eiret wrote:
>
> Every time we are using digital volumecontrol, i quote from the
> guide(dont know if it is allowed?): To apply gain or attenuation to a
> digital audio signal, a multiplication is performed on each digital
> sample that collectively create the digital audio signal.
>
> If we use
cliveb;226283 Wrote:
> OK, now I see what you are getting at. My response would to ask why on
> earth any upsampler expecting to be taken seriously would do such a
> stupid thing. Do you have any examples of upsamplers that do this?
Hi cliveb,
Yes that's my response too! I was very surprised to
eiret;226334 Wrote:
>
>
> Using "my" calculator. Multiply 16bit decimal value 65535 with
> 0,35(%error) and converting it back to binary it only affect the last
> bit. Just likes as you explained.
>
Yes well whatever - but you are missing the point that it's NOT 16-bit
it is 24-bit and the "e
opaqueice;226264 Wrote:
> My point is very simple. Rounding errors like that can only affect the
> last digit. So the worst thing that can happen is that the
> volume-reduced result is off by an amount equal to half the 24th digit.
> On the other hand the last three digits are lost in noise any
that sounds very close to what I'm hearing
I'd still rather use a good old analogue pot !
--
zanash
Acoustician and builder of interesting cables
zanash's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=121
adamslim;225816 Wrote:
> The SB3 volume control is quite transparent - it all works at 24 bits,
> so for CDs does not truncate bits (the major quality loss) until you
> are reducing volume really quite a lot. However, it will increase the
> S/N ratio in the DAC, which will have a small impact on
NewBuyer;226256 Wrote:
> As I understood it, when an incoming signal to an upsampler or
> upsampling DAC is already 24-bit (like say a digitally attenuated
> signal from an SB3 S/PDIF output), there may be some amount of word
> length reduction done immediately prior to the upsampling and
> re-ex
eiret;226237 Wrote:
>
> Binary numbers, just like decimal numbers, do not always multiply and
> divide evenly. There are often remainders - extra digits that are a
> result of the multiplication.
My point is very simple. Rounding errors like that can only affect the
last digit. So the worst t
cliveb;226126 Wrote:
> Sorry, am I missing something here? It's an upsampler. You can't expect
> the bits to remain unaltered during such a process.
Hi cliveb,
More likely that I am missing something, instead of you! As I
understood it, when an incoming signal to an upsampler or upsampling
DAC i
The point is, there doesn't seem to be ANY real difference between
analogue and digital volume controls, even in principle.
opaqueice,
I am interested in your meaning after reading the guide.
If you have time, please read trough this section of this guide :
Digital volumecontrols.
http://extra
Phil Leigh;226156 Wrote:
> OK I'll have a go:
>
> No, properly implemented digital level control does not compromise or
> degrade audio quality in a way that a human being (not a calculator)
> can detect, provided that it is used sensibly - i.e.the level is not
> attenuated too much. For the SB/
opaqueice;226140 Wrote:
> I'm very confused by this discussion. According to Sean the TP can
> resolve 21 bits, which means the last three are meaningless (and for
> the SB it's considerably worse). Rounding errors from digital
> attenuation can only ever affect the last bit. So what are we ta
OK I'll have a go:
No, properly implemented digital level control does not compromise or
degrade audio quality in a way that a human being (not a calculator)
can detect, provided that it is used sensibly - i.e.the level is not
attenuated too much. For the SB/TP that means keeping the level within
opaqueice;226140 Wrote:
> I'm very confused by this discussion. According to Sean the TP can
> resolve 21 bits, which means the last three are meaningless (and for
> the SB it's considerably worse). Rounding errors from digital
> attenuation can only ever affect the last bit. So what are we ta
darrenyeats;226129 Wrote:
>
> And if this upscaling is done to a sufficient degree it means that
> subsequent volume attenuation might still not impact that information
> content - you still have the original "resolution" encoded in the
> signal. (This depends on the level of upscaling, and the
darrenyeats;226133 Wrote:
> LOL! Brilliant.
>
> Yeah, what happens is that 8 bits can represent 2^8 states (256). That
> means numbers 0 to 255 - since 0 is one of the states.
