Stereoeditor;585609 Wrote:
> My apologies for not responding sooner. I was indeed busy, as the recent
> RMAF knocked a hole in my magazine work schedule that it takes a while
> to fill.
>
>
>
> It is going to depend on your playback equipment and the level at which
> you listen. A typical inex
bigblackdog;585761 Wrote:
> So guys is the touch any good
For its 300$, serving as a single standalone unit - it is good
If you're audiophile, you shall listen to one before you jump on..
--
michael123
michael123's
So guys is the touch any good
--
bigblackdog
bigblackdog's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37719
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=82050
___
adamdea;585139 Wrote:
> I am coming to terms with my disappointment at not receiving a reply
> from JA, although I know he's very busy.
My apologies for not responding sooner. I was indeed busy, as the
recent RMAF knocked a hole in my magazine work schedule that it takes a
while to fill.
> . I
adamdea;585139 Wrote:
> I am coming to terms with my disappointment at not receiving a reply
> from JA, although I know he's very busy.
> I just thought I would let him (if he's reading) and you (Phil) know
> that i have taken the plunge and bought the Principles of Digital Audio
> by Pohlmann
adamdea;582298 Wrote:
> Dear John
> It is a great privilege to have you post a reply on this thread (even
> if not to me!). I wondered if i could try you patience by asking a
> couple of questions
>
> ..
> Also can you recommend a good book an the basic principles of digital
> audio.
I am co
Dont get to too hung up on one review. Everyone has their bias. Combine
reviews to get a better feel for the "house sound" you are looking for.
Go for reputation. Squeezebox stuff is known for getting the bits to the
DAC. You have to go from there. I would trust Squeezebox with my bits
anyday! Wha
Hi: 24bit=144dBThis can't at the moment be converted to analog. Max
dynamic out of a Current DAC is: 132dB (PCM1794 / PCM1792 in mono and
balanced configuration).
I once asked a Burr Brown sales manager why they annonced 24bit whaen
it not was possible to convert this to analog. He returned wi
Wombat;582341 Wrote:
> Not exactly. Many HDCDs just decode to 17bits of audio. Some even to
> 17bits but at a peak level below -6dB so they are 16bit technically.
> Some use a few bits mor only in some places and very few ones seem to
> use more bits all the time.
> Being HDCD sometimes only mea
adamdea;582335 Wrote:
> Almost all Linn recordings are downloadable HDcd coded at a much lower
> price than the 24 bit files. Ditto reference recordings on HDtracks.
Not exactly. Many HDCDs just decode to 17bits of audio. Some even to
17bits but at a peak level below -6dB so they are 16bit techn
adamdea;582335 Wrote:
> Honestly Phil, I just like to understand things. It may amuse you to
> know that i have been quizzing a mathematician friend of mine who knows
> quite a lot about information theory (but not audio) about the effect of
> noise on digital information. He ended saying- "now t
Phil Leigh;582320 Wrote:
> Just to recap - quantization noise is an error in the lowest 1/2 bit
> (remember it's a "rounding error")and so is very tiny in a 16-bit
> scenario where the signal level of the recording is at minimum -40 to
> -50dB. You still seem to be searching for something that is
adamdea;582298 Wrote:
> Dear John
> It is a great privilege to have you post a reply on this thread (even
> if not to me!). I wondered if i could try you patience by asking a
> couple of questions
>
> I. I wonder if you could express a view as to what the cut off
> threshold for resolution (as y
adamdea;582294 Wrote:
> Thanks. This is very helpful too.
> I am afraid that having got my tiny mind a little way into this problem
> a couple of weeks ago, I then got too distracted by the tedious business
> of earning a living etc to pose the next incisive question which I have
> now forgotten
Stereoeditor;580202 Wrote:
> You can find this graph at
> http://stereophile.com/hirezplayers/cary_audio_design_classic_cd_303t_professional_sacd_player/index5.html
> .
