|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| Digital Source Digital Players and Recorders: CD , SACD , Tape, Memory Card, etc. |
|
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.
Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving |
|
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Saint Louis
|
Hello. Can anyone enlighten me about the deal with
the slow rolloff option available in some digital filters? Specifically I am looking at the BB/TI PCM1794. I have seen very vague writings of improved impulse response. But the stop band attenuation is greatly degraded too. Does anyone have any experience with this? I am wondering what, if anything, this might buy. And what this potential improvement in one aspect might cost in another aspect of the overall performance.... |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Eindhoven
|
Cameron,
"a" slow roll off (be it analogue or digital) will always improve impulse response. It is kind of hard to understand, at least I do not grasp it, but I have seen it, both measured and simulated regards |
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lund
|
Zero oversampling, no digital filtering DAC has perfect pulserespons (before analog filtering that is), but mostly unlinear passband frequency response and fair amount of HF garbage.
An oversampling, interpolating digital brickwall filtering DAC has flat passband frequency response, high stopband attenuation (no HF garbage) but a pulse response as a rather long sinc. With a slow rolloff digital filter you end up somewhere in-between. The slow rolloff sacrifice some stopband attenuation and passband linearity to get significant shorter sinc in the pulse response. IMO this is a good tradeoff. /Jesper |
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Eindhoven
|
Quote:
Thanks for contributing. The issue however is what final response will be when both filter types are combined regards |
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Serbia
|
Quote:
This is not about the chip you mentioned, but almost perfectly answers your question generally. http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/papers/effects.pdf Pedja |
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lund
|
Quote:
/Jesper |
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Eindhoven
|
Quote:
Jesper That is what I thought a long time I suggest you simulate or measure on a combination of filters, one with overshoot, in cascade with one that rolls of slow regards |
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lund
|
Quote:
/Jesper |
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Any new digital filters ? | percy | Digital Source | 17 | 20th July 2008 12:39 AM |
| Why do manufacturers use crappy digital filters? | John007 | Digital Source | 23 | 7th May 2008 06:54 AM |
| Convolving digital filters? | birkinshawc | Digital Source | 4 | 1st April 2005 02:17 AM |
| Software digital DSP ... Xover/filters/EQ ?? | JinMTVT | Digital Source | 2 | 8th October 2004 06:02 AM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |
| Page generated in 0.10677 seconds (87.58% PHP - 12.42% MySQL) with 10 queries |