This is an interesting thread although I must admit that Ive struggled
to understand it once or twice.
For the avoidance of doubt, perhaps you could just confirm something to
me.
I run my SB Touch into a Meridian 24bit DAC and then into a 502
preamp.
I have recently obtained a Meridian 518 to
acanning;541277 Wrote:
I run my SB Touch into a Meridian 24bit DAC and then into a 502 preamp.
I have recently obtained a Meridian 518 to play with which is proving
interesting although Im struggling to hear any real difference. As Im
sure many of you know the 518 can be used as a
acanning;541277 Wrote:
This is an interesting thread although I must admit that Ive struggled
to understand it once or twice.
For the avoidance of doubt, perhaps you could just confirm something to
me.
I run my SB Touch into a Meridian 24bit DAC and then into a 502
preamp.
I have
The 518 is more than jsut a digital pre - does a lot of other things
that will influence sonics.
Go to the meridian site and download the 518 manual as it goes into
length about what it can do as well as the digital attn implemntation -
well worth a read for the white papers.
--
Rodney_Gold
rgro;540238 Wrote:
...in a normal living circumstance, us humans really cannot hear all
of what the highest quality audio has to offer without likely damaging
our hearing?...
But what a glorious listening experience it would be, before your
hearing was quickly and permanently damaged! ;)
I had a moment recently where I heard a difference in presentation with
SB3 digi volume at about 30% (it was at night!) and my analogue pre at
the equivalent level. The Krell's pre seemed to be less sibilant on a
particular track (which I felt was good with that track) and darker
overall.
My
darrenyeats;540819 Wrote:
1. I tried a comparison at high digi volume too. The difference in
character described above remained constant! This indicates that it is
not the digi volume changing the character of the signal but quite the
opposite - the Krell's pre is changing the character of
darrenyeats wrote:
1. I tried a comparison at high digi volume too. The difference in
character described above remained constant! This indicates that it is
not the digi volume changing the character of the signal but quite the
opposite - the Krell's pre is changing the character of the
cliveb;539812 Wrote:
This is true: analogue attenuation after a DAC as opposed to digital
attenuation before the DAC preserves more of the DAC's resolution. But
the point I was trying to make was in the context of turning down the
playback loudness when listening to music...
Let's say
Interesting and absurd discussion, S/N ratio or dynamic is not rely the
key to good sound. If so nobody would have stuck to analogue sources
because they are vastly inferior.
I think the author shows 24 bit at end listening is a marketing hype
since you cant rely use more than 20 bit S/N I the
Fortunately most speakers would explode in flames rather than produce
140dB SPL!
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd call minimal...
Touch(wired/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF
Triplethreat(Audiocom full
Themis;540053 Wrote:
In my mind the value of the samples are supposed to represent a sum of
functions necessary for reconstructing a signal (band-limited) that
changes in time. In other words, the value of one sample is of interest
only compared to the values of the two samples that surround
mswlogo;540025 Wrote:
I think you'll be surprized how many bits you can hear and it will be
fairly close to the limit of the DAC.
You're also assuming the DAC is perfect and that every bit peforms
identically. It doesn't.
I have plenty of 20bit (HDCD), DTS (24 bit), SACD 24/88
Phil Leigh;540057 Wrote:
To perform DSP other than basic level control such as volume or
fade-in/out (e.g. EQ, DRC) requires much more complex mathematics than
just adding or subtracting a FIXED number to EVERY sample. The DSP
function determines by how much to alter each sample.
That's
Phil Leigh wrote:
and so on. Any sound no matter how complex can be represented by the
correct sequence of numbers.
Or more exactly, Joseph Fourier (1768–1830), French mathematician and
genus showed that any signal, audio, light, etc. no matter how complex,
can be exactly represented by a by
Themis;539864 Wrote:
Sorry, are you trying to say that the music contained in the bytes (and,
thus, the bits) represents solely the volume level ?
If it was true, then you would be right.
If not, then you're probably dropping more than just the volume level
by dropping 4 bits of data.
That
-84db and 90dB seems to be in higher pitch too at least the files I
grabbed ?
-84
-90 is in 3500kHz region
-96 etc are in A something 440 region
This invalidates my test, the god ol Fletcher Munson curve (aka
loudness)
Shows that and my test validates this, our hearing is much more
sensitive
Why I did not measure spl at the standard of 1 meter from the speaker.
