In Reply to: A more deep-rooted problem posted by John Atkinson on April 22, 2004 at 12:38:25:
Dear John,I think there is a serious contradiction in a position that on one hand says that filters are compromised by the system itself, whilst simultaneously criticising attempts at rectifying the problems generated by the filters as "poor engineering".
One has to accept the fact that with hundreds of millions of CDs out there, the best solution to the problem of filtering should be found and broadly agree upon, in the interest of the music lovers everywhere whose investment in software is at stake here, I think the broader credibility of the specialist is a stake here and the press needs to bear this in mind to a far greater extent than is and has been the case..
You statement about the imperfections of all types of digital filters above clearly raises the question whether it is not better to have no filtering, as in reality that offers a sonically better solution, than the filter alternative, whether this infringes on some notional and largely theoretical technical parameters, who really cares if the end result is better?
It is immaterial and of no consolation to us all that a future becons which has high enough sampling rates to make the filters unnecessary, when many of us have tens of thousands of dollars invested in 44.1kHz CD software, which is in dire need of better decoding to get the information replayed with sufficient fidelity (if such a word can even be used about anything digital) to be able to listen through a complete symphony or opera without suffering serious listening fatigue.
In the overall picture surely this should be the main consideration?
Sincerely,
Peter Qvortrup
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: A more deep-rooted problem - Peter Qvortrup 04/25/0402:40:49 04/25/04 (0)