[LAU] What audio interface to use for a Linux-powered surround preamp?
gheskett at wdtv.com
Tue Dec 20 01:21:12 UTC 2011
On Monday, December 19, 2011 07:50:53 PM Johan Herland did opine:
List only reply..
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 00:19, gene heskett <gheskett at wdtv.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, December 19, 2011 06:16:06 PM Fons Adriaensen did opine:
> >> Be very careful with what you read on 'audiophile' forums. 99% of the
> >> high-end audio business is based on ignorance and hype these days.
> > Chuckle. آ I have to disagree a wee bit Fons, you under-estimate the
> > percentage that is all smoke and mirrors, its at least 99.9% these
> > days. :)
> > Lots of card claim 24 bit, but a monotonicity check will often fail
> > before the 14th bit has been fully tested.
> Is this on pure digital devices (where you should expect bit-perfect
> Are you claiming that manufacturers in practice don't meet the specs
> listed for their devices?
> Does this seem like a trend, or are there just some interfaces with
> bugs out there?
> Are some brands notoriously worse than others?
> (just curious, since one wouldn't want to buy crappy equipment)
> Have fun! :)
TBT, I am a bit hardware oriented, and I base that statement on reading the
data sheets on what look to be interesting bits of smart sand I have found
As I am not privy to what chip is on audio card x, at any one week n, I
think to actually name names & model numbers (something else I have learned
to miss-trust, dealing with ATI's video cards, which can get changed at
about the same rate we change underwear, can be exceptionally educational)
is generally pretty frustrating. So other than the card I presently use, I
won't give any name, rank or serial numbers. Why? Ears are at least as
variable as eyeballs. My eyes for instance, have had glass in front of
them for the last 71 years. My color vision OTOH, is very very good.
I don't claim to have ears that matched Larry Klien's when he was doing all
his pundrity in the audiofile rags 30 years ago, but at my age, I think
they are generally not lying to me when I listen to something for several
hours, with a rather eclectic mix of music, and do not get tired of it.
Toss in a bit of digital aliasing, a bit of monotonicity errors, then add a
3rd order intercept of 40db or less for the two tone so the net total
distortion approaches .5%, and these old ears are screaming for some
silence in 5 to 10 minutes.
However, I have been amazed at the number of folks out there who can listen
to 5% THD and a 20 db intercept on a two tone signal, with a bit of
aliasing thrown in, and absolutely cannot hear it, the difference to them
is a total shrug. It boggles my mind to think of what they are missing.
OTOH, given the class of folks who seem to inhabit this list, I think there
are some altogether decent ears here. Your tastes in music might assault
me, and mine would yours I'm equally sure, but the technical ability I hear
in most of the samples posted so far is far better done than the average
garage band console can pass. You are being 'picky' and for that I salute
you all. Technically, the state of the art in making music seems to
continually improve. And its people like you that are part of that driving
force behind that.
Thanks for reading this far. I'll get me coat now.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
My web page: <http://coyoteden.dyndns-free.com:85/gene>
We will have solar energy as soon as the utility companies solve one
problem -- how to run a sunbeam through a meter.
More information about the Linux-audio-user