Nik, do you accept this statement ?
A properly dithered digital attenuator, Weiss for example is completely transparent,
A properly dithered digital attenuator, Weiss for example is completely transparent,
No, I was answering the OP...
The question was do you need a pre-amp between a computer and a power amp, or could you just plug the computer straight into the power amp.
And I responded that I would not do that, and gave a pretty obvious practical reason.
I think you don't know what a pre-amp is.But your practical reason depended on the presence of an attenuator, not an amplifier, so by adding a pre-amp you make your problem worse. (more amplification = louder noise)
Only an attenuator will reduce your practical problem, hence my explanation that in legacy systems the attenuator was usually present in the pre-amp, but in digital systems it doesn't have to be, so the pre-amp is un-necessary.
I think you are confusing the functions of an amplifier and an attenuator.
JC
Given that we are reducing the bit depth and that fewer bits means lower resolution, I'd have to say, "it depends".Nik, do you accept this statement ?
I think you don't know what a pre-amp is.
Perhaps you should read the specifications of some products and get to know what the output voltages are of sources and pre-amps.
You might learn something.
Given that we are reducing the bit depth and that fewer bits means lower resolution, I'd have to say, "it depends".
If we reduce the volume it is quite likely that the lower resolution will not be audibly apparent. If, however, we were to add gain later in the chain so that the volume is the same as it would be with no digital attenuation, then I'd expect it to be audible. If not, we are implicitly saying that 13 bit (or 10 bit, or whatever) is just as good as 16.
No - merely pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about.Ha Ha, you are trolling as usual. - JC.
But as I recall from my Electronics degree course, Shannon's Sampling Theorem gave a theoretical basis for sampling based on a perfect A-D and D-A capability.p.p.s. Nyquist and Shannon at the Bell Telephone Labs had got all the arithmetic of this sorted in 1948.
It just took the manufacturers of digital hifi equipment some time to perceive that implementation was necessary.
Bell Labs info
JC
I suggested to you that you do a bit of research and read some of the spec sheets you seem to favour, because you will find out that a pre-amplifier tends to not make the music louder (eg. if the source is a CD player or DAC, it will output something like 2V peak, which is roughly what the peak out of a pre-amp would be).But your practical reason depended on the presence of an attenuator, not an amplifier, so by adding a pre-amp you make your problem worse. (more amplification = louder noise)
Only an attenuator will reduce your practical problem, hence my explanation that in legacy systems the attenuator was usually present in the pre-amp, but in digital systems it doesn't have to be, so the pre-amp is un-necessary.
I think you are confusing the functions of an amplifier and an attenuator.
JC
You said some things that were wrong and I've pointed them out; you know they were wrong and your usual defence mechanism kicks in and you avoid the questions and start the ad-hom.More thread craps as usual Paul. You can think what you like. It doesn't seem to get you anywhere.
Just go and get some experience with good digital kit and you'll find the level controls are fine and don't cause any problems.
JC
JC - you are always having to personalize things (and of course accuse people of trolling when they point out you are wrong).They aren't wrong Paul, you are just pointlessly creating argument, and acting like a troll as usual.
A pre-amp is not necessary, as I have said, and has been proven.
The consequence of not using a traditional legacy analogue pre-amp is that you have to depend on a digital volume control, either in the computer, or in the dac.
There is nothing wrong with doing that, since with modern, current, 24bit digital volume controls there is no degradation in sound quality, as also has been proven.
Go and visit Keith at Purite Audio and he will show you one working. He has posted his assurance that it is totally transparent.
This is a complete answer to the OP's question.
It's just that you don't like the answer.
JC.
Nah, mate - it's just you were talking rubbish.The lengths you are going to, to keep this going, is bordering on the psychotic Paul.
You need help.
JC.