[gregorio]

As far as data acquisition goes (DAQ), its basically the opposite of a DAC so instead of Digital => Analog, it would be Analog => Digital. Most of the gear I work with is limited to 16bits, so a 24 bit DAQ would be amazing. When processing signals, a DAC would still be very helpful because we do the intial A=>D conversion and then manipulate the data. As you stated there is a lot of noise in the chain to obtain the analog signals so we need to filter, modify, and use other techniques to get rid of parts of the data or change it to something meaningful.  We then output the data back to an analog signal so we still need to do a D=>A Conversion. At the moment that DA conversion is limited to 16 bits, going higher might be better. Since these signals are being perceived by instruments rather than human ears, the 24bit DAC would probably be put to good use. 

OK, thanks, I have no experience of DAQs, just ADCs and DACs. I have no idea how a 24bit DAQ works or what sort of signals you will be feeding it. But you have to be very careful with audio DAC specifications. If you understood the original post of this thread you will realise that the only thing that bit depth represents is the dynamic range, the range between the noise floor and the maximum output level (technically the signal to noise ratio, SNR). When they advertise themselves as a 24bit DAC, all they mean is the digital word length of data they are able to accept, not the resolution they are able to output! So, 16bit represents a maximum SNR of 96dB and 24bit represents a maximum SNR of 144dB. But no DAC on the market has an SNR of 144dB due to the limitations of the laws of physics in a circuit, the actual SNR varies from model to model, so it may actually be possible to find a 16bit DAC that has a higher SNR (resolution) than a 24bit DAC! In other words, it would be relatively easy in theory to make a 64bit DAC. Just allow for the input of a 64bit word length, hack off 48 bits and output the remaining 16bits worth of resolution (SNR = 96dB). In my opinion the marketing of DACs is highly misleading because the advertised bit depth gives no indication of the actual output resolution. The best you can do is look as the Signal to Noise specification of the DAC, divide that number by 6(dB) and that gives you the digital output resolution (bit depth). One other thing to look out for: The S/N specification for DACs is given in dB but some manufacturers are very crafty and use an A weighted scale, which is entirely inappropriate and will could indicate a significantly lower S/N than implied by the specification. It is possible that a DAC with a S/N spec of 110dB actually has a significantly larger dynamic range (output resolution) than a DAC with an S/N spec of 112dB (A). Sorry, just another one of the myriad marketing tricks employed by the audio industry. Try if you can to get the S/N spec in un-weighted dB, otherwise the 6dB per bit calculation will not be accurate.

G

 

[Kost]

I did some testing myself with my Audio-technica ATH-50 headphones and a fiio E5 amp. I did not notice any difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96. (Yes, my sound card does 24/96) Then again, I don't have 5k dollars worth of sound equipment either. I will say though that I am one of those people who can hear above the 20khz range, and quite frankly you wouldn't want to even if you could. It sounds like nothing but an annoying, super high pitched whine.
 
Have you ever had a kid in come up to you in school and say "hey, you want to hear the most annoying sound in the world?", it sounds kind of like that. Whether those sounds can affect other sounds in such a way as to improve sound quality.. I dont know but i highly doubt it, and if so, definitely not with my setup.
 
Thank you Gregorio, although im very new to higher grade sound. I found this thread very enlightening. Im surprised someone of your knowledge and skills would devote so much time to helping me better understand how my digital audio works. Thanks again!

 

[spagetka]

You are lucky. Not 5k on equipment, just less than 2k on Benchmark DAC1 PRE, AKG K701 and good usb cable.
 
Quote:

I did some testing myself with my Audio-technica ATH-50 headphones and a fiio E5 amp. I did not notice any difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96. (Yes, my sound card does 24/96) Then again, I don't have 5k dollars worth of sound equipment either. I will say though that I am one of those people who can hear above the 20khz range, and quite frankly you wouldn't want to even if you could. It sounds like nothing but an annoying, super high pitched whine.
 
Have you ever had a kid in come up to you in school and say "hey, you want to hear the most annoying sound in the world?", it sounds kind of like that. Whether those sounds can affect other sounds in such a way as to improve sound quality.. I dont know but i highly doubt it, and if so, definitely not with my setup.
 
Thank you Gregorio, although im very new to higher grade sound. I found this thread very enlightening. Im surprised someone of your knowledge and skills would devote so much time to helping me better understand how my digital audio works. Thanks again!

 

 

[Coop]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kost /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Have you ever had a kid in come up to you in school and say "hey, you want to hear the most annoying sound in the world?"

I used to respond to that with "I just did, thanks" and just walk away
 
Very enlightning thread this!

