On Monday 16 February 2009 20:55:15 Sampo Savolainen wrote: > On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 20:19 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 08:49:50PM +0200, Sampo Savolainen wrote: > > > Let's ask the question the other way around: if upsampling is a > > > superior way to convert from digital to analog, why do we see > > > upsampling being mentioned only in obscenely expensive hi-fi CD > > > players? Why Lynx, Apogee, RME, etc. don't use this technology in their > > > highly praised converters? > > Don't they ? It's probably just inside the chips they use. > That was the point I was trying to make in the previous paragraph from the > one you quoted. The point here was that it seems a lot of companies making > high quality converters don't feel upsampling is worth mentioning. Are they really upsampling? I was under the impression that they use one fast converter (far faster then the sampling rate you hear) and the (de-)multiplex the signal to the various channels. Should be easier than syncing several converter clocks. The devices I work with on the other hand go exactly the other way, they combine several 1GS/s adc's to have one 4GS/s adc. But they face their own set of clock-sync problems... Have fun, Arnold
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