>
> So 8 bits can represent any number up to 2^8-1. 16 bits can represent
> any number up to 2^16-1 etc.
>
> Regards,
eiret;226132 Wrote:
> To day i had a wake up call at 11:11, its true.
LOL! Brilliant.
Yeah, what happens is that 8 bits can represent 2^8 states (256). That
means numbers 0 to 255 - since 0 is one of the states.
So 8 bits can represent any number up to 2^8-1. 16 bits can represent
any number u
>PS: Eiret, I'm glad your calculator agrees with me that upscaling from
16 bit to 24 bit multiplies the numbers by 256 :-)
Yes, the calculator agree approximately. There is a bit missing. I dont
remember why. To day i had a wake up call at 11:11, its true.
--
eiret
Being an IT person (like others on the forum) I guess I am less scared
of some of these digital processes.
Upsampling doesn't destroy any information. (Downsampling might.) For
example, if you have a photo sized 300 pixels by 200 pixels on
computer, and expand it to 600 by 400 pixels, you do not
zanash;226123 Wrote:
> What I can hear if I turn the volume down using the sb3 and turning up
> the analogue volume to match the original volume, is a softening of the
> sound a little like a telescope going out of focus.
Point 1: Nobody has ever suggested that the SB's digital volume control
sho
NewBuyer;226124 Wrote:
> Most recently I heard this from GW Labs, which makes 'the excellent DSP
> upsampling device' (http://www.gw-labs.com/products/index.html) based
> on the CS8420 I believe. Digital volume control still works from the
> SB3 through this device (like with other upsamplers and
Phil Leigh;226102 Wrote:
> Do you have any more information on this? As previously explained, any
> differences in the lowest 3-4 bits won't be detectable anyway - but
> I'd like to know where this story comes from
Hi Phil,
Most recently I heard this from GW Labs, which makes 'the excellent DSP
I don't class my self as an expert in the digital side of things and
certainly not on the minutia of the sb3 .
What I can hear if I turn the volume down using the sb3 and turning up
the analogue volume to match the original volume, is a softening of the
sound a little like a telescope going o
NewBuyer;226069 Wrote:
> A little digital attenuation might not be a bad thing these days, with
> the current trend of recording so close to the 0dbfs level (sometimes
> even exceeding it).
>
> I'm also told that hardware implementations (including recent
> upsampling dacs) that natively widen a
> If you think you are going to actually hear a 1 in 16 million
error...you are wrong!
As i pointed out before. Maybe not audible. It is measureable
mathematically according to the guide that was linked in my post. It
can be more than 1 bit and sample rates, or just maybe only loss of
sample rate
A little digital attenuation might not be a bad thing these days, with
the current trend of recording so close to the 0dbfs level (sometimes
even exceeding it).
I'm also told that hardware implementations (including recent
upsampling dacs) that natively widen an input S/PDIF signal to 24-bit
duri
eiret;226048 Wrote:
> > darrenyeats;226041 Wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 8bit = 255
> > 16bit = 65535
> > 24bit = 16777215
> > start-programs-accesories-calculator-push advanced-place a tick on
> > bin-type 8bits -place a tick on dec=255
> > Do the same again with 16 1`s and 24 1`s.
darrenyeats;226041 Wrote:
> > eiret;226036 Wrote:
> >
> >
> > So, in your example, the sound amplitude is represented as 21.
> >
> > But if you multiply 21 by 256 first (which is like what happens when
> > you upsample from 16 bits to 24 bits) the amplitude is now represented
> > by 5376. Div
eiret;226036 Wrote:
> > cliveb;226016 Wrote:
> > Presumably you are referring to the "digital volume control" section in
> > the "computer audio playback setup guide",
> >
> > Here is the mathematic : EXAMPLE (decimal numbers are used for
> > simplicity):
> > When multipling 21 by 0.5 (equati
cliveb;226016 Wrote:
> Presumably you are referring to the "digital volume control" section in
> the "computer audio playback setup guide",
>
> Here is the mathematic : EXAMPLE (decimal numbers are used for
> simplicity):
> When multipling 21 by 0.5 (equation: 21 * 0.5), the result is 10.5.