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
Dear John
It is a great privilege to have you post a reply on this thread (even
if not
cliveb;579311 Wrote:
> Excuse me for coming in a bit late but I wanted to comment on this.
>
> "Resolution" and "precision" are two sides of the same coin. Here's an
> analogy. Take a 12" ruler - what is the smallest sized object you can
> confidently measure the size of? That's the resolution o
The review is 'now up'
(http://stereophile.com/computeraudio//logitech_squeezebox_touch_network_music_player/index5.html)
on the Stereophile site.
--
Daverz
Daverz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid
Waldo Pepper;580913 Wrote:
> I'm afraid this is a little more complicated than that.
>
> The spectrum of noise from 14/15 bits will be far more pleasing on the
> ear than the spectrum of noise from 6/7 bits. Regardless to a point of
> the total number of bits.
>
> It was not uncommon in the ear
Waldo Pepper;580924 Wrote:
> Rubbish! It needs very good electronic devices ahead of them. Burr Brown
> make them and a couple of balanced MP402 transistors in front and we are
> talking nanovolt resolution. Widely used in the medical proffesion of
> measuring brain and heart impulses that are wa
Phil Leigh;579230 Wrote:
> OK - I'll try.
> 1: a true 24-bit ADC ( that doesn't exist)
Rubbish! It needs very good electronic devices ahead of them. Burr
Brown make them and a couple of balanced MP402 transistors in front and
we are talking nanovolt resolution. Widely used in the medical
proffes
adamdea;578884 Wrote:
>
> If you reduced by 24 db would you get 8 8 8 9 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 8. (I
> said 24 db because you said it was a 6 db reduction in your example
> but I confess I don't understand the 6 db equivalence. I just mean
> getting quieter to the point where the peak becomes 9 and th
Soulkeeper;578864 Wrote:
> I don't know the answer to that, but it seems to me that your example
> has a DC bias. If we define origo ("zero") to the middle then the
> signal would probably vary between 128 and -128, or 32 and -32. (Or if
> you define origo ("zero") to be all bits=zero then 128 wo
Phil Leigh;578530 Wrote:
> 1) 24-bit PRECISION. The ambient noise will be represented by word
> values built from the sum of the lowest 14-15 bits.
> 2) 16-bit PRECISION. The ambient noise will be represented by word
> values built from the sum of the lowest 6-7 bits.
>
I'm afraid this is a lit
Stereoeditor;580201 Wrote:
> Just saw this question. If you are talking about the undithered tone at
> -90.31dBFS I show in all my DAC measurements, I use this signal, not
> because it will be typical of music, but because it is diagnostic for
> DAC problems. In 2s-complement PCM encoding as used
Stereoeditor;580201 Wrote:
> However, you still come across pathological designs that fail to
> reproduce this signal properly - see, for example, fig.8 in the Cary
> review in the September 2010 issue of Stereophile.
You can find this graph at
http://stereophile.com/hirezplayers/cary_audio_desi
Phil Leigh;578558 Wrote:
> A -90dB sine wave is just "not there" in normal music. I'd like to hear
> JA's justification of why he thinks this is meaningful?
Just saw this question. If you are talking about the undithered tone at
-90.31dBFS I show in all my DAC measurements, I use this signal, no
cliveb;579311 Wrote:
> Excuse me for coming in a bit late but I wanted to comment on this.
>
> "Resolution" and "precision" are two sides of the same coin. Here's an
> analogy. Take a 12" ruler - what is the smallest sized object you can
> confidently measure the size of? That's the resolution o
adamdea;579122 Wrote:
> 1.2 It seems that an analog sytem has limited resolution but not limited
> precision.
> ...
> whilst a digital recoding may have 16 bit resolution and 16 bit
> precision, analogue systems can have 13 bit resolution and unlimited
> precision.
Excuse me for coming in a bit
Thanks. Got back from the Opera. Read this. Thought I understood it, but
thought it best to go to bed and re-read in the morning.
