Daverz;594719 Wrote:
I've had a chance to use the Touch's digital volume control with a
variety of equipment over the last several months.
...
In my opinion, the digital volume control is as transparent, if not
more so, than my pre-amp volume control (a BAT 3ix tube pre-amp).
ncarver;595022 Wrote:
You don't say how you used it, but I can tell you that setting the
Touch's digital volume to like 30-40 to get quiet music leads to
something that sounds like a pale imitation of the original, while
leaving it at 100 and setting the analog volume controls on my preamps
I guess I ranted a bit because I felt the whole red herring about how
evil DVC is was hugely unhelpful.
--
Daverz
Daverz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32335
View this thread:
I've had a chance to use the Touch's digital volume control with a
variety of equipment over the last several months.
The DACs used are a Cambridge Audio 840C and a Neko D100. (I'll try to
post more on the Neko in another thread. It's a very interesting DAC
for those wanting to feed an amp
Daverz;594719 Wrote:
Frankly, I find the statement that opened this thread to be absolute
nonsense. I don't know where the don't use more than 10 dB of
attenuation idea mentioned by some comes from, either.
Good for you..
--
michael123
michael123;594727 Wrote:
good for you..
+1 :)
--
mswlogo
Transporter/DuetController SPDIF Meridian G68 DSP6000, DSP5500HC,
DSP5000
It's the speakers and room stupid.
'My Transporter Setup'
(http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=350741postcount=45)
'Hitch Hikers Guide to
This thread has got some track-shun! I got nothing. I ditched the
digital volume control idea a while ago. Big fan of the Alps Blue
Velvet.
--
earwaxer9
System: modified Winsome Labs Mouse, modified Maggie MMG's, Transporter,
HSU sub 12, MSB DAC to 500 watt sub slave amp, JPS labs power
Just decided to experiment with direct connection and I'm glad I did.
Going direct instead of through my BAT 3iX tube pre-amp really wakes up
my Vandersteen Quatros (I bought the BAT before I bought the Quatros).
Going direct really brightens things up. But I have to attenuate at
least 20dB to
mswlogo;544022 Wrote:
When you turn it down in analog your noise floor goes down with it (for
the most part). When you turn it down in digital it does not !!
True (subject to the caveat pointed out by Phil). But the whole point
I've been trying to get across is that if the noise floor starts
I've been thinking about Darren's comments on the DSP x-overs...
I'm not sure of the block diagram of the Meridian DSP speakers, but
with any multi-way speaker the driver sensitivities are usally
different by a small number of dB. One of the benefits of (any form of)
active crossover is that
Phil Leigh;544239 Wrote:
I've been thinking about Darren's comments on the DSP x-overs...
I'm not sure of the block diagram of the Meridian DSP speakers, but
with any multi-way speaker the driver sensitivities are usally
different by a small number of dB. One of the benefits of (any form
darrenyeats;544251 Wrote:
Edit: I have said all this already but I'm not complaining. In fact I'm
pleased that someone else has looked at it and come to similar
conclusions - it means that I'm not going crazy! LOL.
Darren
Sorry - Darren - didn't mean to repeat you!
--
Phil Leigh
You
darrenyeats;544251 Wrote:
Exactly, thanks Phil. I think even with analogue boosting each crossover
band, which is best case, you're still left with DSP EQ in-band -
shifting bits down (in some or perhaps much of the frequency range) -
as you say.
Edit: I have said all this already but I'm
darrenyeats;544251 Wrote:
Exactly, thanks Phil. I think even with analogue boosting each crossover
band, which is best case, you're still left with DSP EQ in-band -
shifting bits down (in some or perhaps much of the frequency range) -
as you say.
Edit: I have said all this already but I'm
mswlogo;544265 Wrote:
You guys are willing to grab at anything to explain this.
I guess you missed the transporter test that doesn't exactly trounce
the squeezebox, does it? Only slightly better.
