Dusty Chalk

They need to soundproof their website. Agh. Agh! AGH! (I mean no disrespect to their products/services -- only to their website design.)

Except that's based on dynamic range, and I'm not talking about dynamic range, I'm talking about resolution. I won't argue that you can't hear a whisper next to a jet engine, but with complex music, I don't see how a high noise floor would prevent you from hearing the difference. I mean, to extrapolate on what you're saying, if I raise the noise floor high enough (what is it, -48db?), you're saying you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 8 bit and 16 bit audio, and I think you would. I agree you wouldn't be able to hear a 1-bit (out of 16) signal with a -48db noise floor ("dynamic range"), but I bet you could still tell the difference between an 8-bit signal and a 16-bit signal ("resolution").

Alright, I have to admit, I don't understand your argument starting at post 25 -- could you go back and explain it again, or at least point me to a wiki page? I mean, if I understand you correctly, you seem to think that something is making you use only 16 bits of resolution in a 24 bit word -- why would you think that? It's amplifying data, the additional 8 bits would have to be below the LSB of the 16 bit word in order for it to be compatible with the 16 bit DAC, not above the MSB. If you're saying something else, then please explain it to me.

Soundproofing basically entails air gaps, which is hard.

See, I don't think of it that way. Maybe I don't want to use integer math. Fractions would represent an analog waveform that much better. So, to turn your analogy back around on you, it's like going from integer math to floating point math to represent an analog waveform.

My usual joke response to this is, "maybe it doesn't know the words"? So...maybe it knows the words?

Dude, that's just cold.

What? There are more numbers, hence increased resolution.

It's more than that. It's not just the maximum signal vs. the minimum signal, it makes the whole signal more accurate. Resolution increases accuracy in the "vertical" direction (looking at a graph of the signal), raising the sampling frequency increases accuracy in the horizontal direction. If you believe it's all in the sampling frequency, that's like increasing the resolution on just the "X" on an x-y axis. So it should approximate the original analog signal more accurately. And yes, I'd be happy to lend you my personal reference, but I don't think Alan Parsons Project's I, Robot does anything for you, whereas there are some very nice jazz and blues stuff on Classic Records that I don't have that you might be more interested in. I could also lend you some classical, of course...

We've disagreed about that before. I really need to make you hear a 24/96 Classic Records mastered DAD or HDAD, and compare it to the redbook release.

I had seen a thread on HDCD before (and I thought it was on hdcd), but it wasn't anywhere near as useful as that one. Especially having examples cited, now I can go reverse engineer it for myself. And I should add a qualifier re: hdcd.exe -- I'm not sure he does the different cases iterated in that thread correctly -- I'd be curious to know for sure. I think he only does the one most complex case, which would mean he's decoding the others incorrectly. Another way to do it would be to rent the Pacific Microsonics Model One or Model Two (it is one of the few devices that will decode entirely within the digital realm), digitally capture the results (I was going to use the Alesis Masterlink), and then use that (.wav files or whatever) as the input to your iTunes library.

Only because usually more care was put into the mastering, but that's not a guaranteed to be the case 100% of the time. It's just that, if the artist is putting that much money care into their master that it's HDCD, then they usually do the same with the rest of the mastering process. So if it's the same exact master, then the only difference would be the slight compressing at the top and bottom of the dynamic range (it's rather like dolby, only an order of magnitude or two more subtle, because they can do that in the digital realm).

No, they're "1"/2.8224 MHz (I say "1" rather than 1, because it's used to represent the information slightly differently than PCM, but it really is still only 1 bit of information).

It depends on what you want to do, Monkey. If you want to run it through an HDCD DAC, then yes, just rip it lossless and run it out a bit-perfect digital out of whatever computer you use. But if you want to decode it (it's just a filter), then you'll need to track down hdcd.exe. The way I do it is rip it to .wav; run it through hdcd.exe; then convert it to whatever it is you want to do (apple lossless, etc.). Undecoded, it's 16-bit. Decoded, it can be anything from 18 bit to 24 bit (I've read 18, 20, and 24, don't know why, haven't done the math). They're not adding information, it's just the representation that's different. The 16-bit representation happens to be compatible with 16-bit audio, but is not the "perfect" representation of the music.

I am maxed out (according to the insurance company) on Allegra-D, Nasonex & Astelin, yes, and I see my allergist weekly for shots. Back when I first visited my prior allergist (the current allergist has taken over his practice), he said, "you tested positive to different things to different degrees, but I don't think you'd be here if it wasn't for this", and pointed to mold, 4+, off the scale, basically. I've since gotten worse with different things (I wasn't allergic to cats at all back then, now register mildly), and this last test, tested positive for the few things that were in DC-area air that I wasn't allergic to before (certain grasses). Yes, that's right, I am basically allergic to everything that is in DC area air (I tell people I'm allergic to air). The prior guy actually told me to move. To the desert.

Fucking breeders. Those are really cute kids.

That's what she said.

Yeah, it does, actually. I'll try those things (especially the "clear your nasal passages" part sooner than later) the next time my allergies act up. I'm thinking it also might be inflamation, not just congestion, but I think all of your advice still applies -- clear (gently), etc.

moar pitchers damit

I thought of a possibility -- when I get congested, my ears start popping, and it's possible I subconsciously do something about it (rub, poke, etc.) -- you're saying that this stimulates earwax production? So what should I do, leave my ears alone? I do try to yawn to open my ears back up -- this would be alright, though? But I don't think it's that, because part of the problem is that there's already enough wax to keep it closed (to stick).

Well, lightning is just one of my favorites -- dark clouds rolling by is another. Hawt.

Dude, they're still designing new tubes -- I just read a one-paragraph article about either Svetlana or Sovtek releasing a new tube...and an amp to go with it. So good luck with that. Just buy what you think you need and don't worry about it. Things always change.

It sounds like they'd be trying to do too much with one device, I can't imagine a jack-of-all-trades type device succeeding in today's market.

I thought he was rating this thread four stars. Alright, no I didn't.

I just had the most awesome Korean BBQ. Triplet of Gui chicken, Bulgogi beef and ...uh...something else, brisket, I think.