Dusty Chalk

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.

:prettyprincess:

I would like to openly and publicly thank Team Taking One for the Team for being early adopters and buying these phones.

The last two things on Amazon's Gold Box: Amazon.com: Brome 1015 Squirrel Buster Classic: Patio, Lawn & Garden Amazon.com: Find It Games Kids Version - Red Ends: Toys & Games Is it just me, or do those two items have a visual resemblance? What're you trying to say, Amazon?

I laughed out loud at the Knutballz. So I think we found us a contradiction.

Oh, well then, by all means, get another amp. MOAR AMPS!!!1!