But I'm sure that's f'ked up too for some reason.
erm - I'm not trying to explain
Phil Leigh;544274 Wrote:
erm - I'm not trying to explain anything...I'm trying to get to the
bottom of why you feel it so important not to attenuate anything
digitally at all in YOUR setup, whilst other people (including me) have
no issue with the concept, because they can't hear anything
Phil Leigh;544274 Wrote:
erm - I'm not trying to explain anything...I'm trying to get to the
bottom of why you feel it so important not to attenuate anything
digitally at all in YOUR setup, whilst other people (including me) have
no issue with the concept, because they can't hear anything
http://www.mlssa.com/pdf/Upsampling-theory-rev-2.pdf
Last para, page 4.
There was some mention earlier of all bits not being equal... indeed
not.
It would seem in fact the best bits are not the MSB's, because they
exhibit the most differential non-linearity (aka one form of digital
distortion).
mswlogo;544265 Wrote:
I guess you missed the transporter test that doesn't exactly trounce the
squeezebox, does it? Only slightly better.
mswlogo, I was looking for that but I couldn't find it. Can you send a
link please?
Darren
--
darrenyeats
mswlogo;544284 Wrote:
Thanks for trying.
Please stop saying nobody else hears it on their setup as well. There
is at least half a dozen folks that jumped in along the way and said,
Yup I hear too on my system, and always use Max.
Yeah, probably because the DSP crossovers are pushing the
On 07/05/10 14:18, mswlogo wrote:
Please stop saying nobody else hears it on their setup as well.
There is at least half a dozen folks that jumped in along the way and
said, Yup I hear too on my system, and always use Max.
Can you please at least do us the courtesy of reading what we
mswlogo;544284 Wrote:
Thanks for trying.
Please stop saying nobody else hears it on their setup as well. There
is at least half a dozen folks that jumped in along the way and said,
Yup I hear too on my system, and always use Max.
Nobody has successfully demonstrated a DBT that supports
mswlogo;544284 Wrote:
Thanks for trying.
Please stop saying nobody else hears it on their setup as well. There
is at least half a dozen folks that jumped in along the way and said,
Yup I hear too on my system, and always use Max.
Nobody has successfully demonstrated a DBT that supports
darrenyeats;544295 Wrote:
mswlogo, I was looking for that but I couldn't find it. Can you send a
link please? Edit: found it in related thread.
Too? Has someone claimed something else is f'ked up?
Darren
Actually it just may be. But willing to admit errors unlike some
folks.
I plan to
mswlogo;543643 Wrote:
Cool. Thanks.
Do you know what aplies it? Hardware (Transporter) or SlimServer
plugin?
Does Transporter have to be below MAX in order for Replay Gain to
boost? That's doee there have to headroom?
Does it apply dither?
I'd like to boost some CD's up to full
Phil Leigh;543838 Wrote:
Replaygain quick 101:
1) using something like Foobar will calculate the correct RG tags to
achieve an RMS loudness of 89dB for each album. Separate tags are
written (in each track) for the track on its own and for the album as a
set of tracks.
2) Using the
mswlogo;543842 Wrote:
I'd only apply +6dB gain if Replay Gain says I have that much headroom
in the whole album (i.e. Peak_Album 0.50)
To bad there is no mode to simply say Full Scale Album basically add
as much gain as the peak_album tag says there is room for. That's
exactly what the
cliveb;543849 Wrote:
It sounds as if you'd like to use ReplayGain as a way of peak
normalising your albums. That's not what RG is for - it is specifically
aimed at equalising the perceived loudness during playback amongst
albums (or tracks). Incidentally, RG doesn't just use RMS level to
mswlogo;543857 Wrote:
You're really having a hard time grasping this full scale stuff aren't
you.