--
adamdea
adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603
View thi
adamdea;579176 Wrote:
> This is really helpful and clear. I follow all of this until we get to
> point number 2. I have been wondering how I could get to whether I
> understand what you mean by this.
>
> If we had recorded in 21 bit samples rather than 17 bit samples we
> would reduce quntisatio
Phil Leigh;579158 Wrote:
> OK - bear in mind what I said before, the mid-point is 7 (not 8, my
> mistake).
>
> silence = 7 = 0111
>
>
>
> In the UK, BBC FM radio in the late 60's through the 70's actually used
> a 13-bit digital system to relay the signal between transmitters. The
> sound qua
adamdea;579122 Wrote:
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by adamdea
> ...
> ...
>
> There seem to be 7 reductions before your signal becomes 7s and 8s. I
> cant see any way of reducing the a 15, 0 starting pair to get either 8
> or 7- I wonder whether this is because the crossing point is the same
>
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamdea
...
If you reduced by 24 db would you get 8 8 8 9 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 8. (I
said 24 db because you said it was a 6 db reduction in your example but
I confess I don't understand the 6 db equivalence. I just mean getting
quieter to the point where the peak becomes 9
adamdea;578884 Wrote:
> ...
>
> I see that as the sound gets louder the difference between peak and
> trough gets wider. I think I understand the illustration about
> precision. Is it correct that the error you refer to as a result of
> fixed precision is the same as quantisation noise? (ducks)
adamdea;578884 Wrote:
>
>
> In the example you give the crossing point is midway between the
> highest and lowest possible values which can be expressed. As you
> increase loudness it would "max" out at the same time it "mins" out.
> Can you have different triangular waves with the same differ
Nonreality;578807 Wrote:
> I'm sorry, and don't take this bad. I don't want you recording me if I
> become famous. It won't happen unless I die in an outstanding way but
> still.
I don't take it badly. Not least because if you become famous having
died in an outstanding way it will be too late
Yes this is very helpful. Thanks: I guess it must have taken a while,
even if it is child's play to you.
I think it might be the crossing point that I didn't get (I mean I know
there is one in a sine wave but not how this translates into sampled
amplitude.)
I am really interested in trying to u
adamdea;578793 Wrote:
> If the sound (is it allowed to be a sine wave?) varies in amplitude
> between 128 and 32- xxx...1000 and 0010
> and it became louder so that the peak amplitude was 2048
> xxx1000, what would be the number which now represents the
> minimum ampli
Nonreality;578812 Wrote:
> Do you realize what you might have started? Such a bad/good person.
> Time will tell.
Nonreality - You may be right.
I was a "bit" apprehensive when I posted this...
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it
ain't what you'd
Phil Leigh;578811 Wrote:
> OK - I'll try, but only if you promise to stop with the photography
> analogies :-)
>
> 1) all sound can be represented by the summation of a series of sine
> wives (Fourier) - so yes, the simplest sound is a pure sine wave.
> However, lets use a triangle wave instead
adamdea;578793 Wrote:
> I have been studying this quite carefully as there are lots of useful
> points. I promise it wasn't point 1 I was missing and I don't think it
> was point 3 although I guess I do find the terms resolution and
> precision confusing. (I have been puzzling over the question o
adamdea;578793 Wrote:
> I have been studying this quite carefully as there are lots of useful
> points. I promise it wasn't point 1 I was missing and I don't think it
> was point 3 although I guess I do find the terms resolution and
> precision confusing. (I have been puzzling over the question o
Phil Leigh;578522 Wrote:
> OH - and I thought you were about to understand! :-)
>
> 1) all 16/24 bits represent the quiet sound, same as they do a loud
> sound. The fact that several of them are zero makes no difference
> except to the SNR. You have to stop thinking about "bits" as things in
> t
Phil Leigh;578530 Wrote:
> 1) 24-bit PRECISION. The ambient noise will be represented by word
> values built from the sum of the lowest 14-15 bits.
