Correct. Maybe the magic 2V we all take for granted as being some special "standard" wasn't but meanwhile has become an unwritten standard in 40+ years of digital audio 😀 Things go like that when nothing else is done. The other option as found in some sectors like tube audio is chaos so we should be glad there at least is some kind of standard. Makes connecting devices of various brands to each other a lot easier.
Same for the 1 to 1.5V input sensitivity of amplifiers. Same goes for the Sony-Philips Digital Interface Format known as SPDIF that was adopted by practically every manufacturer. One can be reasonably sure when keeping to the 2V digital audio standard a DIY DAC will perform OK with anyones amplifier keeping to the 1 ...1.5V input sensitivity standard. Even though both may never have been officially declared standards. One can also be assured of the good working of a random digital device with SPDIF output to another random device with SPDIF input.
One can take a look here in various threads what the followup of not keeping to such standards is. It is a thread generator of proportions!
Same for the 1 to 1.5V input sensitivity of amplifiers. Same goes for the Sony-Philips Digital Interface Format known as SPDIF that was adopted by practically every manufacturer. One can be reasonably sure when keeping to the 2V digital audio standard a DIY DAC will perform OK with anyones amplifier keeping to the 1 ...1.5V input sensitivity standard. Even though both may never have been officially declared standards. One can also be assured of the good working of a random digital device with SPDIF output to another random device with SPDIF input.
One can take a look here in various threads what the followup of not keeping to such standards is. It is a thread generator of proportions!
Last edited:
Well it depends if you like full volume at position 1. Or when you have an oddball preamp with volume control after the input stage.
With respect you need to ALWAYS, qualify if using mv, to do so as value mv RMS or choose to qualify as peak, or peak to peak , Mixing the two terms, without saying which is which , leads to the present mess where unless stated as vRMS some ( most ) thinking 1V is 1V RMS when its only capable of being 0.894 peak to peak, all being derived from 0.316V RMS which is consumer line level.
Yes its marketing gone totally beserk.Why ? is because consumers are buying amplifier equipment that never satisfies power output, unless they buy amplification equipment that has relationship to being either 0.316VRMS sensitivity or marginally higher (*). The ridiculous figures, are only headroom, not actual level. The path to always know is that the media controls the level not the hardware
To your second point, that's the subjective experience of most that they don't cut the mustard.. Resistive dividers although much better need lifting out of the 1900's* to be capable of extremely high resistance at lowest volume, rather than adverse loading the source impedance for volumes sake, and also being capable of adjusting the shunt element to avail less loading as volume commences to the shunt element.
- Mary Hallock Greenewalt Rheostat patent 1919 ie she knew well the potientiometer form as well
[*]Quad 1967-1990 maintained 500mv RMS and they stated it , improving to 0.375V RMS with the 306
Last edited:
Exactly it never was, making 0Db FS Full Scale appear as audio output level, IMO, was and remains deceptive. . ,
Did you really read that post?
BTW mv, vRMS, Db …really?!
BTW mv, vRMS, Db …really?!
Please elaborate. Especially the 25 Megaohm part.
Last edited:
ie 316mv = 0.316V RMS = minus 10 dbV
If a series element is made 25 mega ohm or higher resistance at lowest volume , it allows silence to be achieved for volumes purpose. It has the favorable result of the shunt element not having to do that part by what would be normally grounding the shunt resistance.
If a series element is made 25 mega ohm or higher resistance at lowest volume , it allows silence to be achieved for volumes purpose. It has the favorable result of the shunt element not having to do that part by what would be normally grounding the shunt resistance.
Why would one need that? I have a 10 kOhm volume control working to full satisfaction.
Never saw any volume control with 25 Megaohm.
Never saw any volume control with 25 Megaohm.
Last edited:
You have not said how your 10k volume control is used , but let's say its passive.
You will need it because, your satisfaction can be greater still. It allows then in the same way 25 mega ohm is achieved at the series side , to allow on the shunt side, your choice of variable raising of the shunt resistance. If this t was your audio system, you can enjoy to be finally rid of what you may subsequently discern, as solving adverse loading to the source impedance.
You will need it because, your satisfaction can be greater still. It allows then in the same way 25 mega ohm is achieved at the series side , to allow on the shunt side, your choice of variable raising of the shunt resistance. If this t was your audio system, you can enjoy to be finally rid of what you may subsequently discern, as solving adverse loading to the source impedance.
I don’t understand anything of what you write. It is a constant 10 kOhm load to my 2Vrms sources.
Why are you only playing audio system destroying Test discs with 0DbFS ? , music at 0.316mv RMS is normal and much more pleasant ! If its 10k ohm constant load , you surely ( awaiting confirmation ) are describing a fixed resistor, which if so, is fine if you enjoy, only one volume level
Are you by any chance employee of Spectrum Inc.?
It would don't be so good for my loudspeakers if I give the amplifier 316 mV rms. They really hate test discs too with 0 dB full scale output level of 2V rms and if they don't I hate test discs too as the music is very boring.
It would don't be so good for my loudspeakers if I give the amplifier 316 mV rms. They really hate test discs too with 0 dB full scale output level of 2V rms and if they don't I hate test discs too as the music is very boring.
Last edited:
You're not making any sense.