Er, no. *YOU* are having a hard time grapsing that all these
theoretical issues have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER in a normal listening
situation.
mswlogo;543857 Wrote:
You're not really
pfarrell;543694 Wrote:
Its not just rounding errors. Nearly all DSP is done by converting the
time-doman signal to the frequency domain using a FFT. DSP chips are
notable because they do a combined multiply-and-add function quickly,
usually massively parallel processing. Nearly all of the
darrenyeats;543926 Wrote:
I agree with mswlogo that the lower bits are lower performing - it's
not a black and white thing like we tend to discuss it. However, in the
initial part of the attenuation the degradation is relatively small.
Even the Squeezebox test results show this and I
On 06/05/10 14:33, mswlogo wrote:
But people keep referencing this
squeezebox test in defense as showing all is fine and it's showing it
couldn't be much worse.
I actually pointed you at that test to point out that people were aware
of the digital volume degradation issue, rather than to
mswlogo;543939 Wrote:
The SqueezeBox test as I read it says the degration is HUGE !! 4bits of
attenution (Volume 20 is 24dB) drops to 75dB dynamic range. Nearly
4bits lost for 4bits of attenuation. It's practically behaving like a
16bit DAC, that the low 8 bits don't even exist !!! It's
On 06/05/10 14:51, darrenyeats wrote:
Much more importantly I suggest you look at the detail - the
degradation is not linear!
I seem to recall that the 0-40 attenuation curve was non-linear - it
changed a bit over the years, from what I recall.
That would explain why the degradtion is
mswlogo;543939 Wrote:
It's practically behaving like a 16bit DAC, that the low 8 bits don't
even exist !!! It's behaving like a 16.5bit DAC.
Of course, it has a SNR of a bit more than 100db. Nearly 1 bit better
than 16 bits. The results make sense, nothing to do with how many bits
are in the
darrenyeats;543954 Wrote:
It has a SNR of a little more than 100db. Approaching 1 bit better
than 16 bits. The results make sense to me, nothing to do with how many
bits are in the DAC.
With such a SNR it could be 48 bit DAC digitally speaking but the
results would be the same! It is
mswlogo;543960 Wrote:
I totally agree and that is probably a better way to look at it. It has
a fixed total SNR. 100dB. By attenuating digitally your sliding within
a 100dB window. Which is what I said, 100dB is about 16.5bits. I think
we are on the same page there. I agree you can call it
mswlogo;543960 Wrote:
I totally agree and that is probably a better way to look at it. It has
a fixed total SNR. 100dB. By attenuating digitally your sliding within
a 100dB window. Which is what I said, 100dB is about 16.5bits. I think
we are on the same page there. I agree you can call it
cliveb;543993 Wrote:
You appear to be making the classic mistake of assuming you need as much
dynamic range when listening at low levels as you do when listening at
high levels. You don't.
If you need 100dB of dynamic range when listening at a peak level of
100dB SPL, then you only need
cliveb;543993 Wrote:
You appear to be making the classic mistake of assuming you need as much
dynamic range when listening at low levels as you do when listening at
high levels. You don't.
If you need 100dB of dynamic range when listening at a peak level of
100dB SPL, then you only need
darrenyeats;543999 Wrote:
I'm not sure about that, Clive. I think mswlogo has a point (crazy
thread mswlogo, crazy thread!) although I would put it this way: human
hearing adjusts to new sound levels. So turning down the volume could
actually enable you to hear quieter sounds!
It's a bit
darrenyeats;543999 Wrote:
I'm not sure about that, Clive. I think mswlogo has a point (crazy
thread mswlogo, crazy thread!) although I would put it this way: human
hearing adjusts to new sound levels. So turning down the volume could
actually enable you to hear quieter sounds!
It's a bit
mswlogo;543997 Wrote:
One smash of a symbol will start full scale and decay in amplitude. As
it decays the performance of those lower bits get more important.
Yes, absolutely. As the cymbal crash dies away, the lower level detail
is no longer masked by the loud crash. Therefore you need
Phil Leigh;544008 Wrote:
Human AGC is quite slow to act. It won't track the levels in that
Offenbach example. It's not intended to be a fast-acting compressor -
we have an evolutionary need to differentiate loud/quiet to stay alive
(loud=near, quiet=far away to misquote Father Ted...) The
cliveb;544011 Wrote:
Yes, absolutely. As the cymbal crash dies away, the lower level detail
is no longer masked by the loud crash. Therefore you need accurate
reproduction of the lower bits to hear the subtle aspects. So we are in
agreement? Er, no...
