roadtonowhere08 Posted January 5, 2014 Report Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) That confirms it, Justin, and thank you for reminding me why I hate that place. Edited January 5, 2014 by roadtonowhere08
blessingx Posted January 8, 2014 Author Report Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) [WARNING]There's a new product coming: http://www.stereophile.com/content/light-harmonic-sire-dac [/WARNING] Edited January 8, 2014 by blessingx
naamanf Posted January 8, 2014 Report Posted January 8, 2014 Hey I wonder where they got the money to make this new DAC....
justin Posted January 8, 2014 Report Posted January 8, 2014 i know it takes me a long time to build products that DO already exist, but maybe selling products i haven't even started to design yet is the future 1
justin Posted January 8, 2014 Report Posted January 8, 2014 "32/768 PCM and DSD 256" we're up to 32/768 now? and i guess 'regular' DSD isn't enough anymore? 1
Hopstretch Posted January 8, 2014 Report Posted January 8, 2014 I'd like to apologize up front to any non-fucktard chin beards out there, but this picture just doesn't inspire a ton of confidence for me. 1
blessingx Posted January 8, 2014 Author Report Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Edited January 9, 2014 by blessingx 1
Hopstretch Posted January 8, 2014 Report Posted January 8, 2014 "Hands deployed. Please position ass in order to begin reaming."
naamanf Posted January 8, 2014 Report Posted January 8, 2014 He has a EE and worked for MIT Cables. Seems legit. He at least knows how to put magic into a box and charge a lot for it. Hmmm so did some of the other members of LH.... Experience selling BS in a box.
justin Posted January 8, 2014 Report Posted January 8, 2014 i'll sell the BHSE for $120k each, and i'd like to announce i will ONLY make 24 per year, so get in line now. Also, i will include a femto clock
roadtonowhere08 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Posted January 8, 2014 I'd like to apologize up front to any non-fucktard chin beards out there, but this picture just doesn't inspire a ton of confidence for me. I was thinking the exact same thing. Look at that smug fucker. He knows there are 24 dumb bastards out there.
aardvark baguette Posted January 8, 2014 Report Posted January 8, 2014 do they only work 24 days a year or something?
Pars Posted January 8, 2014 Report Posted January 8, 2014 ^ since there are more than 1 of them, I would think the goal would be to build all 24 in one day; 364 days vacation. What's not to like?
Nebby Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 ^ since there are more than 1 of them, I would think the goal would be to build all 24 in one day; 364 days vacation. What's not to like? You mean 364 days to work their shill network
Dusty Chalk Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 "32/768 PCM and DSD 256" we're up to 32/768 now? and i guess 'regular' DSD isn't enough anymore? 32/768 has existed in the professional world for a while now, albeit only at the top end when I was still reading about it regularly (over a year ago).
roadtonowhere08 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 32/768 has existed in the professional world for a while now, albeit only at the top end when I was still reading about it regularly (over a year ago). I have never read anything credible that sways me into believing anything more than 24/192 for playaback is even worth pursuing. I can get behind 32 bit for mixing and whatnot, but 768kHz sampling? People rave about LP realism, but at 32/768, that's like 3-4 times the resolution of even the best pressed LPs. Please do not confuse me for a "640k is enough for most people" person (I am definitely not), but that strikes me as recording for greater wax moths rather than humans. Any merit to this practice, Dusty, or is it tech gamesmanship?
grawk Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 I have never read anything credible that sways me into believing anything more than 24/192 for playaback is even worth pursuing. I can get behind 32 bit for mixing and whatnot, but 768kHz sampling? People rave about LP realism, but at 32/768, that's like 3-4 times the resolution of even the best pressed LPs. Please do not confuse me for a "640k is enough for most people" person (I am definitely not), but that strikes me as recording for greater wax moths rather than humans. Any merit to this practice, Dusty, or is it tech gamesmanship? How does that math work? 44k captures all information in the realm of human hearing (22khz). 44x4 = 176. 768 is closer to 20x. There's no merit to 192, let alone 768. Especially for playback.
