[watchnerd]

  If this were only about knowns, this forum need not exist and those pertinent facts could just be posted with simply question/answer pages applied. 

 
On the contrary:
 
1. The "knowns" don't appear to be widely known or believed among placebophiles.
 
2. Snake oil, lies, and vodoo are common amongst vendors as a way to separate the naive from their money
 
3. Because of #2, much money and time is wasted on things that actually don't advance the state of the art at all in terms of genuine innovations
 
This thread topic itself is evidence of all 3.

 

[gregorio]

   Science is observation, attempting to explain it by setting up a hypothesis and then trying to prove it with repeatable results.

 
That's patently untrue, even more untrue when talking about audio equipment. Have you actually thought about what you wrote? You think someone observed a DAC in nature (say growing on a tree), then attempted to explain it with a hypothesis and then tried to prove the hypothesis with repeatable results? Of course not. In the case of digital audio, first came a hypothesis, then came a mathematical proof of that hypothesis (thereby turning it into a theorem) and then many years later engineers attempted to create a device which implemented that theorem. Personal observation of a DAC had nothing to do with it and any contrary hypothesis you care to come up with is invalid unless it can somehow disprove that which has already been proven.
 
Even if we're talking about observation based science (rather than technology), after a hypothesis has been formed, experiments are designed to support that hypothesis and to be valid, those experiments have to be repeatable. At this stage, the hypothesis is still effectively worthless scientifically! The results then have to be compiled into a paper, peer reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal. Only then does it have any scientific validity! An observation, hypothesis and repeatable results prove nothing by themselves. Let's take an example and your definition of science: Let's say I observe god (maybe in a dream or hallucination), I then hypothesise that there is a god and, this hypothesis is obviously repeatable because many people in human history claim to have seen god. By your definition, are you therefore saying that the existence of god has been proven scientifically?
 
Again, the purpose of science is to eliminate personal bias, personal ideas of reality and thereby differentiate science from superstition. You were the one who brought up "being an adult" and yet you don't appear to have an adult's basic understanding of what science is!
 
Quote:

  I began with my personal observation and gave an example of another's hypothesis. The idea was to discuss and look for other possible hypothesis. I wasn't trying to prove anything or attack anyone. The rest has been a waste of all our time.

 
Except for the last sentence, that's a lie! The offending post (#3435) began with "The idea that you can't hear below a noise floor is a poor one.". Calling an "idea" a "poor one" is obviously an attack. Attacks on hypotheses or ideas are perfectly acceptable here and actually a requirement of science, providing, obviously, your attack/argument has some scientific validity. As explained above, say with a link to peer reviewed, published paper. We can be a little more forgiving here than in the formal world of science and allow links to some other publications/supporting evidence, providing it's a reputable source and doesn't obviously fly in the face of the accepted science. Your supporting evidence was marketing material, which is about as far from a reputable source as it's possible to get, and flew in the face of the known science numerous times! In fact, you supported your attack with a document which itself was an apparently deliberate perversion of the science! If one were trying to be an adult and had a basic understanding of science, how could one not see that as anything but insulting?
 
G

 

[StanD]

I think we should ignore this and just move on, rather than keep flogging it over again and to no purpoose giving it unnecessary attention.

 

[voxie]

  I think we should ignore this and just move on, rather than keep flogging it over again and to no purpoose giving it unnecessary attention.

Thank God for that!!

 

[watchnerd]

  I think we should ignore this and just move on, rather than keep flogging it over again and to no purpoose giving it unnecessary attention.

 
So lock the thread with a final post saying?
 
"Conclusion: 24bit audio, all else being equal, is of no audible benefit for consumer replay."

 

[StanD]

   
So lock the thread with a final post saying?
 
"Conclusion: 24bit audio, all else being equal, is of no audible benefit for consumer replay."

No. I suggested not engaging in a tennis match with a pointless exchange that is not much on topic and some might think borders on trolling.

 

[StanD]

So other than a digitally controlled analog attenuator, what do you guys think about software or digitally controlled attenuation that might be subject to reduced resolution and quantization? How might that play out in 24 bit vs 16 bit DACs?