> 2) 16-bit PRECISION. The ambient noise will be represented by word
> values built from the sum of the lowest 6-7 bits.
>
> With proper noise shapi
pfarrell;578571 Wrote:
> On 09/23/2010 03:29 PM, mlsstl wrote:
> > I'm not particularly interested in a debate over the job title of
> those
> > responsible for the general state of recordings these days. And I'm
> not
> > particularly convinced that some in the industry are blameless;
> > pressu
JohnSwenson;578595 Wrote:
> I while back I was doing sound for a concert that featured a number of
> artists and groups. This was in a venue where I designed the sound
> system, I KNOW how to make people sound good in this space. But there
> was one young lady whose manager refused to let me "do
I while back I was doing sound for a concert that featured a number of
artists and groups. This was in a venue where I designed the sound
system, I KNOW how to make people sound good in this space. But there
was one young lady whose manager refused to let me "do my thing". He
insisted that I chang
mlsstl;578574 Wrote:
> See the edit to my earlier comment regarding colloquialisms. When you're
> a participant in an industry that's sailing off course, pot shots should
> be expected. No different than a lawyer and lawyer jokes. Who wants to
> be a member of the Church of the Perpetually Offend
pfarrell;578571 Wrote:
>
> There are lots in the industry responsible, but its not because the
> engineers are uneducated.
See the edit to my earlier comment regarding colloquialisms. When
you're a participant in an industry that's sailing off course, pot
shots should be expected. No different
On 09/23/2010 03:29 PM, mlsstl wrote:
> I'm not particularly interested in a debate over the job title of those
> responsible for the general state of recordings these days. And I'm not
> particularly convinced that some in the industry are blameless;
> pressure to conform may be an explanation, bu
pfarrell;578554 Wrote:
> On 09/23/2010 01:51 PM, mlsstl wrote:
> > My frank opinion is that we need to send a lot of recording
> engineers
> > and producers back to school to learn to use what we already have as
> > opposed to investing in high-rez so we can hear poor recordings in
> even
> > gre
adamdea;578505 Wrote:
> . -If you look at John Atkinson's measurements of a sine wave in dac
> reviews, a good unit will make a sinewave that looks like (er) a
> sinewave in 24 bits. But in 16 bits even the best players can only make
> a squiggly thing half way between a squarewave and a sine wav
mlsstl;578550 Wrote:
> My frank opinion is that we need to send a lot of recording engineers
> and producers back to school to learn to use what we already have as
> opposed to investing in high-rez so we can hear poor recordings in even
> greater detail. Just my 2 cents.
hear hear - Right on t
On 09/23/2010 01:51 PM, mlsstl wrote:
> My frank opinion is that we need to send a lot of recording engineers
> and producers back to school to learn to use what we already have as
> opposed to investing in high-rez so we can hear poor recordings in even
> greater detail.
Your opinion is uninform
adamdea;578505 Wrote:
> ... Nevertheless the fact that CD can sound great does not mean that it
> can't be bettered. Also I think that there probably is something
> instructive to be learned from the fact that an awful lot of picky
> people still seem to think there is something in analog that Cd
adamdea;578505 Wrote:
> Yes I agree with most of what you say (almost anything recorded by
> Hyperion sounds great for example). I also note that Gramophone
> reviewers (who are plainly not neophiles) took to CD more
> enthusiastically than Hi Fi reviewers. I cannot imagine wanting
> regularly to
OGS;578474 Wrote:
> I may have misunderstood how this works. I have no real experience with
> recording live music so I appreciate the information you present Phil.