Let's say you're listening to a piece
One thing I think we are hung up on is.
Your saying the noise floor of the room is the limitation and I'm
saying it's the DAC.
You're also considering that floor as a discrete wall.
It's not really, that's the problem.
As you shift down ALL the bits perform progressively worse. Not just
the
mswlogo;544022 Wrote:
When you turn it down in analog your noise floor goes down with it (for
the most part). When you turn it down in digital it does not !!
Not exactly - with digital attenuation, the noise floor of the
recording does go down but the noise floor of the DAC stays fixed. I
Phil Leigh;544035 Wrote:
Not exactly - with digital attenuation, the noise floor of the recording
does go down but the noise floor of the DAC stays fixed. I think this is
the crux.
I think the noise floor of the recording always swamps that of the DAC.
This is certainly true of any
mswlogo;544033 Wrote:
As you shift down ALL the bits perform progressively worse. Not just the
least significant one(s).
Yes, yes, mswlogo, all the bits perform progressively worse! LOL.
May I add once more, if the quantisation noise of a 16 bit signal is at
-96db and you have a DAC with
mswlogo;543330 Wrote:
...At 80 (on the new Transporter scale) you are not attenuating a
normal range for volume control... Dropping down to 80 is not really
a legit range to test... with that test you probably only lose a little
over .5 bits... If you only drop 10dB it would be difficult to
I thought we had established that we are not losing detail until
you've shifted over 4 bits but raising the noise floor out of the DAC
(so the quietest sounds get closer to it or even in extreme cases,
below it - although you can still hear them). Personally I reckon you
can lose 4 more bits
Hi there,
i have a problem. I crashed my new amp (creek). i just have a sb3
classic with a creek destiny. The destiny crashed after two hours. Then
we tried it again with a diffent device (creek destiny) the new device
crashed also. Now..The advice was to lower the output signal of my SB,
mswlogo;543050 Wrote:
Correct in that example Volume 20 has has 75.8dB of dynamic range.
They also note that Volume 20 is 50%. I believe translating that,
that would mean 50% of the 0-96dB scale. Or in other words 48dB of
attenuation. 8bits of attenuation.
For the Volume 30 case. They
johannes;543568 Wrote:
Hi there,
i have a problem. I crashed my new amp (creek). i just have a sb3
classic with a creek destiny. The destiny crashed after two hours. Then
we tried it again with a diffent device (creek destiny) the new device
crashed also. Now..The advice was to lower the
Phil Leigh;543499 Wrote:
I thought we had established that we are not losing detail until
you've shifted over 4 bits but raising the noise floor out of the DAC
(so the quietest sounds get closer to it or even in extreme cases,
below it - although you can still hear them). Personally I
darrenyeats;543576 Wrote:
I think I see where you're coming from.
If you look at the tests volume 30 is 12.5db of attenuaton but the
result is only 7.1db reduction in dynamic range from 40 (max). This is
noticeably different to stepping from volume 30 to volume 20, a further
12.5db
mswlogo;543590 Wrote:
Correct. At least some folks are reading.
The DAC is not an absolute finite device. It's not 24bit, it's not
20bit, it's barely even 16bit.
As you shift down. You're not losing discrete WHOLE bits. You're just
pushing them into a range of the DAC where it performs
mswlogo;543590 Wrote:
Correct. At least some folks are reading.
The DAC is not an absolute finite device. It's not 24bit, it's not
20bit, it's barely even 16bit.
As you shift down. You're not losing discrete WHOLE bits. You're just
pushing them into a range of the DAC where it performs
mswlogo;543590 Wrote:
The DAC is not an absolute finite device. It's not 24bit, it's not
20bit, it's barely even 16bit.
mswlogo,
In principle, I agree. But it's a question of how good the particular
DAC is whether this effect impinges materially.