 

[watchnerd]

  So other than a digitally controlled analog attenuator, what do you guys think about softwaret or digitally controlled attenuation that might be subject to reduced resolution and quantization? How might that play out in 24 bit vs 16 bit DACs?

 
Digital volume control is often done by up-sampling / SRC to a higher bit depth first.
 
This is how Roon does it.
 
But you can do this with normal Redbook 16bit source files.

 

[StanD]

   
Digital volume control is often done by up-sampling / SRC to a higher bit depth first.
 
This is how Roon does it.
 
But you can do this with normal Redbook 16bit source files.

Is this done before or after the DAC? Lets think of the consequences of 16 bit source material. If one up-samples, attenuates and then brings it back down to 16 bits (R2R) for the DAC what happens? Any other scenarios that might be questionable as to the results?

 

[watchnerd]

 
Is this done before or after the DAC? Lets think of the consequences of 16 bit source material. If one up-samples, attenuates and then brings it back down to 16 bits (R2R) for the DAC what happens? Any other scenarios that might be questionable as to the results?

 
It's done before the DAC.
 
In a modern DS DAC, you don't need to bring it "back down to 16 bits" -- you just go straight to conversion.
 
As for R2R DACs, they do they same thing they do if they're fed higher bitrate content of any other kind.

 

[goodvibes]

   
Except for the last sentence, that's a lie! The offending post (#3435) began with "The idea that you can't hear below a noise floor is a poor one.". Calling an "idea" a "poor one" is obviously an attack. Attacks on hypotheses or ideas are perfectly acceptable here and actually a requirement of science, providing, obviously, your attack/argument has some scientific validity. As explained above, say with a link to peer reviewed, published paper. We can be a little more forgiving here than in the formal world of science and allow links to some other publications/supporting evidence, providing it's a reputable source and doesn't obviously fly in the face of the accepted science. Your supporting evidence was marketing material, which is about as far from a reputable source as it's possible to get, and flew in the face of the known science numerous times! In fact, you supported your attack with a document which itself was an apparently deliberate perversion of the science! If one were trying to be an adult and had a basic understanding of science, how could one not see that as anything but insulting?
 
G

LOL It's the concept and not a person I addressed. It came from the suggestion in a few posts that dynamic range is an absolute so I wasn't really reading in. It was not my intent to insult anyone. Since you said that you agree that we can hear into the noise floor, that ended. No one had specifically said you can't hear into the noise floor before that so I don't see how that was targeting anyone because it wasn't. I've been a bit less cordial in other posts since but there was no malice there. You're digging deep here. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[StanD]

   
It's done before the DAC.
 
In a modern DS DAC, you don't need to bring it "back down to 16 bits" -- you just go straight to conversion.
 
As for R2R DACs, they do they same thing they do if they're fed higher bitrate content of any other kind.

If you up-scale the numbers before using a 16 bit R2R DAC, you still have to scale it back down to 16 bits. once attenuated the entire DR is across a smaller set of numbers that are still quantized. So if the attenuation is such that the max value is 1024, then there are only 1024 steps of quantized resolution. Bring it down to 256, then there are even less steps of resolution. The question becomes, what is the audible effect? This is not the case in an analog world where depending on the design one might be battling the noise floor not quantization.

 

[zareliman]

   
On a commercial music recording the most I have seen is about 60dB. I've heard reports that there is at least one with just over 70dB. If you think about it, no one would release a commercial recording with more, you'd just annoy virtually all your customers. Many/most would be annoyed with a 60dB range, let alone one with say 30 times more!
 
G

Then 14 bit was good enough at some point.

 

[StanD]

 
Then 14 bit was good enough at some point.

Those that demand 32 bit, let alone 24 bit will be sorely disappointed.

 

[zareliman]

 
Those that demand 32 bit, let alone 24 bit will be sorely disappointed.

It's reasonable to demand more bits if you plan to engineer, mix, DSP, edit or do something with the tracks. If you only want to listen to them, then they're just placebophiles.