[Soundsgoodtome]

I apologize if this questions seems elementary. I swear I'm not trolling and this is an honest question. I understand the idea behind 16/44 being "all the human hearing needs" in terms of SPL, studio work aside for lower noise floors,etc for 24-bit, but we're talking about bits and data-rate here to capture and replay electricity.

Would a 24bit depth and higher frequency rate have more accuracy in capturing an analog wave even if just in theory and without applying DAC implentations etc.? This is probably a facepalm question but I'm having one of those Saturdays after a Friday night out and the question lingers like a cloud following me around.

 

[limpidglitch]

Semantics maybe, but I'd argue increased bit depth gives increased accuracy, in that the quantized level at any single point in time will likely be closer to the 'real' level.
Sampling rate is only a matter of band width, so a bit harder to relate to 'accuracy'.
Dolphins can communicate using sounds in excess of 100kHz. In a sense when we hear them 'speak', it's not really an accurate representation. While the capture might be more accurate sampling at >300kHz, what we hear will still be as inaccurate as it would have been sampling at 44.1kHz.
 
In the end I'd say yes to both, but as soon as that accuracy surpasses the resolving power of our own sensory system, it's mostly of academic interest.

 

[Greenears]

It's only more accurate in a sound-proof room.  But we do not live in sound proof room, so the question is whether the improved "accuracy" is detectable in the presence of noise.  And the answer is probably not unless it is rock concert loud.
 
To be clear detectable here means not just your ears, but electrically.  IE if you have a perfectly accurate microphone if 24 bit is transduced to sound waves in presence of noise, and recorded back, 16 vs 24 may not be electrically detectable either.
 
There is a difference between "accuracy" in an electrical wire and after it is converted to sound pressure waves.

 

[Soundsgoodtome]

  Semantics maybe, but I'd argue increased bit depth gives increased accuracy, in that the quantized level at any single point in time will likely be closer to the 'real' level.
Sampling rate is only a matter of band width, so a bit harder to relate to 'accuracy'.
Dolphins can communicate using sounds in excess of 100kHz. In a sense when we hear them 'speak', it's not really an accurate representation. While the capture might be more accurate sampling at >300kHz, the sound we hear is still as inaccurate as it would have been sampling at 44.1kHz.
 
In the end I'd say yes to both, but as soon as that accuracy surpasses the resolving power of our own sensory system, it's mostly of academic interest.

Makes a lot of sense! If only we knew more about how human brains work and their ties to other sensory, maybe we can achieve a level where Hi-Res audio files do matter

We need that dolphin jawbone radar!

 

[StanD]

If I could stop the blood flowing through my ears, how many dB would my DR increase by? I don't think I should breath, it adds to the noise level. Then I've got that damn thumping heart. Oops, the air is moving.
How crazy are we willing to get to go nowhere? Even what has been stated many times, the circuitry of and around a 24 bit DAC cannot achieve 24 bit DR.
So what has been learned in this thread about 16/24 bit? 24 bit or higher is good for processing/crunching numbers and DSP work, not necessary for the final product that we listen to. The difference in the actual DR/resolution between 16 and 24 bit hardware is so slight as not to be perceptible, even if we hold our breath. Then there's the part about the quality of masters which is not in the scope of 16/24 bit practical use but instead might be under the heading of GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

 

[Soundsgoodtome]

This might not be or might be the proper thread but..How does DSD encoding differ? The 1 bit but high sample rate?

 

[Greenears]

  This might not be or might be the proper thread but..How does DSD encoding differ? The 1 bit but high sample rate?

 
You're right! It's the wrong thread!
 
In short, DSD is inferior and I wish everyone would immediately stop buying any SACD/DSD/DVDA so it would just go away.  But that's just me...
 
DSD is a 1 bit technology.  1 bit is ancient history.  All leading major ADC/DAC today are multi-segment, which approximates to 2.5 bit.  It's better for technical reasons of noise shaping.  So when people say 24-bit they mean 2.5 bit.  The DAC has 2 physical inputs: 24 bit, and 1 bit DSD.  They both convert through the same engine to 2.5 bits.
 
So you can see it is redundantly redundant and should just go away.

 

[Soundsgoodtome]

Maybe I'm not technical in terms here but that didn't explain it well enough for me to grasp. ^

Why are companies now seemingly implementing dsd decoding to newer units? A come-back to make something new again and hence newer "improved" models for us to spend on?