The good old crappy RSmeter shows LO at that distance, so I don't have
that much gain.
it is unreliable 60dB in general it's pos but hey that's an item every
one of us have ;)
--
Mnyb
... or to put it even more bluntly:
Whether or not you can hear a -96dB (16 bits) test tone at your normal
listening position with your amp on FULL tells you precisely nothing
because:
1) You never listen at anything like this level, so you would never
hear any musical signal at this low level
Mnyb;540070 Wrote:
-84db and 90dB seems to be in higher pitch too at least the files I
grabbed ?
-84
-90 is in 3500kHz region
-96 etc are in A something 440 region
This invalidates my test, the god ol Fletcher Munson curve (aka
loudness)
Shows that and my test validates this, our
I did some 3.5k files
-102 if I lean forward 1 meter otherwise -96 system is probable better
but It then i gets masked by my tinnitus, and freq response in right
ear is damaged in the midrange.
-120dB with relatively good ear (the left one) 1,5 from midrange
driver.
My ex gf would probably
I don't know where the math stops, or, to be more precise, I'm not sure
where there's a approximation in interpreting the resulting
Nyquist-Shannon curve after a digital attenuation, but:
I did the test (once more) this morning.
Plugged the SBT through the analog output and a preamp (fed through
Mnyb;540089 Wrote:
I did some 3.5k files
-102 if I lean forward 1 meter otherwise -96 system is probable better
but It then i gets masked by my tinnitus, and freq response in right
ear is damaged in the midrange.
-120dB with relatively good ear (the left one) 1,5 from midrange
driver.
rgro;540167 Wrote:
I don't usually participate in this forum because, frankly, I'm an utter
and complete idiot when it comes to this sort of stuff. Not sure if this
is OT or if I'm hijacking the threadmy apologies if either are
true.
But, in reading, a question did come to mind: does
Phil Leigh;540179 Wrote:
Well Rick that's actually an interesting question but I don't believe it
has anything to do with detail...
IMO (and many other peoples) each track has its optimum minimum level
for playback - if it's quieter it just sounds a bit weak and
unexciting. Get to that
rgro wrote:
Again, my apologies for being stupid, but I find this rather
fascinating. Assuming your example of properly recorded music at 16
bit---having a DR of 96db..is that 96db something one can measure
with a decibal meter or is that measured via some other methodology?
pfarrell;540197 Wrote:
rgro wrote:
Again, my apologies for being stupid, but I find this rather
fascinating. Assuming your example of properly recorded music at 16
bit---having a DR of 96db..is that 96db something one can
measure
with a decibal meter or is that measured via some
Phil Leigh wrote:
Pat - I believe it's been done in an underground anechoic chamber - I
can't find the reference now - but basically I agree!
I've been inside two anechoic chambers, and can say that there are not
many of them, they are expensive, and being in one is very weird.
Neither of them
pfarrell;540207 Wrote:
Phil Leigh wrote:
Pat - I believe it's been done in an underground anechoic chamber -
I
can't find the reference now - but basically I agree!
I've been inside two anechoic chambers, and can say that there are not
many of them, they are expensive, and being in one
On 25/04/10 17:14, Phil Leigh wrote:
pfarrell;540207 Wrote:
I've been inside two anechoic chambers, and can say that there are not
many of them, they are expensive, and being in one is very weird.
Neither of them were underground, but they were weird enough that I
couldn't stand being in
Phil Leigh;540196 Wrote:
It's just maths. Each bit = (just over) 6dB... 16x6=96dB (from memory
it's actually 98.1dB)
A simple explanation can be found here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth
The difference between the lowest(non zero) and highest possible output
voltage
rgro;540238 Wrote:
So, in essence, is what you're all saying that, in a normal living
circumstance, us humans really cannot hear all of what the highest
quality audio has to offer without likely damaging our hearing?
Is much of the debate about audio simply about trying to wring the most
Phil Leigh;540211 Wrote:
yeah - I was in once...made me feel sick or paranoid... not sure which!
Not an experience I want to repeat.
Was in one too as a group. We were quietly listening to the blood
surging when somebody's tummy growled. Wasn't very silent after
that...
--
lrossouw
Rodney_Gold;539635 Wrote:
The ambient noise in a room is not the lowest level you can hear , you
can hear way below that. It's the same as hearing a conversation in a
noisy environment , it doesnt have to be above the noise level for you
to still hear it.
