Fizbin wrote:
> Let me know if you get the Transporter. I was thinking about getting one
> myself. I think you need to spend well over $1000 to make the Touch
> sound better.
Yes! Just pulled the trigger on a 2nd transporter for my setup.
Certainly the Rasberry Pi looks brilliant. I almost want t
Spin wrote:
> Just searched through the thread at DIY Audio and the designers actual
> words are 'I decided on 28 bit, to have headroom for a perfect digital
> volume control. At -72 db volume you still have 16 bit resolution with
> perfect linearity thanks to the sign magnitude architecture'. Wh
Julf wrote:
> That makes sense for internal processing (and many DACs actually use 32
> bits or more for that), but not for the actual ladder output.
Just searched through the thread at DIY Audio and the designers actual
words are 'I decided on 28 bit, to have headroom for a perfect digital
volu
Spin wrote:
> If I remember rightly I believe that the DAC uses a digital volume
> control that works by throwing bits away and the extra 4 bits of
> resolution allows you to apply quite a lot of attenuation before audio
> quality is affected.
That makes sense for internal processing (and many D
Julf wrote:
> Indeed.
>
>
>
> Well, yes, but what is the point of the extra bits if neither linearity
> nor SNR are anywhere near that resolution?
If I remember rightly I believe that the DAC uses a digital volume
control that works by throwing bits away and the extra 4 bits of
resolution al
drmatt wrote:
> Actually it's you who keeps talking about it "AK",
>
I see serious memory problems in play, since I only mentioned the
problem of cheap cables damaging gear after you introduced the idea.
Apparently, when you destroyed that valuable piece of gear with cheap
cables it made quite
drmatt wrote:
> I'm all for arguing against hifi vendors and magazines misrepresenting
> products (such as the appalling nonsense regarding a certain company's
> power lead demos that was discussed a few weeks ago), but I don't see a
> need to beat up normal forum members.
I think the "beating
Julf wrote:
> Yes, you are in the minority, as the rest of us pointed out that as long
> as the cables don't have any obvious defects, they don't actually change
> the sound in a physical sense. Whatever happens in your head is a
> different story.
I would agree that the viewpoint discussed is a
Spin wrote:
> Sorry for my poor use of words. Clearly no DAC can resolve 24 bits - the
> laws of physics tends to intervene!
indeed.
> I meant to say that it had 24 bit resolution (although I'd have been
> wrong about that too, it's a 28 bit DAC not 24 !)
Well, yes, but what is the point of t
Julf wrote:
> I don't see any claims about being able to resolve 24 bits. 127 dB of
> SNR corresponds to roughly 21 bits. 0.006% THD corresponds to
> approximately 14 bits.
Sorry for my poor use of words. Clearly no DAC can resolve 24 bits - the
laws of physics tends to intervene ! I meant to sa
rkrug01 wrote:
> There is no absolute objectivity - just different degrees of
> subjectivity.
>
> If you want absolute answers, you are lost - there is no absolute truth.
So 2 + 2 = 5 is just as valid a viewpoint as 2 + 2 = 4?
I would love to know how you design electronics. "What voltage does
Hificricketboy wrote:
> Who said anything about hifi magazine reviews? There are loads of
> reviews written by real people on the Internet who aren't paid by
> manufacturers.
Ah, yes. If it is on the net, it must be true. :)
> Anyway enough trolling chaps. You're welcome to your views and you
12 matches
Mail list logo
