If you go back a page you can see a list of the things that I believe are important. The point is that the best algorithms alone are not solving the problem. Powerful cpu, oversampling, conversion, sample/bit rate, etc all combine to create the last 5%.
When ToneX says "up to 123db dynamic range" I'm pretty sure that is code for the spec listed for their converter, and it may be up to that level, not actually at that level. Which is where the difficulty comes in comparing them. Some companies express it differently.
I found a DI post from a decade ago where Line6 gets that level of dynamic range from lesser converters using some kind of trick (probably parallel conversion). I remember RME did something like this on their old UFX inputs over a decade ago.
Would like to know what are the current converter chips in the the Helix and also any data concerning the circuitry
line6.com
So this absolutely matters. If some company is using the decade old converters that Line6 was using in the Helix (114db), but not using their "trick", it may be that any signal expressed through that path will be compromised. And what if they are not using the "trick" on the Pod Go or the HX Stomp? Even with the same algorithms it might lose some quality. People have said the Pod Go doesn't sound as good as the Helix, so this might be part of the reason why.
The DI post above tells me that conversion matters or else they wouldn't be using their "patented trick" to get 123db. The reason cheap devices are able to get this level of dynamic range in 2024, my guess, is that good conversion has fallen in price. Or maybe everyone has adopted the "trick".