Indeed, in a room where there is
cliveb;538777 Wrote:
...And when you use analogue attenuation you are sliding the music out
of that range.
Isn't cliveb right about this - aren't there similar
SNR/dynamic-range/distortion etc issues regarding the effect of analog
attenuation as well?
--
NewBuyer
mlsstl;539553 Wrote:
If you look at analog recording and playback equipment - turntables and
open reels, you are really pretty lucky to have a S/N ratio in the 60
to 70 dB range yet there are many fine sounding recordings done in
those formats.
While I generally agree with the principle
NewBuyer;539658 Wrote:
I'm wondering: Isn't cliveb right about this? Aren't there similar
SNR/dynamic-range/distortion etc issues regarding the effect of analog
attenuation as well?
analogue attenuation (in a preamp) lowers the noise from all components
prior to the pre-amp, along with the
Themis;539651 Wrote:
Indeed, in a room where there is music, noise and several conversations,
you can still listen to a single person speaking and discard all the
rest.
Same happens with music coming out from speakers and indirect sounds
from the listening room : the brain has a great
Phil Leigh;539680 Wrote:
analogue attenuation (in a preamp) lowers the noise from all components
prior to the pre-amp, along with the signal. This maintains the SNR as
constant (ignoring any noise from the power amp itself - and they are
usally -100dB these days)
digital attenuation ahead
mswlogo;539606 Wrote:
Using -10db digital attenuation is HUGE. You will hear it.
That is partly why I wrote the test. You'll hear ~3bits less on top of
what your DAC can resolve. If you could hear 20bits now you'll only
hear 17bits.
And the difference between 17bit music and 20bit music
NewBuyer;539686 Wrote:
I agree totally - however don't most (all?) active analog preamps,
contribute their own character and some noise/distortion to the
output signal as well?
Sure, so if you don't like that, an alternative is to use fixed or
adjustable attenuators (resistor network) to pad
Rodney_Gold;539635 Wrote:
The ambient noise in a room is not the lowest level you can hear , you
can hear way below that. It's the same as hearing a conversation in a
noisy environment , it doesnt have to be above the noise level for you
to still hear it.
I know :-)
But the higher the
Phil Leigh;539688 Wrote:
Sure, so if you don't like that, an alternative is to use fixed or
adjustable attenuators (resistor network) to pad down the gain into the
power amp. This will add far less noise/distortion etc than a typical
full-blown pre-amp.
Yes that's my experience as well :) -
NewBuyer;539701 Wrote:
Yes that's my experience as well :) - my favorite attenuators are the
Endler Shotgun Attenuators, which somehow sound significantly better
than all others I've tried.
I'm now wondering: -If- within reasonable ranges it's kind of a wash
between active-analog vs.
Phil Leigh;539680 Wrote:
NewBuyer;539658 Wrote:
I'm wondering: Isn't cliveb right about this? Aren't there similar
SNR/dynamic-range/distortion etc issues regarding the effect of analog
attenuation as well?
analogue attenuation (in a preamp) lowers the noise from all
components
Clive - thanks... I can enjoy the rest of the weekend now :-)
A nice Rioja, some BBQ, some music...
That is exactly the point I failed to make many posts ago. You are a
shining beacon of clarity. Cheers Mate!
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
cliveb;539812 Wrote:
Bottom line: when you turn down the playback volume, the low level
details drop below the bottom of the audibility envelope. Doesn't
matter whether you use analogue or digital attenuation. Digital throws
away the bits you can't hear anymore. Analogue preserves them, but
cliveb;539812 Wrote:
But now let's suppose you've used digital attenuation: you'll have
thrown away 4 bits of resolution. Sounds pretty dire, right? BUT THESE
ARE THE FOUR BITS YOU CAN'T HEAR ANYMORE BECAUSE YOU'VE TURNED THE
VOLUME DOWN. I don't understand why this basic simple fact is so
Themis;539864 Wrote:
Sorry, are you trying to say that the music contained in the bytes (and,
thus, the bits) represents solely the volume level ?