roadtonowhere08 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) How does that math work? 44k captures all information in the realm of human hearing (22khz). 44x4 = 176. 768 is closer to 20x. There's no merit to 192, let alone 768. Especially for playback. I was referring to whatever the general consensus of the resolution of the analog information within the LP grooves were if it was put into PCM terms. I have heard that it is somewhere between a 96kHz and 192kHz sampling rate (but probably lower than a 16 bit depth), but I have not really devoted the time to explore it further. Going with that (perhaps erroneous assumption), I posted the above. Looks like more than 4x the resolution, but I digress. I think my setup is good, but there are no room treatments to speak of, so a well recorded redbook is more than fine with me. Edited January 9, 2014 by roadtonowhere08
Dusty Chalk Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 I have never read anything credible that sways me into believing anything more than 24/192 for playaback is even worth pursuing. I can get behind 32 bit for mixing and whatnot, but 768kHz sampling? People rave about LP realism, but at 32/768, that's like 3-4 times the resolution of even the best pressed LPs. Please do not confuse me for a "640k is enough for most people" person (I am definitely not), but that strikes me as recording for greater wax moths rather than humans. Any merit to this practice, Dusty, or is it tech gamesmanship? There's some merit to higher sampling rates (contrary to Dan's contrarianism), but yeah, they lose me somewhere around 192 also. For playback, I don't see the point behind more than 96kHz, myself, but when mixing tracks, I understand the necessity of higher resolutions on the individual tracks as long as the mixdown software doesn't waste it -- you don't want to compound rounding errors. I'd have to do the math (which I have no interest in doing) to see what the necessary individual frequencies would need to be to get moar betr sound at the final mixdown. I personally believe it reduces to phase accuracy, but that's just a SWAG.
spritzer Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 I was referring to whatever the general consensus of the resolution of the analog information within the LP grooves were if it was put into PCM terms. I have heard that it is somewhere between a 96kHz and 192kHz sampling rate (but probably lower than a 16 bit depth), but I have not really devoted the time to explore it further. Going with that (perhaps erroneous assumption), I posted the above. Looks like more than 4x the resolution, but I digress. I think my setup is good, but there are no room treatments to speak of, so a well recorded redbook is more than fine with me. This was years back but somebody simulated the ideal vinyl playback setup and figured out that it was the equivalent of 14bits. Sampling rate was something close to 80kHz if my memory doesn't fail me. This is naturally never going to happen in real life as the records wear, so do the pickups, the tables are never 100% accurate, the RIAA eq never 100% correct etc.
CarlSeibert Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 Which fits nicely with the common perception that somewhere between 24/96 and 24/192 is where digital "works" . if you postulate that vinyl was evolved until it "worked", it makes a lot of sense. I tend to hold the notion that the same principle applies in photography. 35mm film was accepted because it was the minimum thing that generally "worked". so then you have the very fuzzy task of deciding at what point digital "works". Which certainly wasn't made any easier by the low sighted who claimed that 2MP was all the resolution that the human eye/brain could perceive and what not. It's very sad now to look at photos from that era. We we're a lot luckier in audio because a lot of the mess that was early digital was in the playback, so music from that period turned out to be just degraded, rather than lost altogether. 1
Rotijon Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 http://www.stereophile.com/content/light-harmonic-sire-dac I came here for the discussion and it was worth it. I have no idea, what anyone can put in there that will cost 120k or even make it an improvement over the best from Dcs And MSB.
aardvark baguette Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) the clock actually goes back in time 88 femtoseconds. *refrains from making jitter joke* Edited January 9, 2014 by aardvark baguette 1
dcpoor Posted January 9, 2014 Report Posted January 9, 2014 http://www.stereophile.com/content/light-harmonic-sire-dac I came here for the discussion and it was worth it. I have no idea, what anyone can put in there that will cost 120k or even make it an improvement over the best from Dcs And MSB. coconuts and crystals
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now