cliveb;226016 Wrote:
> Presumably you are referring to the "digital volume control" section in
> the "computer audio playback setup guide", and have noted this
> sentence:
>
> Please note the very important words "can" and "potentially" in this
> sentence. Just because something *can* happen doe
eiret;226012 Wrote:
> The experts are here
> http://extra.benchmarkmedia.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
>
Presumably you are referring to the "digital volume control" section in
the "computer audio playback setup guide", and have noted this
sentence:
>
> Disasterous distortion can potentially ari
Phil Leigh;225999 Wrote:
> I'm not quite sure who these "experts" are that you refer to, but I'd
> take more notice of the fact that some of the nicest setups in use on
> this forum are using a TP directly into active speakers such as
> ATC100's. These are very revealing setups. Clearly the "expe
I'm not quite sure who these "experts" are that you refer to, but I'd
take more notice of the fact that some of the nicest setups in use on
this forum are using a TP directly into active speakers such as
ATC100's. These are very revealing setups. Clearly the "experts" are
wrong (yet again) because
eiret;225972 Wrote:
> I am not an audiophile, i post here anyway.
> Experts recommend analog volum control and digital volum set to 100%.
> You are all agree about that i think. Since you cant hear any decrease
> in audio quality when using digital volume compare to analog volum
> control, i thin
I am not an audiophile, i post here anyway.
Experts recommend analog volum control and digital volum set to 100%.
You are all agree about that i think. Since you cant hear any decrease
in audio quality when using digital volume compare to analog volum
control, i think we are using 24 or 16 bit all
seanadams;225886 Wrote:
> Transporter sure gets close... it can definitely resolve 21 bits.
Cool - that's literally " a bit better than most" ROTFL
Sounds like strapline to me!
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
Transporter sure gets close... it can definitely resolve 21 bits.
--
seanadams
seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38233
You can't agree here - this is the -Audiophile- forum!
--
adamslim
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have
others
http://www.last.fm/user/AdamSlim/
'Last.fm group: people who don't listen to any of last.fm's top
artists'
(http://www.last.fm/group/People+who+don%27t
Phil Leigh;225846 Wrote:
> Clive - by true 24-bit I simply mean that the files were (allegedly)
> recorded at 24-bit resolution. My whole point is that the last 4 bits
> don't have anything but noise in them IMHO - so I think we are agreeing
> :o)
>
> It certainly is possible to record 24-bit -
cliveb;225841 Wrote:
> And IMHO you can also add to the ever-growing audio myth pile "true
> 24-bit audio". Is there *any* device out there in the real world with a
> noise floor down at -144dB?
>
> (PS. I also think the digital volume control works just fine).
Clive - by true 24-bit I simply m
Phil Leigh;225826 Wrote:
> I think we can add this to the ever-growing audio myth pile (you know -
> along with "coax is always better than toslink" - that sort of thing!)
>
> By the way, even with true 24-bit audio I reckon you can probably lose
> the last 4 bits or so without anyone actually n
adamslim;225816 Wrote:
> The SB3 volume control is quite transparent - it all works at 24 bits,
> so for CDs does not truncate bits (the major quality loss) until you
> are reducing volume really quite a lot. However, it will increase the
> S/N ratio in the DAC, which will have a small impact on
The SB3 volume control is quite transparent - it all works at 24 bits,
so for CDs does not truncate bits (the major quality loss) until you
are reducing volume really quite a lot. However, it will increase the
S/N ratio in the DAC, which will have a small impact on quality - but
this may be less
The main SB3 volume control work in the digital domain, it's best to
leave this at 0Db/100%
If most music still sounds too loud compared to your other inputs to
the pre-amplifier/amplifier, use the slimserver web-interface and goto
Home / Player Settings for {SB3 name} / Audio.
In the PREAMP VOL
Hello,
I've just bought a SB3. I use the analog outputs in my good quality
pre-amplifier/amplifier.
I'm used to adjust sound level on my amp, not the listening device,
however I saw that the SB3 had volume adjustment.
So I guess that there is some kind of pre-amplifier in the SB3, is this
right,
46 matches
Mail list logo