Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site teddy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!teddy!rdp
From: rdp@teddy.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: David Mohler is completely correct
Message-ID: <1171@teddy.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Aug-85 14:58:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: teddy.1171
Posted: Tue Aug 20 14:58:35 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 06:47:23 EDT
References: <19@drune.UUCP> <4162@alice.UUCP> <4164@alice.UUCP> <21@drune.UUCP>
Reply-To: rdp@teddy.UUCP (Richard D. Pierce)
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Lines: 39

In article <21@drune.UUCP> mohler@drune.UUCP (MohlerDS) writes:
>Why is it that people read text and see what they choose to see?
>I state that I am oversimplifying in my posting for those that
>don't want to make a life long job out of picking a CD player.

Whew! what hostility!

>Second, if you feed a 1KHZ square wave into an analog filter
>that is say an eight pole filter and look at the output, and then do
>the same thing to a digital eight pole filter (both filters set to
>low pass filter at 22KHZ) if the resulting wave form doesn't exhibit
>less ringing through the digital filter something is seriously
>wrong!

Let's try this: an analog 8 pole Butterworth (or eliptical) filter at
22 Khz vs. a digital 8 pole 3db pass-band ripple Chebychev. If one don't
ring a whole bunch more than the other, than something is wrong.

But, then again, aren't we comparing apples and turret lathes?

How about saying something like "An analog 8 pole Butterworth filter
and a digital 8 pole butterworth filter, both at 22 Khz, both having
exactly the same cutoff characteristics (perfect components, perfect
algorithms, etc.) Then I and many others can agree that the transient
responses of these to filters are identical. But to simply compare
any n-pole analog filter with any n-pole digital filter is ludicrous.

> At least you had the decency to pose a technical point
>rather than fly off like some others. If this doesn't clarify things I
>can cite some papers and references that you can read. Why is it that some
>NETTERS at your location prefer sarcastic replies rather than keeping the
>net less hostile?
See note on hostility, above.
>

Who the hell are you talking about. "you" and "your" has no definite number
attached, so I guess that means me, or us, or them, or what?

Dick Pierce