 

[kingpage]

Is there any advantagge (or disadvantage) of using a DAC like E10 with 24bit/96Hz capability compared with a 16bit DAC, when playing 16bit 44Hz or 48Hz audio such as CD, MP3s or DVDs?
 
I know audio upsampling is not exactly like image upscaling where pictures can look much better with Lanczos or SmartEdge interpolation algorithms, but it has been on my mind for a while now whether good audio upsampling would bring about better quality audio. For example, perhaps, a low bitrate mp3 which had gone through a low-pass filter can have some of the lost high frequencies recreated from upsampling?
 
Any expert opinion would be very helpful. Thanks.

 

[grawk]

The advantage to various dacs, when dealing with 44/16 or 48/16 tracks is the sound, not whether they'll decode other sample rates.  If it sounds better, it's better.  Whether it can do something you don't need it to do doesn't end up mattering much.

 

[nikongod]

 
Quote:

Is there any advantagge (or disadvantage) of using a DAC like E10 with 24bit/96Hz capability compared with a 16bit DAC, when playing 16bit 44Hz or 48Hz audio such as CD, MP3s or DVDs?
 
I know audio upsampling is not exactly like image upscaling where pictures can look much better with Lanczos or SmartEdge interpolation algorithms, but it has been on my mind for a while now whether good audio upsampling would bring about better quality audio. For example, perhaps, a low bitrate mp3 which had gone through a low-pass filter can have some of the lost high frequencies recreated from upsampling?
 
Any expert opinion would be very helpful. Thanks.

MP3 does not use a low pass filter, it uses a model of human sound perception to selectively remove certain things under certain conditions.
 
If you have any aspirations of a quality system why are you using low-bitrate MP3? At the very least run medium to high VBR MP3. Memory is cheap.

 

[kingpage]

MP3 compression tools use a low pass filter in many default settings. I only used that as an example. That's why I said CD (Lossless: FLAC, APE, etc), MP3 (Lossy: AAC LC, AAC HE, Ogg) and DVD (48Hz). What I wanted to know was what effects the 24bit DAC with 96Hz sampling rate will have on the 44Hz/48Hz recordings's sound quality in general regardless of compression.
 

 

[bigshot]

I had a high end SACD player that would upsample redbook for playback to two different higher bitrate levels. Try as I might, I could never hear any difference between when that little blue light was on and when it was off. I used to refer to it as the "placebo button".

 

[brasled]

So long as the data can be processed by the speakers, then a 24 bit higher hz amplitude recording will sound better under certain conditions.  Why?    Certain frequencies resonate with lower frequencies, causing them to to change volume.  When we listen to an acoustic guitar, we hear the fullness (resonance) of a good guitar, and we hear this change in volume of certain frequencies that occur.  It is part of the beauty we've come to appreciate when listening to analog music.  It is basic science of sound, and for some people, very noticeable.    You don't hear the frequencies directly, but you do here their influence upon the frequencies you do hear.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

So long as the data can be processed by the speakers, then a 24 bit higher hz amplitude recording will sound better under certain conditions.  Why?    Certain frequencies resonate with lower frequencies, causing them to to change volume.  When we listen to an acoustic guitar, we hear the fullness (resonance) of a good guitar, and we hear this change in volume of certain frequencies that occur.  It is part of the beauty we've come to appreciate when listening to analog music.  It is basic science of sound, and for some people, very noticeable.    You don't hear the frequencies directly, but you do here their influence upon the frequencies you do hear.

Cool, but what exactly does that have to do with a dynamic range greater than 96 dB or frequencies we can't hear?

 

[bigshot]

Frequencies boUncing off each other isn't the reason that an acoustic guitar sounds the way it does. It's the way the sound bounces off the walls of the box inside the guitar, and the way the top vibrates. I don't know how that applies to high bitrate audio at all.

 

[grokit]

I've been operating under the impression that the main benefit of upsampling to a higher bit sample rate is that there will be no loss of resolution when attenuating the volume in the digital domain, or when doing any other DSP. Kind of a "digital headroom" thing.
 
edited to change bit to sample

 

[xnor]

Quote:

I've been operating under the impression that the main benefit of upsampling to a higher bit rate is that there will be no loss of resolution when attenuating the volume in the digital domain, or when doing any other DSP. Kind of a "digital headroom" thing.

Upsampling has nothing to do with bit rate per se or changes of the word length. Upsampling is a process of increasing the sample rate.
 

 

[grokit]

I mistakenly said bit rate instead of sample rate (like from 44.1k to 88.2 or 96k), post corrected. I don't think I mentioned anything about word length.
 
Besides the semantics, what is your view on DSP and upsampling?