[Lukalop]

Please could someone explain what 16 bit & 24 bit mean? Also 44.1, 96, 190 I don't know. What are all these numbers. I remember seeing somewhere a 32 bit DAC.

 

[Whippler]

Please could someone explain what 16 bit & 24 bit mean? Also 44.1, 96, 190 I don't know. What are all these numbers. I remember seeing somewhere a 32 bit DAC.

 
 
Bits are the sample size, how many bits are read to make up one sound, so with 16bits you can have 16^2 different sounds and whit 24bit its 24^2. And Herzs mean how many samples there are in a second so CD quality has 16bits per sample, and 44 100 samples per second witch equals to 705 600bits per second.
 
so lets looks at 24/96, it has 24bits per sample, and 96 000 samples per second. 24*96 000 = 2 064 000 bits/second now that's
over double the amount of data than in 16/44.1
 
So to compare to screen specs, amount of bits is comparable to screen resolution,
and frequency is comparable to frames per second.

 

[Lukalop]

Is there such thing as 32 bit / 384 kHz?

 

[Tympan]

Yes, Sabre DA8 DAC for instance and many other DACs are starting to offer this Hi Res playback, good luck finding music in that format though : )

 

[miceblue]

Yes, Sabre DA8 DAC for instance and many other DACs are starting to offer this Hi Res playback, good luck finding music in that format though : )

That'll be the next generation of marketing: 32/384 offers 128374619832756913878 times the resolution of a CD!

 

[AmberOzL]

That'll be the next generation of marketing: 32/384 offers 128374619832756913878 times the resolution of a CD!

Of course!

 

[justin w.]

Yes, good point. Debate all you want about hi-res music, but the fact is there is a tangible difference in the file. The file is bigger, there is more information contained.... Whether it's better, well that is and will continue to be a matter of debate. At least you are getting something measurably different for your money. So it's not as ridiculous as much hi-fi malarkey.

A cable, a magic marker, and all the other junk. well there's no way to prove ANY difference there. And no limit to the amount of cash that can be flushed down with that stuff

 
There is also a difference in the way a DAC performs at 16/44.1 and 24/192. Those differences are possibly larger than the potential for any audible difference in the file content. 

 

[justin w.]

Please could someone explain what 16 bit & 24 bit mean? Also 44.1, 96, 190 I don't know. What are all these numbers. I remember seeing somewhere a 32 bit DAC.

 
Signal to noise ratio of 16-bit is about 100dB and for 24-bit its about 140dB. what this means is any content between bits 17 and 24 is not audible because its below the noise floor of your audio system and the background noise of a real life environment. There is also no recording with that much dynamic range, if one existed you would go deaf. Content in the 24-bit recording in this range is also probably just hearing the noise floor of the recording equipment. it would be like trying to hear a piece of dust stuck to your car tires as you drive down the highway. 44.1khz is the sample rate which can mathematically reproduce frequencies up to 1/2 so 22.05khz. If you can hear above 22.05khz and your audio equipment can reproduce it, then you may want a higher sample rate. So far no humans have proven to have this ability and most headphones start to roll off in frequency response well before 22khz. in fact most audiophiles (not me) have shown to prefer equipment that rolls off above 10, 15khz such as vinyl
 
Also there is no DAC that actually does better than 21-bit due to current limits of technology/physics. and that's datasheet numbers. in the real world you're down to 18-bit if you're lucky. then you add in amplifiers and other noise and its hard to get the SNR of 16-bit. the 16/44.1khz standard for CDs wasnt just some mediocre standard that was made up to save money

 

[epithetless]

   
There is also a difference in the way a DAC performs at 16/44.1 and 24/192. Those differences are possibly larger than the potential for any audible difference in the file content. 

 
Please elaborate on these differences in DAC performance, and their effects.

 

[marone]

Really Dude? Have you not done any of your own searching about this? C'mon show some initiative and don't be lazy.

Your reply is not appreciated.

I asked for the opinions of those currently reading the thread to get their up-to-date feedback in addition to the other research I have done as I value the opinions of those here more than others.

I live in a part of the world where access to a PONO is physically impossible and I won't be able to try and listen before I have it shipped across the planet to my location.

Most reviews devolve into the 'arrogant science-is-all camp' vs. 'those who can hear what others cannot'.

Those reviews are not helpful.

 

[marone]

There are many who will endlessly argue the point about whether hi-res is better than CD, and they all know of science webpages they can link to, I'm sure.

Science-firsters often have an attitude, regarding those who disagree with them, that borders on violating the TOS of this forum.

We cannot even provide the science of a webpage that shows why a FLAC rip of a vinyl LP sounds better than the CD of same, so your belief that science would prove that something sounds better is counter to reality.

Reviews and discussion online are mostly extremely harsh and judgemental critics (who share your tone) who have not even used nor listened to the device to see if it sounds better, worse, or the same.

"It cannot sound better, it's a rip-off and here is why I won't buy it'.

Anyone actually LISTEN TO THIS DEVICE and have an opinion about their experience? If so, thanks for sharing. The rest of you...

 

[Achmedisdead]

Anyone actually LISTEN TO THIS DEVICE and have an opinion about their experience? If so, thanks for sharing. The rest of you...

 
Of course not....it has not been released yet. 

 

[epithetless]

Your reply is not appreciated.

I asked for the opinions of those currently reading the thread to get their up-to-date feedback in addition to the other research I have done as I value the opinions of those here more than others.

I live in a part of the world where access to a PONO is physically impossible and I won't be able to try and listen before I have it shipped across the planet to my location.

Most reviews devolve into the 'arrogant science-is-all camp' vs. 'those who can hear what others cannot'.

Those reviews are not helpful.

 
Marone, I think Saraguie's post was meant to point to the fact that even a cursory search would tell you the Pono player is nowhere near release yet (October is the projected "maybe" date as per the Kickstarter page, which should be an early stop for anyone actively looking into the Pono), and therefore no one here has heard the device or can offer feedback on how it actually sounds.

 

[Saraguie]

Of course not....it has not been released yet. 

Marone, I think Saraguie's post was meant to point to the fact that even a cursory search would tell you the Pono player is nowhere near release yet (October is the projected "maybe" date as per the Kickstarter page, which should be an early stop for anyone actively looking into the Pono), and therefore no one here has heard the device or can offer feedback on how it actually sounds.

Thank you guys. My point exactly.

 

[hughscot]

My reason for liking PONO Neil Young has to do with the fact that at the present you cannot find popular music for download that is not MP3.  All I want to be able to do is download music that is at least CD quality.  The only music available is stuff that record stores used to practically give away....alternative, classical, etc. via HDTracks, etc.   I want to download my favs from the last fifty years.  If the people behind PONO or even Amazon will make that genre available I'm all for it.