Have a look at
mswlogo;543590 Wrote:
The DAC is not an absolute finite device. It's not 24bit, it's not
20bit, it's barely even 16bit.
mswlogo,
In principle, I agree. But it's a question of how good the particular
DAC is whether this effect impinges materially.
Have a look at
darrenyeats;543596 Wrote:
mswlogo,
In principle I agree. But it's a question of how good the particular
DAC is whether this effect impinges materially.
Have a look at
http://www.stereophile.com/mediaservers/207slim/index4.html . These are
measurements on the Transporter. Look at figure 5
mswlogo;543600 Wrote:
I have a Transporter, great unit. But I don't use it's DACs. I use
Meridian DACs. I can hear loss with 6dB attenuation. And so can 22
other Meridian owners. Use analog volume.
Perhaps the reason is the following:
mswlogo;543588 Wrote:
Because they do crossover in
johannes;543568 Wrote:
Hi there,
i have a problem. I crashed my new amp (creek). i just have a sb3
classic with a creek destiny. The destiny crashed after two hours. Then
we tried it again with a diffent device (creek destiny) the new device
crashed also. Now..The advice was to lower the
mlsstl;543615 Wrote:
What do you mean by crashed your amp? Is it physically burnt out or
non-operational and needs repair?
Or is it just not functioning correctly and needs to be powered down
and restarted (as one might think of a computer crash)?
Or does it mean something else?
darrenyeats;543603 Wrote:
Perhaps the reason is the following:
Darren
For some reason quote did not work. But you said the reason I hear
differences is due to digital crossovers.
But that is a VERY good point.
It probably does impact it. But I'm sure it does not account for all of
it.
I just realized that it can't be the digital crossovers.
It was a really good thought though.
It's actually really good example where 24bit helps a lot.
The Digital Crossovers will see every pure bit even if it's attenuated.
The DSP processing is done in 48bit. Then back to 24bit. It not until
mswlogo;543588 Wrote:
I never agreed 4 bits were free. In that test Volume 20 is a 4bit shift.
If 4bits didn't lose detail you'd still have 96dB of dynamic range. But
you get 76 dB. They attenuated 4bits and lost 4bits. I must have said
that 6 times now.
Replay Gain is a slightly
Phil Leigh;543639 Wrote:
Replaygain does not clip. It assesses the peaks.
Cool. Thanks.
--
mswlogo
XP Cat5 Transporter/DuetController SPDIF Meridian G68 DSP6000,
DSP5500HC, DSP5000
XP Cat5 SB3 SPDIF Meridian DSP5000
XP Cat5 DuetReceiver SPDIF Meridian G91 DSP5000
'My
mswlogo;543630 Wrote:
For some reason quote did not work. But you said the reason I hear
differences is due to digital crossovers.
But that is a VERY good point.
It probably does impact it. But I'm sure it does not account for all of
it.
That test clearly shows significant loss due
mswlogo;543633 Wrote:
I just realized that it can't be the digital crossovers.
It was a really good thought though.
It's actually a really good example where 24bit helps a lot.
The Digital Crossovers will see every pure bit even if it's attenuated.
The DSP processing is done in 48bit.
darrenyeats;543653 Wrote:
I can understand how 48 bits helps the DSP to be more transparent (less
rounding errors).
Once the resulting signal is converted to 24 bits and passed to a DAC,
won't it be still subject to the 20 bits of dynamic range problem? Do
you see why I ask? Or perhaps
Phil Leigh;543646 Wrote:
What Sean said was very clear... any attenuation increases the noise
floor/decreases the SNR. That's all. Did he say you could ALWAYS hear
it? - NO. He expressed no opinion on that AFAIK.
You keep talking about loss - loss of what?
Mathematically until you shift
mswlogo;543684 Wrote:
As soon as you shift down (filling the top end with zeros) you are
basically throwing away dynamic range. I call it lost (or under
utilized dynamic range that you have available). Call it what ever you
like.
