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 is almost what I'm saying. There's a caveat: the music contained in the bits represents solely the RELATIVE volume level WITH RESPECT TO THE LISTENING LEVEL.
What I am still failing to explain clearly is that the number of bits of data that are required depends on the playback volume you choose to listen at. The threshold of human hearing is 0dB SPL. Let's make some wildy optimistic assumptions: 1. Your listening room has a background noise level of 0dB. 2. Regardless of the volume you listen at, you can still discern detail happening down at 0dB SPL. Both of these assumptions are of course unrealistic, but by making them we *strengthen* the case for the "digital attenuation is bad" camp. What follows presents digital attenuation in its worst possible light... OK, let's suppose you want to listen at a maximum level of 120dB SPL while accurately reproducing that fine detail down at 0dB. You need 20 bits to achieve this. But if you want to listen at a peak level of 96dB, you only need 16 bits. So, if you are currently listening to a 20 bit source at 120dB and decide to turn the volume down to 96dB, you can afford to discard the bottom 4 bits in the process, because the detail in them is beneath 0dB SPL and you can't hear it anymore. -- cliveb Transporter -> ATC SCM100A ------------------------------------------------------------------------ cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=77725 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
