home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26 / NN_1992_26.iso / spool / rec / audio / 14617 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-11-04  |  932 b 
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!charnel!rat!usc!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!unixhub!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!ianchan
  2. From: ianchan@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ian Hin Yun Chan)
  3. Newsgroups: rec.audio
  4. Subject: DA conversion
  5. Summary: What are the sonic differences among the various systems?
  6. Keywords: PCM, PDM.
  7. Message-ID: <1992Nov5.014422.21674@leland.Stanford.EDU>
  8. Date: 5 Nov 92 01:44:22 GMT
  9. Sender: news@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News)
  10. Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
  11. Lines: 7
  12.  
  13. When PDM (bitstream) came out a number of years ago, I thought it solved
  14. everything that PCM suffered from, but I still see a lot of DACs out there
  15. with regular muti-bit conversion. Why is everybody hanging on? Is there
  16. some deficiency in PDM that I don't know about? In particular, what are
  17. the relative strengths and weakness of the two DAC systems (dynamics,
  18. smoothness, "natural-ness," detail, bass/treble, etc...)?
  19. - Ian
  20.