[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrea The DAC accepts only 16 bit and 32-44.1-48 kHz as said previously. (no 24 bit nor 96 KHz even theoretically)

You're right, that's what the specs say about input-signal compatibility, and the internal circuit is certainly limited to 16 bit. But since it's an oversampling design, it will upconvert the signal to at least 192 kHz for digital filtering.
.

 

[Andrea]

Yup -- which won't help with the actual resolution (limited by the input) but will help with removing "quantization noise" afaik.

 

[Jan Meier]

Dear headfellows

16 bit versus 24 bits.

Just one note on this discussion. If people use the volume control on their media player or if the volume in the device driver is not set to maximum, then the signal amplitude is digitally reduced. This is truly bad with a signal that originally is 16 bit as the effective resolution of the output signal will be much lower than 16 bit.

If the signal is first "upgraded" to 24 bit and is handled as a 24 bit signal throughout, then the digital volume reduction is not as severe. The true signal resolution will still be close to 16 bit.

This difference is very important in comparing 16 versus 24 bit signals.

With the ARIA (as well as with the PORTA CORDA MkIII-USB) for optimal sound quality it is mandatory to have all digital volume controls set to maximum. Volume has to be controlled by the potentiometer on the amp. If done so sound quality is very high indeed and.

Ever read a review on the Zanden DAC? It's 16 bit only, no upsampling, no digital filtering. Yet it is by some considered to be one of the best in the world. Honestly, 16 bit or 24 bit, nobody really can hear the difference if properly implemented. The major advantages of SACD or DVD-A is not the higher bit resolution but the much higher sampling rate (less pre- and postringing of pulses). At least that's my personal opinion.

Cheers

Jan

 

[Trogdor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan Meier Ever read a review on the Zanden DAC?

Jan, my wallet almost exploded when I went to their website. Holy cow! Btw, I have a friend who ordered one (I pointed him to your website) and I'm eagerly waiting to hear the Aria with his setup!

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan Meier Dear headfellows 16 bit versus 24 bits. Just one note on this discussion. If people use the volume control on their media player or if the volume in the device driver is not set to maximum, then the signal amplitude is digitally reduced. This is truly bad with a signal that originally is 16 bit as the effective resolution of the output signal will be much lower than 16 bit. If the signal is first "upgraded" to 24 bit and is handled as a 24 bit signal throughout, then the digital volume reduction is not as severe. The true signal resolution will still be close to 16 bit. This difference is very important in comparing 16 versus 24 bit signals. With the ARIA (as well as with the PORTA CORDA MkIII-USB) for optimal sound quality it is mandatory to have all digital volume controls set to maximum. Volume has to be controlled by the potentiometer on the amp. If done so sound quality is very high indeed and. Ever read a review on the Zanden DAC? It's 16 bit only, no upsampling, no digital filtering. Yet it is by some considered to be one of the best in the world. Honestly, 16 bit or 24 bit, nobody really can hear the difference if properly implemented. The major advantages of SACD or DVD-A is not the higher bit resolution but the much higher sampling rate (less pre- and postringing of pulses). At least that's my personal opinion. Cheers Jan

Hi Jan

Since I am using a computer as a source, does this apply to the windows volume control as well?

Regards

USG

 

[apostate]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy Hi Jan Since I am using a computer as a source, does this apply to the windows volume control as well? Regards USG

The Aria only has a USB input for its DAC so computer as a source is the expected state. Volume control(s) set to max applies equally to Windows, Mac, etc....

FWIW this same recommendation is usually made with any digital source where a volume control is active (ex. apming out of the iPod headphone jack the volume should be all the way up, not that you want to necessarily do that since line-out is preferable and bypasses the volume control).

Ant

 

[KimbaWLion]

Hello there Peoples,
I have not heard many head amps yet, as I always have had the big speaker set up having owned Rogers, IMF, and all sorts of other speakers over the years.

I am finding after reading so many threads its a wonder anyone can make up their mind! I REALLY thought I wanted an M3 type amp,Grasshopper Audio will be making them at a reasonable price soon. It also seems this season everyone has special deals too!

Going through these threads on what to do... Well to be honest I was not going to do much, money is really tight this year and I have been powering my Sens HD600s through the external box of Audigy2 Platinum EX. I think I have the portable part covered for a bit which leaves what do to about the rest IF I want to charge my CC for another amp, a direct Paypal transaction just is not going to happen...

So while while reading these threads I just wanted to know a few things, since the amps SHOULD be available until the end of the month I SHOULD be able to do something if I wish to go into a little debt that is

.

1. I think I read in this thread that the Aria's DAC is better sounding than the Audigy 2 even with the external breakout box?

