|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
147.10.167.184
In Reply to: Re: Panasonic DVD-S97 review posted by Martin419 on December 21, 2005 at 08:07:13:
Actually, it's not a policy u-turn. I did say "I only review on request, and only on review samples", so obviously at least one of those events have occured.Also, I have to disclose I am now getting paid for my reviews (hence the "R" next to my moniker).
Follow Ups:
> > I did say "I only review on request, and only on review samples", so obviously at least one of those events have occured. < <But in that case you should have said "or". But since you used the word "and", then logically, both conditions should have been met (not just one).
Anyway, how about the freq response in the scenario I outlined.
No, "and" is correct for this particular instance.As for the freq response, how much are you willing to pay me to satisfy your curiosity? :-) And what would that prove (since the Panasonic, like nearly all digital players, applies a low pass filter with a cut off at 20 kHz even for 96 kHz signals without Dolby Pro Logic II decoding) If the slope of the filter changes, that could be a "feature" of the implementation and does not disclose what resolution may have been used in the decoding process.
> > No, "and" is correct for this particular instance. < <Not if one either adheres to the rules of English grammar OR Boolean logic. ;-)
> > As for the freq response, how much are you willing to pay me to satisfy your curiosity? :-) < <Ahem. That should have been covered in your review.
> > and what would that prove (since the Panasonic, like nearly all digital players, applies a low pass filter with a cut off at 20 kHz even for 96 kHz signals < <
That's news to me. In which case, your player’s purported "hirez" credentials are a con.
And I'm so glad my player is not one of those! I've seen Paul Miller's plots for the Denon DVD-A11, it's flat all the way out to the Nyquist limits of the sample rate in use. (Even with the Sharc DSP & BM engaged).
. . . > > If the slope of the filter changes, that could be a "feature" of the implementation and does not disclose what resolution may have been used in the decoding process. < <Nice get-out Christine! :-)
*** Not if one either adheres to the rules of English grammar OR Boolean logic. ;-) ***No, you don't understand. I stated two conditions by which I will review a product. Both those conditions were upheld for this particular instance (at least in spirit - I can explain further, but it would need to be by private email).
*** That should have been covered in your review. ***
Why? It's not in the review template, which I have to adhere to. The review template never asked me to measure the frequency response of Dolby Pro Logic decoding, so I didn't.
*** I've seen Paul Miller's plots for the Denon DVD-A11, it's flat all the way out to the Nyquist limits of the sample rate in use. ***
Can you provide a link to this?
*** Nice get-out Christine! :-) ***
No, I was simply telling the truth. It works both ways. For example, even if the frequency response extended to beyond 20 kHz, it does not necessarily mean the processing was done at greater than 48 kHz. For example, some filtering algorithms deliberately introduce ultrasonic noise beyond Nyquist - read the Cirrus Logic paper on this. And the Panasonic has a "slow" filter implementation, which means it is capable of this.
But I wouldn't be surprised if a Dolby Pro Logic II implementation implements a 20kHz filter even at high resolution. If you recall, the original Dolby Pro Logic algorithm filters the rear channels down to 12 kHz because they interfere with the steering logic. Dolby literature states that PLII is transparent to 20kHz, but they never imply there is no filtering beyond 20kHz.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: