Archimago wrote: > 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...
No one really knows. The paper talks about a filter using a 500Hz transition band realized with Matlab. People that know much more about this stuff wanted to create own files but the paper does not include the exact parameters you need. Matlab must have tons of possibilities there. It is a kind of joke that in a so called peer reviewed paper the data for verifying the findings it is about are missing :) The paper makes no claims about 16bit being inferior to higher bit depth. They even used a bad dither method that no real-world resampler would use today. This may be also just another move to build a reason MQA does not need all bits. Like mentioned before elsewhere. This paper has many critics for just being a Meridian marketing paper and buy-in at the AES. Transporter (modded) -> RG142 -> Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA monoblocks -> Sommer SPK240 -> self-made speakers ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wombat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4113 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
