complex > functions designed to achieve higher stop band rejection with minimal > hardware resources. The experimentation I have done seems to be pointing > to not needing -120db stop band rejection. That something like a > windowed SINC without a large number of taps which "only" achieves 60db > rejection will sound better than the more complex function which > achieves -120db rejection. > > That is not to say that -120db rejection by itself is bad, it's the > implementation with small resources that seems to be the issue. I have > tried a windowed SINC with a large number of taps to get -130db and it > sounds great. The version with a much smaller number of taps with only > 60db rejection also sounded excellent. I did not spend the time to see > which sounded better, they were sufficiently close to each other that it > would be difficult to tell them apart. But both of them were quite a bit > better sounding than the hardware filter in the DAC chip which achieved > -130db (at least according to it's spec sheet) > > John S.
I appreciate you taking the time to comment. I can't say I understand the principal by which efficient use of FIR taps leads to poor sound quality, but this is presumably an empirical finding of yours. This is the kind of topic that can lead to long and unproductive threads, so I propose to accept your word for it and look forward to hearing it myself as soon as ever the CSP2 becomes available for purchase. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ dsdreamer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12588 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98544 _______________________________________________ unix mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/unix
