24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!

[566805]

excellent initial post with great explanations. Now my simple question is if it makes sense using a DAC AMP Stack for the laptop when listening to CD-rips in 16bit? or is it enough to just plug in the headphone to the audio port of the laptop?

 

[bigshot]

That depends on the impedance and sensitivity of your headphones. They might benefit from amping.

 

[71 dB]

That depends on the impedance and sensitivity of your headphones. They might benefit from amping.

Plus the output impedance of the laptop.

 

[ostuni]

excellent initial post with great explanations. Now my simple question is if it makes sense using a DAC AMP Stack for the laptop when listening to CD-rips in 16bit? or is it enough to just plug in the headphone to the audio port of the laptop?

With my 300 ohm HD800s, I need a certified MQA dac amp to unwrap MQA from Tidal.

 

[tarikuz]

Please check:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0321/7609/files/ASPECTS_OF_SAMPLING.pdf?267

Enjoy!

 

[gregorio]

Please check:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0321/7609/files/ASPECTS_OF_SAMPLING.pdf?267

Enjoy!

A very decent write-up, considering it’s nearly 30 years old! The audibility of jitter question was put to bed within about 5 years or so of the publication of the document but the rest of it is still accurate.

G

 

[Sam Spade]

wOw!
Very interesting read, and I expect there to be some very interesting responses.

Thank you very much for the time, effort, and research that went into this post.

I adore your ***** nice cans! What breed? This is Odin, he is a Birman.

 

[ewppl]

i am at a total loss with all this information. i am a simple man with the desire to listen to the best possible music with the best possible tools (iems/daps/amps/cables).

i understood perfectly that 24/192 is in fact “marketing” only and does more bad than good to the sound.

with 24/96 and below, i understand i probably won’t be able to hear the difference but i also need to satisfy my psychology. it’s not always the logical, there’s some ego there too.

that said, looking at my dap sp3k which has quad totl dac chips onboard probably for the purpose of oversampling like crazy, i question it’s fidelity. does it do more bad than good with artifacts ? is oversampling something to be avoided and one should prefer NOS daps ?

what was the purpose of oversampling at the first place of its something to be avoided ? was it “more is better…” like we see everywhere these days ?

 

[chef8489]

i am at a total loss with all this information. i am a simple man with the desire to listen to the best possible music with the best possible tools (iems/daps/amps/cables).

i understood perfectly that 24/192 is in fact “marketing” only and does more bad than good to the sound.

with 24/96 and below, i understand i probably won’t be able to hear the difference but i also need to satisfy my psychology. it’s not always the logical, there’s some ego there too.

that said, looking at my dap sp3k which has quad totl dac chips onboard probably for the purpose of oversampling like crazy, i question it’s fidelity. does it do more bad than good with artifacts ? is oversampling something to be avoided and one should prefer NOS daps ?

what was the purpose of oversampling at the first place of its something to be avoided ? was it “more is better…” like we see everywhere these days ?

Edit my post was about upconverting not oversampling..

 

[71 dB]

i am at a total loss with all this information. i am a simple man with the desire to listen to the best possible music with the best possible tools (iems/daps/amps/cables).

Yes, all the information can be overhelming to someone who hasn't studied audio science deep.

i understood perfectly that 24/192 is in fact “marketing” only and does more bad than good to the sound.

Hi-res formats have the potential to do harm to the sound, but that doesn't mean they always do. The main point is they don't have real benefits in consumer audio while often costing more and wasting more storage space. That's why they don't make sense in consumer audio.

with 24/96 and below, i understand i probably won’t be able to hear the difference but i also need to satisfy my psychology. it’s not always the logical, there’s some ego there too.

Ego is tamed with knowledge and understanding.

that said, looking at my dap sp3k which has quad totl dac chips onboard probably for the purpose of oversampling like crazy, i question it’s fidelity. does it do more bad than good with artifacts ? is oversampling something to be avoided and one should prefer NOS daps ?

Oversampling is very trivial, especially when done in integer multiples. I wouldn't be worried.

what was the purpose of oversampling at the first place of its something to be avoided ? was it “more is better…” like we see everywhere these days ?