I could be wrong, but I believe that the bits DO represent just the
volume - doesn't each sample represent the amplitude of the original
michael123;539824 Wrote:
The bottom line is that when you attenuate digitally more than 10db (as
said here and elsewhere as well), you should better use quality analog
preamp.
using the original test,
I got 96db using Transporter - Amp,
and 108db with Transporter-Preamp-Amp
Hi
And Thanks for the very clear illustration on the meridian wiki page.
(did everybody in this tread actually followed the link, or did u
ramble on as is the usual mo in forums )
I'll try to see if reach 15 bit's in my sweet spot, my hearing is also
slightly damaged.
--
Mnyb
chill;539949 Wrote:
I could be wrong, but I believe that the bits DO represent just the
volume - doesn't each sample represent the amplitude of the original
analogue wave? At 44,100 samples per second, the varying amplitude
recreates the individual frequencies in the original signal up to
chill;539949 Wrote:
I could be wrong, but I believe that the bits DO represent just the
volume - doesn't each sample represent the amplitude of the original
analogue wave? At 44,100 samples per second, the varying amplitude
recreates the individual frequencies in the original signal up to
mswlogo;538990 Wrote:
RE: 3) Don't assume attenuation is only achieved shifting things down
digitally. You can have soft full scale data. Read up on Compression
and Expansion. Even if Fading is done purely by digital amplitude why
would you want to operate always Faded (attenuated
audiomuze;539208 Wrote:
Huh? I'm not sure I understand the context...where are you coming from?
..not using digital attenuation for more than 10db
more than that has significant impact on high-end setup (== does not
necessarily means lot of , but high-resolution speakers and
The only real value of attenuating a 16 bit signal in the digital domain
at 24 bits is that you do not get truncation distortion , you can still
work in the 24/36/48 bit domain even tho most audio equipment cannot
resolve more than 21 bits due to component thermal noise etc. You don't
get 8 bits
Rodney_Gold;539292 Wrote:
The only real value of attenuating a 16 bit signal in the digital domain
at 24 bits is that you do not get truncation distortion , you can still
work in the 24/36/48 bit domain even tho most audio equipment cannot
resolve more than 21 bits due to component thermal
The dither added to linearise the requantization distortion will add
white noise..there are no free lunches with digital attn. what is
actually audible is another story
--
Rodney_Gold
Sb3/Z-sys RDP1/meridian DSP5500's
TP/X-cans v3/Senns 650's
TP/SCM 50a's
SB3/Meridian DSP5000's
TP/PS audio
The dither added to linearise requantisation will add white noise -
raising the noise floor - what's audible is another question - no free
lunches with digital attn.
--
Rodney_Gold
Sb3/Z-sys RDP1/meridian DSP5500's
TP/X-cans v3/Senns 650's
TP/SCM 50a's
SB3/Meridian DSP5000's
TP/PS audio
michael123;539244 Wrote:
..not using digital attenuation for more than 10db
more than that has significant impact on high-end setup (== does not
necessarily means lot of , but high-resolution speakers and
amplification)
I had Transporter hooked directly to the amplifier, but since the
KMorgan;539331 Wrote:
...except that SB carefully avoids this for 16bit source material by
adjusting the level in 24bits in 1/256 steps. No resolution is lost in
arithmetic terms. Closer to the noise floor, yes. Lost resolution,
no.
See
michael123;539409 Wrote:
I have few hundreds of 24-bit music, so, actually, the effect of digital
volume is very audible. But that's again depends on the whole setup
...but for 24-bit sources there is also no loss of resolution! Merely a
loss of dynamic range and SNR
--
Phil Leigh
You
I thought that there is a direct relation between sample size and
dynamic range.. Anyway, it sound worse, that's my point.
--
michael123
michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745
View
michael123;539422 Wrote:
I thought that there is a direct relation between sample size and
dynamic range.. Anyway, it sound worse, that's my point.
16 bit = max 96dB DR, 24 bit = max 144dB DR (but of course in reality
no equipment/recordings can manage this... in practice with the best of
Phil Leigh;539449 Wrote:
16 bit = max 96dB DR, 24 bit = max 144dB DR (but of course in reality no
equipment/recordings can manage this... in practice with the best of
everything you might get 110dB..)
Well... actually the ambient noise level in the typical room is at
least 30dB, so you
On 23/04/10 22:44, mlsstl wrote:
I've got ordinary Redbook CDs that are simply stunning in terms of
sound quality. I know just how good an ordinary CD can sound.