2. How would the Aria compare with an M3 amp? After doing a TON of thread reading as well researching that would be an interesting question.

3. Then how does it TRULY compare with the Hornet or SR71 EXCLUDING the DAC feature, just based sonically?

4. I also use my notebook computer to play video files through the home entertainment system. Would the aria with its dac OR through the headphone jack to the receiver work well?? I have been using a mini from the notebook computer to a RCA adaptor for awhile now and would LOVE A better solution!

Thanks for reading and helping and even if I can not get one by the end of the year at least I have guidence now.
Thanks peoples.

 

[Elephas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy Hi Jan Since I am using a computer as a source, does this apply to the windows volume control as well? Regards USG

Using a PC running WinXP, it's better to bypass the Windows volume control. This way, the Windows kmixer is not in the way. Some people use foobar ASIO (www3.cypress.ne.jp/otachan) for this reason.

I'm using the USB ASIO driver (usb-audio.com) for my CEC DA53's USB input with excellent results playing ALAC on iTunes.

I assume the Corda Aria is plug-and-play and uses the standard WinXP USB Audio codec. I suggest trying the USB ASIO driver or free alternatives such as ASIO4All (www.asio4all.de) and ASIOKS (www.asio2ks.de).

 

[Blizzard]

Quote:

Originally Posted by humanflyz SACDs use 24bit, and I can hear a very noticeable difference between it and regular CDs that use 16bit.

Actually, SACDs are 1-bit! But they have a sample rate that is about one million. They don't use PCM format like CDs do.

Of course you can convert it to 24bit if you want but you will still lose sound quality because of the lower sample rate.

But still I think most people listen to music ripped from 16bit CDs so 24bit won't do anything there.

 

[Jan Meier]

Dear Headfellows,

From the various responses that I have received it seems like people do not fully understand why the digital volume control does reduce sound quality of the 16 bit data and not of the 24 bit data (after conversion from 16 bit data into 24 bit data).

Just take one 16 bit sample and have the digital volume control set to 12.5 % of its maximum value.

Original sample:

0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1

The digital volume control simply removes the three left bits and shifts data to the right.

Sample copy after digital volume control:

0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1

Three bits are simply removed and the effective resolution therefore only is 13 bit!!

If the data are first converted to 24 bit then the 24 bit copy of the original sample is

0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Its copy after the digital volume control (again at 12.5 % of its maximum) will be

0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Only zero bits have been removed. The effective resolution of the signal is still 16 bit! This is one of the major reasons why 16 bit audiofiles on the computer sound so much better after conversion to 24 bit!

Cheers

Jan

 

[Jan Meier]

**

 

[Jan Meier]

Dear Headfellows,

From the various responses that I have received it seems that not everybody understands why digital volume control does have such a detrimental effect on 16 bit data and not on 24 bit data.

Let's presume the digital volume control is set to 12.5 % of its maximum (division by 8 is a three-fold right shift)

Original sample:

0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

After digital volume control three bits are removed from the right side. The copy of the sample is:

0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1

The removal of three bits effectively reduces resolution from 16 bits to 13 bits.

If the data are converted to 24 bits then the sample value becomes:

0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

After digital volume control only three zero bits are removed. The copy of the sample is:

0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Since only bits are removed that contained no information the effective resolution of the signal is still 16 bits.

I hope this helps to understand why digital volume control with 16 bit data always have to be set to its maximum value, if possible.

Cheers

Jan

 

[Daryn Alexander]

Thanks, Jan. That pretty much explains everything. I had a good idea from your first post, but the actual example was very informative.

 

[oscar437]

Is it possible to arrive in before Christmas?

 

[sonance]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan Meier Dear Headfellows, From the various responses that I have received it seems that not everybody understands why digital volume control does have such a detrimental effect on 16 bit data and not on 24 bit data. Let's presume the digital volume control is set to 12.5 % of its maximum (division by 8 is a three-fold right shift) Original sample: 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 After digital volume control three bits are removed from the right side. The copy of the sample is: 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 The removal of three bits effectively reduces resolution from 16 bits to 13 bits. If the data are converted to 24 bits then the sample value becomes: 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 After digital volume control only three zero bits are removed. The copy of the sample is: 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Since only bits are removed that contained no information the effective resolution of the signal is still 16 bits. I hope this helps to understand why digital volume control with 16 bit data always have to be set to its maximum value, if possible. Cheers Jan

This is quite true if you're using your PC to control volume. If using the PC for straight audio pass-through ("bit-perfect") there is no benefit to changing the bit-depth to 24 bit. If you have an external DAC/Amp type setup with its own volume control that is not crappy, theres no reason to change the bit depth.