Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hound.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hound!rfg From: rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: Tubes, CDs, sq waves, nonscience (the bleat goes on) Message-ID: <570@hound.UUCP> Date: Thu, 26-Jul-84 12:51:44 EDT Article-I.D.: hound.570 Posted: Thu Jul 26 12:51:44 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 20:32:32 EDT References: <579@opus.UUCP>, <83@sunybcs.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 16 Sorry, Charlie. Your logic is impeccable (well almost), but , as usual, your conclusion is incorrect. The info rate coming off the disc is the same whether the D to A converter is time shared or not. The D->A converter does have to operate at twice the rate of either of two converters (when two are used), but that's about all. Sample and hold ckts stretch the pulses back to regular width. I undrstand that essentially the same D->A converters are used whether one or two, so the conversion is about as linear in one case as the other.And the sampling rate is the same 44khz in both channels. I might expect there to be a mite more crosstalk in the shared configuration, but I haven't noticed it in any tests. In any event, the result is the best, quietest, cleanest audio I have ever heard either way, and I have been listening a long time. It's still hard for me to believe "they" had the guts to market something this good. Where was their vice-president in charge of lousing up designs? Certainly every Americun firm has one. Don't the Japanese? Perhaps he was out to lunch. :-) Dick Grantges hound!rfg