|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.239.106.81
I may have missed prior AA posts about the topic.
I'll be curious to read other folk's findings. TIA
See link:
Follow Ups:
Just listen tot he stuff - my eyes frankly glaze over when reading all the endless tech. Star Trek used the term technobabble whenever they needed to fill a few minutes of air-time.
Chances are if it doesn't have a tube it's going to be unbearable - and if it does have a tube - the measurements will probably suck.
There are two "purposes" for a 32 bit DAC:
1. Specsmanship. The measured SN of DAC chips are getting close to the 24 bit limit and by sending in artificial signals for measurement purposes at 32 bits the same DAC can pickup an extra dB or so of SN. Of course this noise is irrelevant in practice for reasons that Thorsten pointed out.
2. Flexibility for DSP in the computer. If the computer uses digital volume control and throws away bits one loses information in those 24 bit files if the computer attenuates, and having a few extra bits prevents this. There might be audible distortion added if the computer had to dither to 24 bits and chose not to do so, and doing so will add noise and increase processing required. In the case of sigma delta DACs there is no extra cost to supporting the extra 8 bits so this (questionable) benefit comes for free.
IMO I would not pay more for a 32 bit DAC vs. a 24 bit DAC. I would go on sound quality, features and reputation rather than 32 bit word length. In the case of the SABRE chip based DACs like my Mytek there is no benefit to 32 bits all, since the filters and modulator in HQPlayer provide better sound sending DSD128 to the DAC, rather than any PCM format supported by the DAC.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
And I had guessed that all computers used digital volume control. Learn something new every day...
Some DACs use digital volume control. My Mytek DAC allows the option of either digital volume control or analog volume control. In my system the digital volume control sounds better, but that's because it's a 32 bit DAC and I use only about 15 dB of volume reduction and also because the analog volume control uses op-amps and not expensive attenuators.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Just don't use a manufacturer's website as a source of info. Look up technical papers by bona fide engineers who aren't trying to sell something. Or talk to somebody with professional experience with the relevant technology.
A recording engineer I know told me, while I was touring his studio, that 24-bits of depth gave him all the dynamic headroom he needed for recording.
Based on what he said, I didn't see any benefit in exceeding 24-bits of depth for playback under any circumstances.
----------------------------
It's amazing that hipsters who insist they can hear sampling remnants in interpolated 24/96 digital waveforms can somehow fail to detect surface noise from their own vinyl LPs.
Hi,
I think we need to consider what terminology we apply.
If a DAC accepts a certain word-length (16/18/20/24/32 Bit) does this "qualify"?
Or do we expect a DAC to be able to show true performance (ENOB - equivalent number of bits)?
If the first then "number of bits" is essentially meaningless as a measure of Quality. For example a current commercial "32-Bit" DAC chip offers 106dB A-Weighted SNR, which is around 17 Bit ENOB, with the best at around 138dB or 23 Bit ENOB.
If the second is applied, then neither 32 Bit nor 24 Bit DAC's exist and a 32 Bit DAC is literally impossible, as it would require > 194dB analogue SNR, this may require immersion in liquid nitrogen to get anywhere close and we are likely to still be many bits short.
Another question is if we use the DAC for music, what sort of dynamic range can actually be used?
Typically, recording microphones have around 26dB(A) self noise, the very best have around 10dB(A) but are not necessarily the best sounding microphones. Peak SPL from a large orchestra in the front rows is around 105dB, above the rostrum (where recording mikes often are hung) it may be another 10dB.
So a minimalist classical recording using the lowest noise microphones may have a real usable dynamic range of around 105dB. Multi-tracked recordings may have microphones closer to instruments and thus higher SPL and potentially greater dynamic range.
The other side is how much dynamic range can we get even in a treated and silenced listening room? Peak SPL's much above 105dB (and average SPL's much above 85dB) are likely to lead to hearing damage. A little headroom perhaps at 110dB would be nice.
If we presume "normal" speakers (87dB/2.83V/1m) and a reasonable size room it around 3m listening distance needs at least 400W, but with most speakers this level of power leads to compression and huge distortion. So we may need to get very high power handling speakers with well above average efficiency to even get 110dB undistributed peaks (and an Amplifier/Preamplifier with sufficiently low self noise).
And then we still only have 110dB usable dynamic range if there is absolutely no background noise. And these 110dB is around 18 Bit ENOB.
What does it all mean?
Extending DAC performance much past 18 Bit real world analogue performance has little practical use for music reproduction.
This level of performance was reached reliably in the late 1980's and is now fairly easily and cheaply attained. More dynamic range in itself, more "bits" in themselves are unlikely in themselves to offer any audible improvement.
What matter much more to how we perceive digital music replay is the way digital filtering and other digital processing (e.g. noise-shaping) impact the music. Part of this is the sample rate which in some ways can never be high enough and realistically my experience tells me that the less digital domain manipulation the better.
So for me - I'd rather have a good old-fashioned 18 Bit real (multi-bit) DAC at 176.4kHz than a modern noise-shaped low bit DAC that is marketed as "32 Bit". But others may disagree...
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
That was very clear and logical, but I guess you have to make some grandiose claims if you want people to shell out $125,000 for a DAC.
Dave
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Are you asking us whether we concurr with MSB's analysis, or what?
_
Ken Newton
Just seeking commentaries about MSB's perspective regarding 32-bit DACs.
all the technology in that black box does not matter. The end result is everything. Let people like T and Mikey Moffett make the decisions of what goes in it. And you decide if it really does sound better, and whether or not you must have it.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: