You need higher quality files to get the most out of a better DAC. With that said, a better dac/amp will most certainly make EVERYTHING sound better. If you want a higher quality streaming service try out Qobuz, they stream in 24bit 44.1hz on a lot of tracks and have a pretty good library theres even a free trial if you want to try it out. A really great Dac/Amp i would recommend is the Monolith Monoprice THX AAA. THX AAA technology is some of the best at its price range on the market right now with an extremely clear sound and the Dac comes with Dirac sensaround with makes your earphones sound 100x better like a studio speaker setup.
Question about Digital audio converters
- Thread starter MrVeriGoodMan
- Start date
MrVeriGoodMan
New Head-Fier
Would you say that it is relaxing to hear with it and has a vibrant warm, close to real life soundstage?
Thats what i am searching for
gimmeheadroom
Headphoneus Supremus
That is going to vary more by the recording than the DAC.
Unfortunately, you're in for a bit of a rough ride. Much (though not all) of the "high end audio thing" is high-end in terms of cost and false marketing to justify that cost, rather than in actual high-end audio performance. For example, there is no resolution (or volume) difference between 16bit and 24bit, the ONLY difference between them is the level of digital noise, which is inaudible and many times below the noise of any recording anyway. Likewise, there is no audible difference with lossy codecs like MP3 or AAC, assuming a high bit rate (320kbps or 256kbps VBR) and a decent conversion (LAME for example in the case of MP3).
You will see countless reports, impressions and reviews from people stating there are obvious audible differences but without exception, this is due to them either comparing different masters or their perception being biased by marketing, which of course is the whole point of marketing. The difficulty for the "high end audio thing" is that digital audio effectively has no audible flaws/problems, even with pretty cheap DACs/digital audio equipment. So in order for a "high-end audio thing" to even exist in the first place, the manufacturers/distributors have no choice but to come up with some "new thing" and falsely claim the old thing had audible problems that their "new thing" solves. Such is the case with 24bit vs 16bit and a whole raft of other supposed digital "problems".
Case in point:
1. There is no audible resolution difference between 24bit and 16bit, just a theoretical/potential difference in how low the noise floor is. There is no system, regardless of how high-end, that can reproduce that theoretical noise floor difference and even if there were, you couldn't safely listen to it. And just to put the nail in the coffin, I say "theoretical" because in practise the noise floor difference between 24bit and 16bit is roughly 100 - 1,000 below the noise floor of any commercial music recording anyway!
2. That's entirely wise, as there are commonly different masters for different formats and of course the whole point of a different master is to be audibly different. The annoying fly in the ointment is that a different master for DSD or say 192/24 could be distributed in 44.1/16 and be audibly identical but of course, it would be much more difficult to charge significantly more for it!
3. Of course "quite expensive" is relative and it's rarely entirely "game over" because unlike with digital audio, there's potentially a long way to go with transducers (microphones, headphones and speakers) for example.
3a. That can only be true if you're comparing different masters, are perceiving rather than hearing a difference (due to biases) or some particularly dodgy equipment or processing has been used. For example transcoding can (under certain circumstances) introduce audible differences.
4. Assuming the same master, 24bit files have exactly the same volume as 16bit and MP3 files. Technically, an MP3 version *might* have very slightly less volume (than the 24 or 16bit original) but typically no more than about 0.2dB, which should be inaudible. If an MP3 has more volume then it must be a different master or the same master with added audio compression (which effectively makes it a different master).
5. Compared to 16bit vs 24bit and MP3, mastering is infinitely more "important to the sound quality one hears", because it's deliberately audible.
Sorry Monsterzero, I didn't mean to come across too harsh or single you out from everyone else, it's just that you covered a lot of the points in one post.
G
Chris Kaoss
Headphoneus Supremus
I think that he doesn't mean the volume by itself.
The perceived "lower volume" is due to the greater dynamism of the master itself.
Like on older recordings also.
May i'm wrong at this, someone could enlighten me.
The master itself does not have greater dynamism, unless it's a different master. The dynamic range of the vast majority of commercial music masters is less than 50dB, although most popular genres often have far less than 50dB dynamic range (30dB or so). There are some symphony recordings with 60dB dynamic range and a tiny handful go up to around 70dB. The dynamic range possible with 16/44.1 is about 120dB, which is several hundred times more than even the most dynamic of symphony recordings.
Older recordings were capable of far less dynamic range, typically no more than 50dB, although commercial popular music releases did on average have a larger dynamic range than modern ones, due to the loudness war. However, this is a matter of how much compression/limiting is applied and nothing to do with the noise floor of 16bit digital audio.