Correct, Sean does not say how much difference you would
mswlogo;543674 Wrote:
Correct, 48 bit just avoids rounding errors.
Yes the DSP speaker is still subject to the problems discussed here.
Once the DSP is done it's still attenuated digitally by the same amount
before it goes into the DAC.
You can read about Meridian speakers here
darrenyeats wrote:
mswlogo;543633 Wrote:
The DSP processing is done in 48bit.
I can understand how 48 bits helps the DSP to be more transparent (less
rounding errors).
Its not just rounding errors. Nearly all DSP is done by converting the
time-doman signal to the frequency domain using a
pfarrell;543694 Wrote:
DSP is more like dealing with quantum physics rather than Newtonian
physics.
You mentioned the Q-word, so the audiophile-specific version of
Godwin's Law applies, and I declare this thread closed. Thank God :-)
--
cliveb
Transporter - ATC SCM100A
pfarrell;543694 Wrote:
darrenyeats wrote:
mswlogo;543633 Wrote:
The DSP processing is done in 48bit.
I can understand how 48 bits helps the DSP to be more transparent
(less
rounding errors).
Its not just rounding errors. Nearly all DSP is done by converting the
time-doman signal
darrenyeats;543693 Wrote:
Cheers, I've now read that pdf. I don't understand this fully yet.
I was looking for something in the pdf which might explain your
statement above in particular but I couldn't find anything. Why can't
it be the digital crossovers?
Darren
Sorry I'm not going to
Just to clarify a couple of things:
1) on the old 0-40 scale, each step was 1.25dB
2) on the current 0-100 scale, each step is 0.5dB
3) on the 0-100 scale no bits are irretrievably lost from the 16
originals until the 16th (LSB) bit is shifted below the 24th (LSB) of
the bit of the volume control
Phil Leigh;543167 Wrote:
Just to clarify a couple of things:
1) on the old 0-40 scale, each step was 1.25dB
2) on the current 0-100 scale, each step is 0.5dB
3) on the 0-100 scale no bits are irretrievably lost from the 16
originals until the 16th (LSB) bit is shifted below the 24th (LSB)
mswlogo;543211 Wrote:
If you are correct on that 0 - 40 scale being 1.25db then that test
shows it's way worse than I ever anticipated.
Volume 30 would be - 12.5dB attenuation. (2-Bits). And you're down to
88dB dynamic range on the table in that test. You lose 1.25bits of
dynamic range.
Phil Leigh;543289 Wrote:
The point is that (using 0-100 scale) volume 70 = 15dB of attenuation =
SNR decreased by 15dB from 96dB to 81dB.
You need to put that 81dB SNR into perspective:
1) you won't hear the extra noise at normal volumes at normal listening
position - even playing
Great example of why you want ALL your dynamic range.
This IS Marching bands and Brahms lullaby in the same tune, BUT NOT AT
THE SAME TIME !!
http://softronix.com/pictures/levelperfect/poco%20allegro.jpg
--
mswlogo
XP Cat5 Transporter/DuetController SPDIF Meridian G68 DSP6000,
audiomuze;542825 Wrote:
Please could you share the titles so that I can avoid inadvertently
acquiring them in my travels? I don't have access to my library at
present, but I seem to recall the DVD-Audio of Eagles - Hotel
California is one of them.
You will never learn to truly enjoy music
audiomuze;542825 Wrote:
Please could you share the titles so that I can avoid inadvertently
acquiring them in my travels? I don't have access to my library at
present, but I seem to recall the DVD-Audio of Eagles - Hotel
California is one of them.
Yes - Fragile is the only one that I have
I thought I would just follow this thread rather than continue to
contribute, but I'm having trouble understanding the various viewpoints
now... and we seem to have moved on to a discussion of clipping which
different people seem to define in different ways?.