> If you record an acoustic trio as loud as possible with no clipping in
> 24bit, in a hall with medium ambient noise, then when the
adamdea;578475 Wrote:
> I think the point that was being made [and at this point I pause to
> stress that it is not my point but i am telling you what i think the
> point is]
> was that if you isolate the recording of a quiet sound maxing 7 bits
> above digital noise floor, then this would be the
mlsstl;578491 Wrote:
> Having done a fair amount of analog recording with open reel over the
> years, I can assure you that if you have an open reel with 65 or even
> 70 dB of S/N, when you have a quiet passage 50 dB down, you're still in
> a spot where the recorded info still has only 15 or 20 d
adamdea;578475 Wrote:
> ... i think the point is]
> was that if you isolate the recording of a quiet sound maxing 7 bits
> above digital noise floor, then this would be the same as a 7 bit
> recording of this noise alone using the full dynamic range of the 7
> bits. [snip]
>
> ...If you assumed
Phil Leigh;578434 Wrote:
> The resolution and maximum SNR/DR is a fixed property of the bit-depth.
> What changes on a sample-by-sample basis is the SNR depending on the
> sample value.
>
> So a quiet passage won't have less resolution - all 16/24 bits are
> still being used to represent it, but
Phil Leigh;578434 Wrote:
> The resolution and maximum SNR/DR is a fixed property of the bit-depth.
> What changes on a sample-by-sample basis is the SNR depending on the
> sample value.
>
> So a quiet passage won't have less resolution - all 16/24 bits are
> still being used to represent it, but
Phil Leigh;578308 Wrote:
> No - rgh - start again :-)
>
> Your TV analogy doesn't apply at all. Twice the pixel density = four
> times the file fize = 4x information. Bit depth increase from 16 to 24
> = file size goes up by 50% because each number (sample) being stored is
> +50% more precis
seanadams;578418 Wrote:
> Huh? If the levels are maxed into the ADC then you are getting all the
> dynamic range of the LP, and then some. If the source medium is in a
> quiet passage then whatever resolution you're talking about (relative
> to its peak amplitude in THAT little section) was alrea
The resolution and maximum SNR/DR is a fixed property of the bit-depth.
What changes on a sample-by-sample basis is the SNR depending on the
sample value.
So a quiet passage won't have less resolution - all 16/24 bits are
still being used to represent it, but it will have a lower SNR.
Just like a
OGS;578329 Wrote:
>
> Well it isn't. At -54dB ref 0dBFS 16bit we're at 7bit resolution, not
> 16. At -66 to -72dB where vinyl surface noise is (and maybe some tape
> hiss) we're at 4 to 5 bit resolution. Try recording something at 6-7bit
> resolution. It sounds bad!
Huh? If the levels are maxed
Many seems to believe it is signal to noise ratio or dynamic range that
matters. Many will say that 16/44.1 is good enough for archiving vinyl,
for example, as the s/n of vinyl is only about 70dB and CD is 96dB.
But it is resolution that is important, not just s/n! You would think
that 16bit is
adamdea;578263 Wrote:
> If you mean the difference quantitatively- well a 19 bit number will
> have 8 times as many possible values as a 16 bit number. The 19 bit
> sample will therefore have 8 times more possible values than a 16 bit
> sample. People seem to get excited going from SD to HD Tv wh
adamdea;578263 Wrote:
> If you mean the difference quantitatively- well a 19 bit number will
> have 8 times as many possible values as a 16 bit number. The 19 bit
> sample will therefore have 8 times more possible values than a 16 bit
> sample.
adamdea;578263 Wrote:
> But in an audiophile contex
adamdea;578263 Wrote:
> But in an audiophile context I would thinks it's huge...
That's the problem with audiophiles, IMO - the excessive use of
hyperbole.
If going from a well recorded 16 bit CD recording to an 18 or 19 bit
high-rez recording is "huge", what word does one use to describe the
di
Nonreality;578196 Wrote:
> Doesn't seem that large.
Well it all depends on your scale. But in an audiophile context I would
thinks it's huge- cf any possible benefit from different cables etc. And
what's more it actually makes sense.
--
adamdea
-
mswlogo;578176 Wrote:
> You guys seem to think the difference between 17 and 18 bits is
> insignificant. It can be quite large.
>
> I agree in 24bits music most systems and ears won't hear say the bottom
> 5 bits or so.
