Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="John Roberts" data-source="post: 88933" data-attributes="member: 126">Re: Looking for the chart that converts XILICA or others to othersPerhaps. But until there is a standard there is no right and wrong, just closed solutions that only work on a named platform. Once we have a standard there will be incentive for all who are not &quot;correct&quot; to get correct. It may not turn out to be a simple either or choice, but a handful of Q/BW types that can be specified. Digital interfaces are actually pretty good at re-mapping response, between different types, if the data exists to do so. This is known and can be part of the specification for filters that range up into the upper octaves where such interactions are significant. Most crossover heavy lifting is at lower frequencies, but there are not that many choices for different sampling rates these days.&nbsp; Differences due to execution will always be with us, and not my concern. As long as we can know precisely what transfer function is meant by X dB of boost, with Y Q/BW, even if we must also specify type Z Q/BW. The rest can fall within the +/- X dB window of accuracy. Me too... I see a multiple part problem. #1 come up with a characterization for the sundry different Q/BW variants. Once we can name/list them, then #2 becomes relatively straightforward to map between them. #3 officially declaring one correct, and the others not, can be left to the marketplace to prosecute with purchase preferences. The customers just need to be informed, so they can make informed choices. I could live without #3 if we had #1 and #2. Digital isn&#039;t perfect, but it is generally repeatable. Without concise definitions it is uncharacteristically chaotic. JR</blockquote>

[QUOTE="John Roberts, post: 88933, member: 126"] Re: Looking for the chart that converts XILICA or others to others Perhaps. But until there is a standard there is no right and wrong, just closed solutions that only work on a named platform. Once we have a standard there will be incentive for all who are not "correct" to get correct. It may not turn out to be a simple either or choice, but a handful of Q/BW types that can be specified. Digital interfaces are actually pretty good at re-mapping response, between different types, if the data exists to do so. This is known and can be part of the specification for filters that range up into the upper octaves where such interactions are significant. Most crossover heavy lifting is at lower frequencies, but there are not that many choices for different sampling rates these days. Differences due to execution will always be with us, and not my concern. As long as we can know precisely what transfer function is meant by X dB of boost, with Y Q/BW, even if we must also specify type Z Q/BW. The rest can fall within the +/- X dB window of accuracy. Me too... I see a multiple part problem. #1 come up with a characterization for the sundry different Q/BW variants. Once we can name/list them, then #2 becomes relatively straightforward to map between them. #3 officially declaring one correct, and the others not, can be left to the marketplace to prosecute with purchase preferences. The customers just need to be informed, so they can make informed choices. I could live without #3 if we had #1 and #2. Digital isn't perfect, but it is generally repeatable. Without concise definitions it is uncharacteristically chaotic. JR [/QUOTE]

Verification