I don't think I have any music that can use those settings... even 1411kbps losless AIFFs are 16bit 44100hz, which means even the 24bit might be overkill.

I just got my new MBP, and I was looking in Audio MIDI setup to see if this macbook still did 96khz like my old one... not only that, they added an 88.2khz option as well as a 32 bit option! It's interesting that they don't advertise this nor set it as the default. 

Quote: How about a quark AA^2? It can do a few things the fenix can't. ;) 

Howdy!

So, when I asked about how sound worked in the 16 vs 24 bit thread I learned a lot of the stuff I thought I knew about sound was wrong. One of the things brought up was the actual sound waves versus what voltages you feed the speaker. For the last few hours, I have been working on some wave...

It's true, air might affect the sound, but I don't think it would be that hard to simulate it. I mean, recordings already happen through the air, right? It couldn't take much work to simulate the ear canal. Plus, for all we know, direct-to-brain hearing actually sounds better than eardrum-based...

I was just thinking... if you remove the speaker out of the equation, the only thing limiting the quality of what you hear is the DAC. If one were to get some kind of cochlear implant/direct-to-brain audio connection with external access (neodymium magnets on the outside of the skull have been...

Quote: Me too. 

xabu, please don't be passive-agressive and claim that you were asking that question for my benefit. You were just as wrong (if not more so) than I was.   xnor, thank you for the explanation. I think I get it now. Your graphs have been indispensable. 

OK, so the sum of all the sinc functions from the samples taken is the current amplitude of the sine wave? I guess that makes sense.   However, as xabu pointed out, won't the wave not look smooth, like in your graph, but rather blocky since there are only around four total samples per hertz?

So, I've had my TF10s for around a day now, and I just have some really quick thoughts I'd like to share with anyone considering purchasing these. I guess I'll let this take the form of a pros/cons list.   Pros: The IEMs themselves feel very sturdy! I got some milk on one, it still works...

@xnor, if I understand that wiki right, the sin wave is shifted so that either the peak values or the (close to) zero values (I'm not sure which) occur at the moment of sampling. Do I understand it correctly? Also, please answer me this please-let's say that you have the hypothetical 8-bit...

The SF10s are cheaper than either of the other two options (sub $200) and I think they sound pretty good when playing dubstep. They are not very ergonomic though, IMO, and the stock cable sucks. However, the hundreds saved is probably worth it. I can't really say much more as I just got mine.

OK, so I got the TF10s today... the cables are not quite what I expected for $200, but that's another story. Personally, I find the acoustic setting a bit flat compared to having the EQ off. It could just be by brain interpreting the volume change that way, but I think having the EQ off makes it...

Quote: Where are you seeing this? That's an amazing deal, weren't these things like $500 a few years ago? The only better deal I've heard of was the $99 black friday price on amazon (REALLY wish I got in on that...).

My TripleFis come on wednesday... I'm using 4.2.1, is the "acoustic" preset the same? If so, I'll do some tests for you. 

Oops, double post. 

Alright, how about this: 'Depending on the situation, bit depth may or may not affect audible signal quality'? I think that's appropriately ambiguous...    Quote:     That makes no sense to me... why mess up the waveform if you just get the exact same quantization error...

Thanks. I suppose it's related to the discussion... 

Yes, I got that... I'm just saying that what you call "dithering down" appears to be dithering then truncating versus truncating then dithering. I believe audio, however, is often truncated then dithered (dithering occurring at the time of playback).

Quote: Think about it. If the third picture was dithered, there would be no cloud. If the first picture was dithered and THEN subjected to the same compression as the third picture, the cloud would be visible (and it is). It's just that I don't think you really want that when...

So then it was dithered before compression, not after, right? I believe audio dithering is different, the wave is dithered during decompression. Otherwise all you get is quantization error with extra noise.

Wait-in the second file, the cloud is still visible but in the non-dithered file it is not. If the second file was truly a dithered version of the third file, there would be no cloud, right? Are you sure you didn't dither first and compress second?

 My computer headphone jack is messed up, and the only way I can get both buds to work is if the polarity ends up being different. I don't notice it while in my ears. I do notice it, however, when I hold them next to each other away from my face. However, you may want to just test with a...

@D. Lundberg The entire first part of your post I agree with... You act like you are correcting me, but that's all that I am saying... Those equations you posted describe the relationship I am talking about, if D goes up then Q goes up. If Q goes up, the difference between steps becomes...