>
> But when you are talking 16 vs 17 vs 18 vs 19 bits I think you are in
>
Phil Leigh;578198 Wrote:
> It isn't. To put this into perspective, UK BBC radio - which people used
> to rave about in the 70's in terms of its great sound quality on Radio 3
> (the classical station) - was basically 13-bit!.
>
> One more time, it ain't the bits, it's what you do with them :-)
Nonreality;578196 Wrote:
> Doesn't seem that large.
It isn't. To put this into perspective, UK BBC radio - which people
used to rave about in the 70's in terms of its great sound quality on
Radio 3 (the classical station) - was basically 13-bit!.
One more time, it ain't the bits, it's what you
mswlogo;578176 Wrote:
> You guys seem to think the difference between 17 and 18 bits is
> insignificant. It can be quite large.
>
> But when you are talking 16 vs 17 vs 18 vs 19 bits I think you are in
> an area that on *SOME systems with SOME rooms with SOME ears with SOME
> music* this can mak
mswlogo;578176 Wrote:
> You guys seem to think the difference between 17 and 18 bits is
> insignificant. It can be quite large.
>
> I agree in 24bits music most systems and ears won't hear say the bottom
> 5 bits or so.
>
> But when you are talking 16 vs 17 vs 18 vs 19 bits I think you are in
>
So as a rank amateur, does the person that wondered why the touch review
was on such a prestigious audiophile forum have credibility or does it
belong maybe in the lower but still quality ranks? I would think even
if I was a top notch audiophile I would want the info unless it was
beneath me of co
You guys seem to think the difference between 17 and 18 bits is
insignificant. It can be quite large.
I agree in 24bits music most systems and ears won't hear say the bottom
5 bits or so.
But when you are talking 16 vs 17 vs 18 vs 19 bits I think you are in
an area that on SOME systems with SOME
Phil Leigh;577843 Wrote:
> Erm... you haven't sent that TP back yet?
>
> Anyway, I really really don't think this is that important for reasons
> I've stated several times. No 24-bit ADC available today can put the
> noise floor of the recording below -120dB.
> In practice, the noise floor is g
adamdea;577829 Wrote:
> If that is the case am i now able tentatively to venture the view that
> the measurement indicates that the touch via analogue out will
> therefore not be able to deliver more than 17 bits worth of information
> off a 24 bit file. It seems to me that this may not be very r
Phil Leigh;577823 Wrote:
> Ah - I see...
> The Touch and the TP "see" the (same) bits exactly the same on their
> inputs. The difference is that the TP noise floor is lower so the
> information in the bottom bits - ONCE converted to analogue by the DAC
> in the TP - don't get swamped by noise.
>
adamdea;577818 Wrote:
> Phil I absolutely agree that 24 bit playback does sound better than 16
> bit playback of a 24 bit file. Perhaps we have been talking at cross
> purposes.
>
> I assume that the reason why 24 bit files sound better is because there
> is information beyond the 16 bits which
Phil Leigh;56 Wrote:
> No I'm not saying that. It's easy enough for you to try it and see. Get
> a true "24-bit" recording from somewhere and convert it to 16-bit in
> Audacity.
>
> Do they now sound the same?
>
> Do this with classical music with quiet passages. Rock music generally
> won'
adamdea;577763 Wrote:
> I was under the impression that freedom to master etc was the reason why
> 24 bit recording is worthwhile even if CDs are being produced at 16
> bit.
> But you seem to be
> saying that 16 bit (downsampled) playback of a 24 bit recording will be
> indistinguishable from
Phil Leigh;577599 Wrote:
> The best audio ADC's in the world can only resolve 20-21 bits. The rest
> is pure noise.
>
> No normal microphone yet made for studio use can get much beyond a
> dynamic range of 100dB. The Neumann U87 - generally considered as one
> of the premier mics, used on tens o
michael123;577699 Wrote:
>
> Funny, Stereophile review mentions few upgrades like that discussed
> Touch Tweak blog, iPeng, John Swenson's tweak to use USB as digital
> out, power supply upgrade (although without mentioning Teddy Padro)..
