Dusty Chalk

My senior citizen cat loves when I rub her gums. Oh, and I received this in an email, it was supposed to help as instructions on how to medicate a cat:

Chop't Steakhouse Salad + olives Their employees were wearing an embroidered polo shirt with just the stylized two-handled Mezzaluna knife that they use to chop their salads with: ...it ends up looking like a smiley.

:/

Oops.

Yeah, this will be the first male cat for which I am the responsible adult for him losing his reproductive abilities as well. I feel so guilty, and yet, I will still do it, because I believe in spaying and neutering. And that's a good point about pet health insurance -- any particular reason you like that one? I'm thinking I should probably get pet health insurance as well. Mine just tested positive for worms. :\

Depends on the thickness of the walls. When I had a townhouse in Laurel (endcap, so only one adjacent neighbor who was actually connected to ours), the only time we had a problem was when we cranked it. Normal listening levels were never a problem.

What was (were) the search term(s)? "Sexy", perhaps? EDIT: Yes, I think "sexy" is the right search term -- model people having model sex for model railroads. 's'awesome.

Fair point (and agreed that they are different), I will see if I can figure out a way to make that comparison.

Absolutely not, you let us know up front you're with the company, which is all we ask (it's the difference between shilling and just responding responsibly). You may get labelled as a MOT (Member Of the Trade), though (so you don't have to announce yourself every time you post).

It is about telling the difference, if you can. And I'll leave it at that.

Sympathies, Vicky.

Exquisite! (at the same does the Italian fingers together thing to indicate pleasure)

I miss my reel-to-reel.

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.