When I hear a bad recording, it is not due to the setting of my digital
volume control or the fact the music came from a CD
Phil Leigh;539406 Wrote:
No Michael - I don't disagree with you. Using a maximum of 10dB of
digital attenuation is fine and is in fact what I use (max volume but
replaygain of up to -10dB). I defy anyone to detect any degradation @
-10dB.
What I do disagree with is folks who say ANYTHING
The ambient noise in a room is not the lowest level you can hear , you
can hear way below that. It's the same as hearing a conversation in a
noisy environment , it doesnt have to be above the noise level for you
to still hear it.
--
Rodney_Gold
Sb3/Z-sys RDP1/meridian DSP5500's
TP/X-cans
It's actually quite difficult to understand exactly what your test
involves, but looking at your linked page, I get the impression that
you are proposing this:
1. Take a file with a very low level signal (eg. -80dB).
2. Play it without digital attenuation, and increase the analogue gain
until
It's actually quite difficult to understand exactly what your test
involves, but looking at your linked page, I get the impression that
you are proposing this:
1. Take a file with a very low level signal (eg. -80dB).
2. Play it without digital attenuation, and increase the analogue gain
until
cliveb;538777 Wrote:
It's actually quite difficult to understand exactly what your test
involves, but looking at your linked page, I get the impression that
you are proposing this:
1. Take a file with a very low level signal (eg. -80dB).
2. Play it without digital attenuation, and
mswlogo;538905 Wrote:
What it tells you is the limit of your DAC even in the MOST EXTREME
UNREALISTIC WORLD.
And pray tell why I should care about these EXTREME UNREALISTIC
circumstances?
mswlogo;538905 Wrote:
Even with 6dB (1 bit of attenuation) you can EASILY hear a difference in
these
I have a Duet and a high-quality external DAC going into my preamp. My
kids use the SB Receiver volume control and are perfectly happy with
it. However, I always turn the SB volume up to 100 and use my preamp.
A few times, I noticed the system isn't really sounding very good.
Invariably, it ends
mps;538936 Wrote:
I have a Duet and a high-quality external DAC going into my preamp. My
kids use the SB Receiver volume control and are perfectly happy with
it. However, I always turn the SB volume up to 100 and use my preamp.
A few times, I noticed the system isn't really sounding very
I never use digital attenuation, because, in my system, as I listen to
relatively low levels, there is an audible difference with an analog
one.
I did the test several times, I prefer a good analog preamp.
Those who don't hear any difference do as they like. ;)
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac
cliveb;538926 Wrote:
And pray tell why I should care about these EXTREME UNREALISTIC
circumstances?
Of course you can. So what?
Rght... I routinely accept the assurances of strangers, of course.
Heaven forbid that, having compared my Transporter via a preamp versus
direct
I haven't got time to get deeply into this a the moment but:
1) if you can only hear a very very quiet sound with your ear pressed
against a driver I can absolutely guarantee you can't hear it at all at
1 metre/3 feet away. The inverse square rule sees to that.
2) any sound in the 3 least
Phil Leigh;538958 Wrote:
I haven't got time to get deeply into this a the moment but:
1) if you can only hear a very very quiet sound with your ear pressed
against a driver I can absolutely guarantee you can't hear it at all at
1 metre/3 feet away. The inverse square rule sees to that.
I very quickly switched to 100% full volume @ Transporter and routed the
signal through analog preamp. The difference in sound was astonishing.
But this is written in both reviews in absolute sound and stereophile.
I also exchanged some correspondence with Steven Stone from TAS to
confirm my
I very quickly switched to 100% full volume @ Transporter and routed the
signal through analog preamp. The difference in sound was astonishing.
But this is written in both reviews in absolute sound and stereophile.
I also exchanged some correspondence with Steven Stone from TAS to
confirm my
michael123;539053 Wrote:
I very quickly switched to 100% full volume @ Transporter and routed the
signal through analog preamp. The difference in sound was astonishing.Huh?
I'm not sure I understand the context...where are you coming from?
--
audiomuze
'Cable break-in is real, and
I have been struggling for years why my system sounded different when I
bypassed my digital Preamp (which attenuated 3dB due to Speaker
Calibration). I've always thought heck it's all 24bit once it gets in
the preamp (similar to how SqueezeBox/Transporter does digital volume).
24-bit does NOT
201 - 282 of 282 matches
Mail list logo