The 2V nominal output level of a CD player at 0dBFS is an RMS voltage. The peak of the waveform is 2.82V and the total peak to peak is double that.
Nominal 2V output Marantz professional player- Denon 38C39-7147 test disc 997Hz@0dBFS.
Last edited:
Yes CD players are capable of 0DbFS with Test CD's which I have said on many occasions , ,CD' media what we enjoy as music though which you omit to mention , is 6.32 times less level being a nominal level of 0.316V RMS Peak as ,0.447V RMS and Peak to Peak as 0.894V RMS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_level
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_level
Attachments
Last edited:
Consumer Line Level to clarify above is RMS 0.316V then derived as , Voltage Peak VP at 0.447V and Voltage Peak to Peak VPP at 0.894V
Still any digital device should be able to play that test CD/files. So one should design/calculate for 2Vrms.
I disagree as what allowing 0dbFS does is to casually by sleight of hand make amplifiers that have sensitivity above nominal 0.316V RMS sensitivity, ( noting the 306 0.375v RMS as eminently sensible ) then not to capable of achieving their stated power outputs. Which is their stated sensitivity being much higher. Consumers don't spot the actual sensitivity that provides the power output as only being nominal 0.316v RMS and only see the power output relative to figures that are not 0.316V RMS ,
An example likely happening at this very minute , if we say with an amplifier with 1.5V RMS sensitivity is purchased, the consumer ends up with a embarrassing scenario of an amplifier 1.5/0.316 , meaning a whopping 4.74 times less power than the specifications provided.
How about we lift every ones enjoyment instead and promote sensible sensitivity like 0.375v RMS In fact after the 303 revival, bring back the 306 Yeah !!
An example likely happening at this very minute , if we say with an amplifier with 1.5V RMS sensitivity is purchased, the consumer ends up with a embarrassing scenario of an amplifier 1.5/0.316 , meaning a whopping 4.74 times less power than the specifications provided.
How about we lift every ones enjoyment instead and promote sensible sensitivity like 0.375v RMS In fact after the 303 revival, bring back the 306 Yeah !!
A new second standard to make things easier. Things that already work out fine with the current 40 year old 2vRm$ O DbF$ standard. Quad is not the measure of things it seems. Designing devices that choke on test CD/files also would make designers look not too bright.
Persons that need maximum output power of their amplifiers maybe need to find another hobby as their ears are shot. What annoys most is having either full volume at 1 o'clock or no volume at all at 12 o'clock. I did some tests with this long ago when I was still a kid learning. The very same device is tested as good or mediocre depending on at which position the volume control gives a volume level as what is considered as "normal". To most I found that is 9 to 10 o'clock. It is that simple apparently, sometimes no one cares about the numbers. Being autodidact and very young I then kept stuff so that 9 to 10 o'clock was the preferred position of relatively normal starting level of volume (within normal margins of course as loudspeakers also exist). Devices constructed like that were almost always accepted. No one cares about maximum volume as that is not used by 99.999% of normal users.
Once can also test and give a 2 x 100W amplifier and a 2 x 10W amplifier both in the same casings, same knobs etc. both constructed to have "normal" volume at 9 to 10 o'clock to average users. See what happens.
Persons that need maximum output power of their amplifiers maybe need to find another hobby as their ears are shot. What annoys most is having either full volume at 1 o'clock or no volume at all at 12 o'clock. I did some tests with this long ago when I was still a kid learning. The very same device is tested as good or mediocre depending on at which position the volume control gives a volume level as what is considered as "normal". To most I found that is 9 to 10 o'clock. It is that simple apparently, sometimes no one cares about the numbers. Being autodidact and very young I then kept stuff so that 9 to 10 o'clock was the preferred position of relatively normal starting level of volume (within normal margins of course as loudspeakers also exist). Devices constructed like that were almost always accepted. No one cares about maximum volume as that is not used by 99.999% of normal users.
Once can also test and give a 2 x 100W amplifier and a 2 x 10W amplifier both in the same casings, same knobs etc. both constructed to have "normal" volume at 9 to 10 o'clock to average users. See what happens.
Last edited:
@Chris Daly That means around 10 dB less loop gain because the power amplifier gain has to be raised over and above the nominal 30-32 dB used with 1V input sensitivity. Line level amplification can be done at almost no signal integrity penalty wrt noise and distortion.
Stick with 1V input sensitivity. Attenuate all sources that are greater than the legacy level and then reamplify them back up to 1V. This nominally matches all inputs. On (very) large amplifiers (say >100W, there is a case for providing more gain and thus output drive if the gain is 30-32 dB. In this case you could provide a simple switch on the rear of the unit to give +3, +6 and +9 dB. For the preamp input z, 10k to 20k is ample. Anything more than this leads to thermal noise problems and very high value pots invite capacitively coupled stray noise problems.
Stick with 1V input sensitivity. Attenuate all sources that are greater than the legacy level and then reamplify them back up to 1V. This nominally matches all inputs. On (very) large amplifiers (say >100W, there is a case for providing more gain and thus output drive if the gain is 30-32 dB. In this case you could provide a simple switch on the rear of the unit to give +3, +6 and +9 dB. For the preamp input z, 10k to 20k is ample. Anything more than this leads to thermal noise problems and very high value pots invite capacitively coupled stray noise problems.
Last edited: