Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rphroy!caen!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: konar@lennon.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Mithat F Konar)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Chesky's 128x oversampling
Message-ID: <13391@uwm.edu>
Date: 25 Jun 91 12:51:48 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 20
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

In article <13355@uwm.edu> jas@proteon.com (John A. Shriver) writes:
>...........Unfortunately, the sad reality is
>probably that half of [the recording studios] haven't even replaced their
>anti-aliasing filters with the improved Apogee ones!  

Be a bit more careful before hopping onto that bandwagon! There are many who
feel that in solving one problem, Apogee created others that are worse than
the original problems they were trying to solve.

My gut feel (I've never actually run any tests on any pro digital gear) is that
the easiest and best way to improve the sound of many pro digital recorders
would be to simply get those wretched NE5532 dual ops or NE5534 singles out of
the signal path. Replacement with TL07x (yup, that's right), AD711/712/746 or
845, or Motorola MC3408x series would probably work wonders. For some reason
I simply cannot phathom, lots of engineers think the 5532 is well suited to
audio amplification. I know it was designed for that purpose, but it's really
not very good. In the case of a boom-box, it probably would not be a limiting
factor on sound quality. But in a demanding applications, it certainly is.

-Mithat Konar