 

[Roly1650]

You're right! It's the wrong thread!

In short, DSD is inferior and I wish everyone would immediately stop buying any SACD/DSD/DVDA so it would just go away.  But that's just me...

DSD is a 1 bit technology.  1 bit is ancient history.  All leading major ADC/DAC today are multi-segment, which approximates to 2.5 bit.  It's better for technical reasons of noise shaping.  So when people say 24-bit they mean 2.5 bit.  The DAC has 2 physical inputs: 24 bit, and 1 bit DSD.  They both convert through the same engine to 2.5 bits.

So you can see it is redundantly redundant and should just go away.

DVDA is multi bit PCM.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-AUDIO

 

[threephi]

  I apologize if this questions seems elementary. I swear I'm not trolling and this is an honest question. I understand the idea behind 16/44 being "all the human hearing needs" in terms of SPL, studio work aside for lower noise floors,etc for 24-bit, but we're talking about bits and data-rate here to capture and replay electricity.

Would a 24bit depth and higher frequency rate have more accuracy in capturing an analog wave even if just in theory and without applying DAC implentations etc.? This is probably a facepalm question but I'm having one of those Saturdays after a Friday night out and the question lingers like a cloud following me around.

This has been pretty well answered already but I want to add one more thought for emphasis.  As others have pointed out, the improvements in the raw data of the audio signal that comes from increasing bit depth and sample rate above standard-res 16/44.1 are entirely in parts of the signal that are outside the range of human hearing under normal listening conditions.  To put that another way, increasing the bit depth/sample rate above 16/44.1 does not improve sounds within that 16/44.1 data space meaning higher-res is not more accurate in the parts we can hear.

 

[RRod]

Maybe I'm not technical in terms here but that didn't explain it well enough for me to grasp. ^

Why are companies now seemingly implementing dsd decoding to newer units? A come-back to make something new again and hence newer "improved" models for us to spend on?

 
You have to understand noise shaping to talk DSD, as it depends on this technique to move noise outside of the part of the sound spectrum we can hear. Greenears point about DACs is that many of them transform both PCM and DSD into a "common" form (actually much like what DSD uses itself) so that the processing can be handled the same.
 
Companies are implementing DSD on DAC units because many DAC chips support it (for reasons above), and why not add a feature that will make you unit a selling point to more audiophiles? Online purchasing has allowed DSD to survive, in part by enticing number-hungry audiophiles with things like DSD128/256/512, and so this small amount of musical material available gives a small audience that wants DACs that can handle these new DSD formats.

 

[Soundsgoodtome]

  This has been pretty well answered already but I want to add one more thought for emphasis.  As others have pointed out, the improvements in the raw data of the audio signal that comes from increasing bit depth and sample rate above standard-res 16/44.1 are entirely in parts of the signal that are outside the range of human hearing under normal listening conditions.  To put that another way, increasing the bit depth/sample rate above 16/44.1 does not improve sounds within that 16/44.1 data space meaning higher-res is not more accurate in the parts we can hear.

 

   
You have to understand noise shaping to talk DSD, as it depends on this technique to move noise outside of the part of the sound spectrum we can hear. Greenears point about DACs is that many of them transform both PCM and DSD into a "common" form (actually much like what DSD uses itself) so that the processing can be handled the same.
 
Companies are implementing DSD on DAC units because many DAC chips support it (for reasons above), and why not add a feature that will make you unit a selling point to more audiophiles? Online purchasing has allowed DSD to survive, in part by enticing number-hungry audiophiles with things like DSD128/256/512, and so this small amount of musical material available gives a small audience that wants DACs that can handle these new DSD formats.

Thanks gents, good info added to my noggin all in all. So...DSD does not sound better than Redbook is what I'm getting out of the last few posts.

 

[bigshot]

  DSD does not sound better than Redbook is what I'm getting out of the last few posts.

 
Redbook and high rate lossy are the same too. MP3 LAME 320, AAC 256 VBR.... same same.

 

[Soundsgoodtome]

Lol I can abx mp3 from flac with accuracy.

Redbook and high rate lossy are the same too. MP3 LAME 320, AAC 256 VBR.... same same.

 

[StanD]

Lol I can abx mp3 from flac with accuracy.

I can do that as well, at the time of purchase.