SY -- see #63349 above. Comments?
Also, you seemed more confused than I am about the point brought up about dynamic range..... guess it went over your head.
Fortunately others got it. You can use the max hearing range and cover that or your own home listening environment for numbers.
The middle of that range is where most people spend time listening.... not at the nice 0FS distortion level. I showed that in my picture chart. Where we play has higher distortion and/or audible artifacts.
Good try but no cigar.
THx-RNMarsh
Also, you seemed more confused than I am about the point brought up about dynamic range..... guess it went over your head.
Fortunately others got it. You can use the max hearing range and cover that or your own home listening environment for numbers.
The middle of that range is where most people spend time listening.... not at the nice 0FS distortion level. I showed that in my picture chart. Where we play has higher distortion and/or audible artifacts.
Good try but no cigar.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I'm new to this thread. Are we a little off topic? Where is the schematic of this "BLOWTORCH AMP" (what post NO.) Thanks, Ray
Schematic of BLOWTORCH AMP
I'm new to this thread. Are we a little off topic? Where is the schematic of this "BLOWTORCH AMP" (what post NO.) Thanks, Ray
I'm new to this thread. Are we a little off topic? Where is the schematic of this "BLOWTORCH AMP" (what post NO.) Thanks, Ray
Yet you post the same plots that were posted 4 years ago of hearing thresholds after adaptation in an anechoic environment with no masking as having relevance to audibility at ANY listening level.
I would like to see a single study sanctioned by the AES and peer reviewed (not a pre-print) that supports as a delivery medium 16/44.1 is obviously inferior.
Grhughes, the is NO schematic of the Blowtorch preamp on this or any other thread. Only approximations found in the first 100 pages of the first part of this thread. It is too difficult to build right anyway. Look to China for Levinson JC-2 clones to modify, is my recommendation.
what confuses me is why 24/96 should cost more when it goes through fewer processing steps. Surely it should be cheaper?
It's pretty much a wash, costwise, on a go-forward basis. 24/96 hogs more storage, but otherwise there's no advantage nor disadvantage either way- all of the 16/44, 16/48, 24/48, 24/96... standards are acoustically transparent.
You think all those ones and zero's fall off of trees? Somebody has to pay for them..
jn
The Apple iPhone 5 has serious DAC quality built in. Who would have thought so. Very low noise and distortion even driving down to 40 Ohms. If you can wirelessly stream music out of it and keep the performance....... well you have performance and convenience and mobility.
It just keeps getting better 😎🙂
THx-RNMarsh
It just keeps getting better 😎🙂
THx-RNMarsh
See 63349 and 63352.
I would also. But if they have higher priorities and never do it..... that wouldnt mean anything one way or the other.
All I can say is the I am more happy with 24/96 HD/HiRes files vs my CD player (16/44) at this point. Maybe jitter differences.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I told you that last week, the cell phone makers are going to a separate audio chain with ESS DAC based low power reference design. I would like to see how much JPOP you could take even at 24/96.
I believe my listening pleasure is enhanced by my DAC not having any bit depth or sample rate LEDs on it. If a different colour light came on to tell me I had 'HD' I would forever hate my non-HD material.
Sadly mine came with these infernal LED things already fitted but i have a solution, i placed it out of sight, non problem now solved.
And so you certainly did... I just now saw measurement data of the -5 phone's DAC. Very nice!
The Apple business model IS for streaming purposes down the road, it appears -- The good, the bad of it -->
What 'Mastered For iTunes' Really Means : The Record : NPR
THx-RNMarsh
Do you not read newspapers or online websites ever? Why else do you think apple bought beats? certainly not for the headphones..
Me, I just worry about whether my purchased CDs sound good or not. I have plenty I know sound quite appalling on supposedly 'proper' systems, 😛 ... which I think is a bit poor, 😉. But I also know that if I kick that reputedly 'good' system into shape then the same CD will sound quite spectacular, and make the listening well worthwhile. Arguing about the number of bits being used, and bits per second to do the job is a 100% dead end, and just distracts from the real work that needs to be done ...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.