Dusty Chalk

I think maybe I was under the impression somewhere that I read something else somewhere else that maybe this post is useless.

So it's like saying ash-hole, like slurring, kinda drunk-sounding?

Saying something doesn't exists says nothing about its future existence. Or did I miss something else? That said, he just said he's spent years denying the existence of the HD800, so...there ya go.

LIES!!!1! Troll alert...

Now I'm confused -- you did truncation, or you did dithering? After thinking about my earlier argument, I realize it really didn't matter whether or not you truncated or rounded -- rounding is just truncating + 0.5. I disagree that it's inaudible -- why would they bother with dithering if it's inaudible? Alright, so here's my attempt at explaining in concise form why one should use dithering instead of truncation: The difference between the original analog signal and the unfiltered digital one is a good representation of the quantization error. If you picture this signal, you'll immediately intuitively see that it has frequency components that are not functions of any frequency in the music, but are functions of the sampling rate. If there is any regularity to this at all (and we're dealing with computers and other silicon-based lifeforms here, so there is), you'll also realize that these components could easily divide down into the audible frequency range. So one has to force a randomness to it, and the science of this forced randomization is called dithering. You're a scientist -- you should perform Torpedo's experiment of recording the same exact analog source through a variety of different bit depths and sampling rates. I actually have the facilities (Alesis Masterlink 9600), I might have to set it up at the next meet. I'll also see if I can create dithered down and truncated versions of the same material and see if people can hear the difference between the three (originally recorded at 16/44.1, dithered down to 16/44.1, and truncated to 16/44.1...or something like that -- I might do 48 just because of grawk's point about sampling rate conversion, which is a legitimate one).

I'm not worried about it.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Not only do I disagree with your conclusions, you're beginning to introduce new opinions with which I disagree, and I'm going to start calling you names, too. (I've long been a proponent of the opinion that just because you can't hear individual frequencies above 20kHz, that doesn't mean it doesn't change the nature of what you can hear audibly.) Also, I don't think you understand my "resolution" vs. "dynamic range" argument at all.

You're not understanding my example -- I specifically set up a situation where you amplified it back up into the hearing range. In the analog case, you won't have lost information; in the digital case, you will have.

I'm curious as to your usage of the word "should" here -- you do know that in audio, when you reduce your bit depth, you need to dither it down, not just truncate it. You've heard of quantization error, yes? 24bit: .923023233210230123912309999999999999 16bit: .923023233210230123912309 That would be truncation, but I dare say that would not be what you would want. And it's not just simply rounding, since you're dealing with frequency components. I mean, there are whole fields of study as to the correct dither algorithm to use when going from a higher bit depth to a lower one -- Sony was promoting the snot out of their "SBM" technology before they came up with DSD.

But if the gain of your power amp is extremely high, such that you have to turn the "pre" way down, the analog won't lose any information, whereas the digital will. Yes and no -- a lot of people are digitizing their own analog these days, so there's your source. Also, companies like Reference Recordings and 2L and Chesky and ECM haven't totally given up on high-res digital -- cf. "HRx". Build it, and they will come, I say optimistically.

Okay, that one wasn't spammy at all.

No it doesn't, it represents the amplitude of the signal at the time of the time slice. If you take an overarching envelope of the signal, that's the loudness, but when the signal crosses the zero axis -- and all points in between -- it's the bit depth that represents the signal at that point, too. To say that bit depth entirely represents loudness is an oversimplification to the point of inaccuracy.

I bet that's part of it.

Bryston == good. Some of the best speaker sound I've ever heard (my boss' office rig) includes a Bryston power amp.

Score!

It wasn't necessarily in direct response just to your last post -- more the arguments that (mainly) grawk (and others) have been pushing that it's only about dynamic range. Dynamic range/SNR is usually measured by a full output signal vs. the noise floor, but it can also affect the resolution of the signal being generated, making, for example, a sine wave look more like a sine wave. Admittedly, when you're comparing against 24 bits, I would be hard pressed to argue that one could actually hear the difference, but I don't see any reason not to apply Moore's Law to audio. I mean, when you're listening to a 24/96 recording vs. a 16/44.1 recording, I don't care if everything else is exactly the same (including the SNR of the analog section), it still comes out as a better recording, even at full volume. And if the technology is there to do better, why not?

Try listening to more exciting music?

It's not just about dynamic range, it's also about resolution -- the bits between the bits...detail, and not necessarily below the noise floor. I'm with Beefy -- if it results in a more accurate signal in the first place, it's a good thing.

I think he meant 'official', as in, "it's official, there now will be a West Michigan meet..." At least, that's how I read it.

Saucesome. We need this as a smiley (or something similar).

Overall design is probably more important than the one junction. I know someone who has a ... M^3, is it? ...portable entirely outfitted with black gates, which probably sounds better than an entry level desktop. I would say the 1/8" vs. dual RCA debate is overshadowed by the interior guts of the thing in that case. That said, everything else the same (including the cables leading up to it, gold plating on both, etc.), I'd say dual RCA's, if only for the increased separation (I mean, you wouldn't tie the grounds from your preamp to your power amp together, would you?). But I doubt I'd be able to hear the difference, it's probably mostly psychological at that point. Everyone needs to start drifting over to 5 pin DIN or Lemo connectors (L/R +/- [==4] & ground). That'd be optimal. Then you could have "stereobalanced". Welcome to head-case, sorry about your thin-skinned back of the head.

Unless you have a sister, in which case negotiations could possibly be re-opened.

Dreadhead and Voltron and aardvark baguette and ...jpnums? I forget...

I did, LOL, boom chicka WOW-wow.