This business gets its money from the same circle of peo
adamdea;577672 Wrote:
> It seems to me that resolution innthis sense means the ability to
> distinguish between increments not only at lowest absolute level but at
> each level up to the top.
Right, it's all the same thing. There is no special case for "near 0".
Indeed any offset you pick is co
I read today the review in Stereophile, and to my surprise, there is
also one by Steven Stone in "Analogue Issue" of TAS.
Both reviewers rave about the product, including JA's measurements
But
- all of them look at this piece from $300 value point. Either I missed
something, but they did not comp
I am fascinated by these ideas, but wildly out of my depth. It occurs to
mr that in the multibit PCM model what I meant might better be put this
way. Assuming 4 bits to avoid too many zeros: if max = and zero =
then the minimum positive signal is 0001 which is 1/15 of max. If
the dac can
adamdea;577568 Wrote:
> I am waiting to be shot down in flames but wouldn't that have a dynamic
> range of 140db but 1 bit resolution ?
I think the dynamic range in that case is undefined, as you only have
absolute amplitude to talk about, but yes that's the idea. And you can
in fact have 1-bit
The best audio ADC's in the world can only resolve 20-21 bits. The rest
is pure noise.
No normal microphone yet made for studio use can get much beyond a
dynamic range of 100dB. The Neumann U87 - generally considered as one
of the premier mics, used on tens of thousands of recordings - has a
max
adamdea;577568 Wrote:
> I have read that microphones are able to achieve an snr of way less than
> 100db. Behringer maybe :)
--
michael123
michael123's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23745
View
seanadams;577301 Wrote:
> Digital cameras are a helpful analogy - more megapixels don't help much
> once the CCD resolution exceeds the clarity of the optics. But unless
> one or the other is overwhelmingly the limiting factor, we can talk
> about how they interplay in different scenarios.
>
>
adamdea;577298 Wrote:
> it seems to me to be a little odd to value 24 bit files as a new
> standard whilst dismissing a 3 bit difference in DAC resolution as
> irrelevant.
Isn't the difference between 16 and 17 bits is more significant than
the difference between 17 and an infinite number of bit
Digital cameras are a helpful analogy - more megapixels don't help much
once the CCD resolution exceeds the clarity of the optics. But unless
one or the other is overwhelmingly the limiting factor, we can talk
about how they interplay in different scenarios.
When we say a DAC can resolve so many
michael123;577250 Wrote:
> I would be surprised if anyone expected high-end performance on analog
> output.. (why did you put Touch review into audiophile section, btw?)
>
Because some people believe it to be capable of audiophile performance.
Or does audiophile specifically mean "the product kn
Phil Leigh;577248 Wrote:
> yeah so the Touch would have an effective SNR of 102dB (approx)? whereas
> the TP would have 120dB - is that about right?
>
> to put that into perspective... you'd have to have your amp on full and
> ear rammed to the tweeter to hear it (or rather, not hear it) :-)
Th
michael123;577259 Wrote:
> sure, the DAC in test was Transporter, and I think Sean himself wrote
> somewhere on this forum that Transporter is not forgiving..
>
> But still..
The measurements that Slim published for Transporter's DAC were taken
with TP acting as master clock from a slaved s/pdi
Phil Leigh;577257 Wrote:
> I really don't know how you can say that, since it totally depends on
> what the digital output is connected to - i.e. the DAC and how well it
> handles incoming s/pdif or toslink. DAC's can be very different in this
> respect.
>
> If you hear massive differences in bi
michael123;577250 Wrote:
> I would be surprised if anyone expected high-end performance on analog
> output.. (why did you put Touch review into audiophile section, btw?)
>
> What do they tell about digital output?
>
> What I found that even digital output was far inferior to Transporter
> and e
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
