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