grawk

I'm still winning

pimpin' ain't easy

It's sceptre-ier

Great, I guess I misunderstood the load maggies presented.

The Buffalo DAC

I'm high bidder

pictures?

MMGs need an amp that's stable to 2ohms. If you have one, go for it.

Yah, but that means a power amp for the front channel of my home theater, since the marantz isn't 2 ohm stable.

mexican deep fried tostada shells, cracked and used as chips, with home-made rotel salsa

I"m tempted to buy MMG-Ws instead of ESP950s

no word means he was lying.

stax cables

My mouse has 5 buttons and a trackball, on my mac. And my macs all have utorrent

We're definitely different, it's because so many new members come here not to be part of a community but to take from the community without contributing. We find making it hard to get accepted cuts down on that quite a bit.

It's definitely different, whether you like it or not.

I think that's because the flaws in most cds are on the disc in the form of poor recordings, and in the nature of the cd medium, and are being overcome through electronics on good cd players...

I don't believe that dacs intentionally sound worse at lower sample rates, I think the designs just aren't always optimized for all sample rates.

Except I believe that's done on purpose for marketting reasons.

I'll still argue the difference was at record time, and in the sample rate conversion done. The final sample rate and bit depth isn't going to be the significant factor. The way frequencies are recreated is based on sine waves already, so even tho the digital representation of it is smoother, the final output will be the same. Where it's possible you'll get differences is from harmonic distortion introduced by frequencies greater than 22khz but it would take a hell of a signal path to recreate those correctly anyway. I'd guess that the variability you hear is in the DAC design, and the optimization for specific sample rates. Chances are it's better at some frequencies than others, and that's the improvement you're hearing.

Dusty, I agree with you in theory, but most dacs filter that off anyway. And I apologize for calling you a dope. That's just shorthand for "doing something that is seriously non-optimal, whether done in the digital or analog realm.

I didn't do 24/88, I did 24/44, because I'm not a bat. I do it sometimes for the theoretical advantage, but in the field resources are scarce, so I didn't capture data I didn't need. Bit depth I needed, higher frequencies than 22k I didn't. It's theoretically possible in dac designs with no brickwall filter at 22khz (most have them) you might hear a difference, but I doubt it. But you're really not going to hear anything 96db below the loudest point recorded unless you're playing that loudest point recorded at 120dB.

I've done it myself a lot. I used to do a lot of location sound recording. Sample rate conversion can be heard, bit depth changes can't, if done with any care at all.

Ok, yes, if you turn the volume down digitally, then turn it back up in the analog realm, you can lose information. If you're doing that, tho, you're a dope.

Dusty, the dithering happens with the least significant bit. Yes, if you just truncate, you can get problems, but that's why you normalize first, then use noise shaping. At -96db, you're not going to hear the noise shaping, or anything else for that matter.