🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ku9ldkINNh0l@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> nemeth@helix.Eng.Sun.COM
(Les Nemeth) writes:

>What you are missing here is the fact that distortion is of no relevance
>in this equation. There are going to be better and/or worse players than
>others regardless of price. Sound quality of the CD player has to do with
>how well the player converts the data from digital to analog. Therefore,
>it is in your best interest to buy the player with the most oversampling
>per dollar spent. It has been proven that, the more oversampling a player
                               ^^^^^^
>has, the better it is at reproducing the sound faithfully.

I'd like to see that proof.

It has been proven that, the better the quality of the capacitors used
in a player, the better it is at reproducing the sound faithfully.

Hmmm....

Player A has 64 times oversampling and cheap analog components.
Player B has no (ok, 1 times) oversampling and very high quality
analog components, including an R2R d/a ladder with hand-selected and
hand-matched to 0.001% tolerance resistors, and a 27th order Chebyshev
brick-wall filter.  It has therefore been proven that A is better than
B, and B is better than A.

So much for proofs.

>A CD player can have .0001% distortion, but if it has a tinny sound who the
>heck is gonna buy it.

Any definition I've ever seen of "tinny" (and every sample of it I've
ever heard) involved a lot more than .0001% distortion.

In many cases, .1% distortion won't be audible.  In others, .025%
distortion will make music unlistenable (consider, for example, a box
that caused a 1-millisecond silence every 4 seconds).

> Conversely, if another player has .001%
>distortion but has a muddy sound, who the hecks gonna want it either.

Likewise, you can't get muddy at .001% distortion.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com