Oversampling is used to make reconstruction filtering easier. It doesn't generate potentially harmful infrasonics. This might be confusing, but higher samplerate isn't a problem in digital to analog conversion. When the music itself is 44.1 kHz it can't contain harmful infrasonics and it doesn't waste space. Then it can be oversampled by the DAC for easy reconstruction filtering and everything is good.

 

[gregorio]

with 24/96 and below, i understand i probably won’t be able to hear the difference but i also need to satisfy my psychology. it’s not always the logical, there’s some ego there too.

16/44.1 covers the full range of human hearing, so you won’t be able to hear any difference between that and higher sample rates or bit depths.

The danger with satisfying your psychology is that with all the audiophile marketing BS you are in many cases effectively in a contradiction. Do you want to “satisfy your psychology” OR do you want “to listen to the best possible music with the best possible tools”?

that said, looking at my dap sp3k which has quad totl dac chips onboard probably for the purpose of oversampling like crazy, i question it’s fidelity. does it do more bad than good with artifacts ?

As with pretty much anything, there’s an optimal amount, beyond that there is no difference and way beyond that it’s probably doing more harm than good, although it probably won’t be audibly worse.

what was the purpose of oversampling at the first place of its something to be avoided ? was it “more is better…” like we see everywhere these days ?

Oversampling had a couple of advantages, the main one being that it relaxed the requirements of analogue anti-alias and reconstruction filters. It is NOT something to be avoided, in fact the opposite. These days most professional ADCs (Analogue to Digital Converters) operate at 512x oversampling, there are some benefits as oversampling also reduces digital noise but these benefits are relatively tiny (and are well below audibility). The DACs to actually avoid are the NOS DACs, unless: You prefer more artefacts/less fidelity (which is audible) and/or you want to satisfy a (false marketing driven) psychology!

G

 

[Sam Spade]

Yes, all the information can be overhelming to someone who hasn't studied audio science deep.


Hi-res formats have the potential to do harm to the sound, but that doesn't mean they always do. The main point is they don't have real benefits in consumer audio while often costing more and wasting more storage space. That's why they don't make sense in consumer audio.


Ego is tamed with knowledge and understanding.


Oversampling is very trivial, especially when done in integer multiples. I wouldn't be worried.


Oversampling is used to make reconstruction filtering easier. It doesn't generate potentially harmful infrasonics. This might be confusing, but higher samplerate isn't a problem in digital to analog conversion. When the music itself is 44.1 kHz it can't contain harmful infrasonics and it doesn't waste space. Then it can be oversampled by the DAC for easy reconstruction filtering and everything is good.

Great explanation

 

[71 dB]

Do you want to “satisfy your psychology” OR do you want “to listen to the best possible music with the best possible tools”?

I think many audiophools really don't know which one it is! They probably can't tell “satisfying your psychology” apart from “to listening to the best possible music with the best possible tools.”

 

[Ghoostknight]

as far my view (currently) objectivly goes is this:

1. higher samplerates have relaxed requirements for reconstruction filters where with 44,1khz you have a very narrow window (20khz to 22,05khz) for (well implemented) reconstruction filter which is nearly impossible to have

2. resampling itself can have effects on SQ, there is a good comparision website for resampling implementations but i dont have the site right now, where you can clearly see differences between them, and also subjectively there are alot of differences between them, i tried 3-5 methods so far and all sound somewhat different, tho the differences might be negligable -between the good ones-, windows resampling is one of the worst i tried

3. resampling, good implemented, can have definitely a positive effect on SQ compared to 44,1khz, "probably" because the reconstruction filter messes less with the audible range, or atleast that might be one reason

4. if we speak about what samplerate is actually needed, objectively speaking 48khz is already a whole lot better then 44,1khz, if we speak purely about the problem with reconstruction filter

5. there are alot of different reconstruction filters, purely because of this i believe the heared differences between dacs, because reconstruction filter sound different


So... what options are there?

1. resampling/upsampling to a higher samplerate than 44,1khz

2. using natively higher samplerates, so resampling implementations -also- dont matter anymore

 

[Ghoostknight]

the only thing i can really recommend here if resampling or native higher samplerates have an positive audible effect on you, if no = good, if yes = well now you know

instead of this whole audible debate and relying on what others say with questionable systems, ears, brains and so on