G
martinweiss
New Head-Fier
Just wanted to note here that increasing bit depth has nothing to do with upsampling as such. Bit depth is directly related to the quantization levels ("vertical" waveform resolution) while sample rate is related to the "horizontal" resolution, i.e., the measurement points per time unit (seconds).
Agreed, although that's a rather dangerous way of putting it IMHO! It's dangerous because the term "resolution" has a somewhat different meaning/end result in digital audio than it does in analogue audio and in audiophile forums "resolution" is typically only used in it's analogue audio meaning. A fact that audiophile marketing routinely takes advantage of!!
Bit depth is indeed directly related to the quantisation levels but more bits doesn't increase the analogue resolution, it just decreases the amount of noise. This might sound like I'm just playing with semantics because obviously noise can obscure analogue resolution. However, this is only true if the noise is actually audible, which it isn't with 16bits. Increasing the bit depth to 24bits results in exactly the same analogue waveform resolution as 16bit but with inaudible noise that's even further from audibility.
It's a similar problem with sample rate ("horizontal" resolution). A higher sample rate, more measurement points per second, doesn't give you more analogue resolution, it gives you exactly the same resolution but over a wider band/range of audio frequencies. Again, this might sound like nothing more than semantics, except for the fact that the wider band/range of audio frequencies is beyond human hearing. A sample rate of 44.1kHz provides analogue resolution in the band of audio frequencies from 0Hz to about 20kHz. A sample rate of say 96kHz provides exactly the same resolution in the band of frequencies from 0Hz to about 20kHz but also provides analogue resolution in the band of frequencies between around 20kHz and 40kHz.
G
martinweiss
New Head-Fier
Well, I wouldn't call it "dangerous". That's just how it is. What is dangerous is saying that a higher sample rate implies higher quality... Especially because the entire recording, processing and playback chain has to be considered.
What I had in mind when I talked about resolution was actually with recording in mind. Sorry about the confusion.
What I had in mind when I talked about resolution was actually with recording in mind. Sorry about the confusion.
I think we're in agreement, except just the terms we're using.
1. But that's why it's dangerous, because more resolution does imply higher quality.
2. Agreed, although I would add that the limitations of human hearing and of the rules/laws of physics also have to be considered.
3. Even with recording, resolution isn't directly affected by the additional bits (24bit vs 16bit). However, the lower noise floor of 24bit allows a much larger amount of headroom to be employed, which can be a practical advantage when recording. The only time a higher sample rate is of any benefit when recording, is for marketing purposes or some specialist purposes (such as sound effects design).
G
martinweiss
New Head-Fier
Yes, I think we agree I rip vinyl with a sample rate of 44.1 kHz, and 24-bit.
I rip vinyl with a sample rate of 44.1 kHz, and 24-bit.If you want relaxing and warm you want a tube amp. THX AAA is very clean and neutral
Supremevegbeef
Head-Fier
I am going to disagree with this. You are on the right track but not 100% there.
If the DAC is good and well built, you will hear a night and day difference on 16 bit 44.1khz. Other stuff like post processing/DSP can be run in your PC or phone, same thing as Creative's sound blaster FX really, just THX AAA is a different brand.
24 bit is really only good for recording purposes as it gives you more precision to work with but has almost 0 impact on listening audio.
The master has greater dynamism unless you're talking strictly about sample rate. Any commercial or quasi commercial music is heavily compressed from the original recording. Most recording engineers will record in 24 bit or 32 bit and 96khz sample rate at most, but we generally always listen to 16 bit, even if it's high sample rate, the "hi-fi consumer" rarely listens to something greater than 24 bit, and even if the sample rate is super high like 192khz, that only means the master file has been rendered and dithered at that rate.
What you should be more interested with is whether the DAC's roll-off filter is slow or fast.
Rockbox players for example let you pick slow or fast.
You almost certainly want any DAC that has a slow roll off curve.
1. Actually it's the other way around, if the DAC is poor you might hear a difference but not with any half decent modern DAC.
2. 24bit is good for recording because it allows considerably more headroom than 16bit, but precision is the same. I agree that it has zero impact on listening though.
1. Most commercial music releases are heavily compressed (although there are some exceptions, such as most classical music) but of course compression reduces dynamic range and as this compression is applied during mixing and mastering, therefore the master does not have greater dynamism. Sample rate doesn't affect dynamism.
2. No one listens even to 24bit! The largest dynamic range that DACs are capable of is around 126dB, which is effectively 21bit resolution, achieving 24bit is not possible but as mentioned, commercial music masters don't exceed about 70dB dynamic range anyway and the vast majority have very significantly less.
G
Users who are viewing this thread