My view is:
1) getting tracks that
mswlogo;542833 Wrote:
Hotel California DVDA is a really great disc. On the contrary I find it to be
pretty loud and lacking subtlety and
inevitably turn it down when it starts because it jumps right out at
you. I much prefer the MoFi CD which I find a far more pleasant
listening experience.
On 03/05/10 09:41, audiomuze wrote:
mswlogo;542833 Wrote:
Hotel California DVDA is a really great disc. O
On the contrary I find it to be pretty loud and lacking subtlety and
inevitably turn it down when it starts because it jumps right out at
you. I much prefer the MoFi CD which I find a
audiomuze;542857 Wrote:
On the contrary I find it to be pretty loud and lacking subtlety and
inevitably turn it down when it starts because it jumps right out at
you. I much prefer the MoFi CD which I find a far more pleasant
listening experience.
Then I would have a closer look at your
Robin Bowes;542877 Wrote:
On 03/05/10 09:41, audiomuze wrote:
mswlogo;542833 Wrote:
Hotel California DVDA is a really great disc. O
On the contrary I find it to be pretty loud and lacking subtlety and
inevitably turn it down when it starts because it jumps right out at
you. I
Phil Leigh;542853 Wrote:
I thought I would just follow this thread rather than continue to
contribute, but I'm having trouble understanding the various viewpoints
now... and we seem to have moved on to a discussion of clipping which
different people seem to define in different ways?.
My
Robin Bowes;542877 Wrote:
On 03/05/10 09:41, audiomuze wrote:
mswlogo;542833 Wrote:
Hotel California DVDA is a really great disc. O
On the contrary I find it to be pretty loud and lacking subtlety and
inevitably turn it down when it starts because it jumps right out at
you. I
Robin Bowes;542877 Wrote:
On 03/05/10 09:41, audiomuze wrote:
mswlogo;542833 Wrote:
Hotel California DVDA is a really great disc. O
On the contrary I find it to be pretty loud and lacking subtlety and
inevitably turn it down when it starts because it jumps right out at
you. I
mswlogo;542880 Wrote:
I agree with most of your points. Your point here is all I was saying
when folks jumped all over it because they ran out of ideas in
explaining why ditgital attenution doesn't cost anything.
Your right it may be one track in an album. Or a few. It's not worth
losing
On 03/05/10 12:16, Phil Leigh wrote:
To be really picky, unless you are talking about a crossed-pair 2-track
recording (or a soundfield job) in a real ambience with no EQ, reverb
etc there is no natural... there is just engineered... :-)
Yes, that's true, but some recordings can sound more
mswlogo;542777 Wrote:
Because if it was 50% of the log scale that would be 48dB and I assure
you the SqueezeBox DAC would not output the low 16bits of the DAC that
well. Totally misleading.
No, it is 0.5db reduction per step downwards from 100 (0db) to 1
(-49.5db) then at 0 silence.
Robin Bowes;542890 Wrote:
On 03/05/10 12:16, Phil Leigh wrote:
To be really picky, unless you are talking about a crossed-pair
2-track
recording (or a soundfield job) in a real ambience with no EQ,
reverb
etc there is no natural... there is just engineered... :-)
Yes, that's true,
Robin Bowes;542877 Wrote:
I think what this demonstrates is that some folk prefer a compressed
sound while others prefer a more natural sound.
This is personal preference.
I prefer the latter; mswlogo seems to prefer the former.
R.That's probably what what it is. As I mostly listen to
mswlogo;542878 Wrote:
Then I would have a closer look at your system than the disks.I'm quite
confident the problem lies neither in my system nor my
listening environment. Like Robin says, I think it's down to personal
preference. I tend not to like compressed music, but that doesn't mean
Phil Leigh wrote:
Don't disagree with any of this... my Beatles point was that the
multi-tracks are inherently pre-eq'd by the nature of the equipment
in use at the time
Cute phrase. That is what all the knobs on studio consoles are for, many
of them are a per-track EQ. You setup the EQ and
1 - 100 of 282 matches
Mail list logo
