Sample Rate and Bit-Depth
Apr 25, 2015 at 3:07 PM Post #2 of 8

DrKC

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Posts
165
Likes
46
You don't, but as far as I know, nobody is making 16 bit dacs anymore.  The whole 32 bit stuff is ad hype, so you should focus on a quality 24 bit dac - no, there isn't really any truly 24 bit music either.  Nobody, again, as far as I know, makes a dac with a 150db SNR.  It wouldn't matter if they did because the rest of your reproducing chain probably wouldn't meet those specs anyway.
 
So, find yourself a good 24 bit dac - one you like the sound of - and forget the rest of the hype.
 
Apr 25, 2015 at 3:36 PM Post #3 of 8

Sam21

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 25, 2013
Posts
1,157
Likes
67
exactly what I think, I can't even find any high-res music that I like online....This audiophilism is really insane, you buy a top notch DAC that is uberkill for whatever you throw at it , be it game, music or movies, an probably will be uberkill for a long time to come, yet in audiophile world the DAC would become obsolete when a new one comes out...
 
Apr 25, 2015 at 5:34 PM Post #4 of 8

tomb

Member of the Trade: Beezar.com
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
10,513
Likes
743
There's nothing wrong with 16-bit DACs and there are several still available. 
wink.gif

 
I have read that the greater bit-depth and sampling frequency should be higher for recording, but once converted to 16-bit 44.1kHz for playback, you still don't lose anything.
 
The problem in recording is that they use electronic filters to bound the sampling frequency.  There are artifacts and phase interactions with these filters that propagate into the 20-20kHz band.  (Like everything else, there are capacitors and resistors in those filters that cause issues.)  It's been my experience that the same master at higher sampling frequencies than 44.1kHz will sound better, but you only need 16-bit, 44.1kHz at playback to hear the difference.
 
Apr 26, 2015 at 11:03 AM Post #5 of 8

DrKC

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Posts
165
Likes
46
  There's nothing wrong with 16-bit DACs and there are several still available. 
wink.gif

 
I have read that the greater bit-depth and sampling frequency should be higher for recording, but once converted to 16-bit 44.1kHz for playback, you still don't lose anything.
 
The problem in recording is that they use electronic filters to bound the sampling frequency.  There are artifacts and phase interactions with these filters that propagate into the 20-20kHz band.  (Like everything else, there are capacitors and resistors in those filters that cause issues.)  It's been my experience that the same master at higher sampling frequencies than 44.1kHz will sound better, but you only need 16-bit, 44.1kHz at playback to hear the difference.

Hmm.. I'm curious.  Maybe you could provide a list of those mainstream manufacturers that have a 16 bit dac in their current product line up.
 
As to down converting from let's say 24/96 to 16/44, proper decimation is required and information is certainly lost.  Whether or not this is audible is a debate I want nothing to do with.  Artifacts can and will exist  with any digitized signal.  You can easily see them with a sufficient number of bins on a FFT.
 
Apr 26, 2015 at 1:12 PM Post #6 of 8

tomb

Member of the Trade: Beezar.com
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
10,513
Likes
743
 
  There's nothing wrong with 16-bit DACs and there are several still available. 
wink.gif

 
I have read that the greater bit-depth and sampling frequency should be higher for recording, but once converted to 16-bit 44.1kHz for playback, you still don't lose anything.
 
The problem in recording is that they use electronic filters to bound the sampling frequency.  There are artifacts and phase interactions with these filters that propagate into the 20-20kHz band.  (Like everything else, there are capacitors and resistors in those filters that cause issues.)  It's been my experience that the same master at higher sampling frequencies than 44.1kHz will sound better, but you only need 16-bit, 44.1kHz at playback to hear the difference.

Hmm.. I'm curious.  Maybe you could provide a list of those mainstream manufacturers that have a 16 bit dac in their current product line up.
 
As to down converting from let's say 24/96 to 16/44, proper decimation is required and information is certainly lost.  Whether or not this is audible is a debate I want nothing to do with.  Artifacts can and will exist  with any digitized signal.  You can easily see them with a sufficient number of bins on a FFT.

Any audio DAC based on a PCM2704/5/6/7 chip will be using 16-bit.  Many others will claim 24-bit resolution, but that doesn't mean the USB stream to the DAC chip (if separate) is using 24-bit.
 
The rest of your challenges are best suited for the sound science forum.  I offered an opinion based on years of experience.  I've listened to both for quite some time, built a hell of a lot of them, and tested them extensively.  You might take a look at some of the things in my signature for a start.
 
Apr 26, 2015 at 6:14 PM Post #7 of 8

DrKC

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Posts
165
Likes
46
  Any audio DAC based on a PCM2704/5/6/7 chip will be using 16-bit.  Many others will claim 24-bit resolution, but that doesn't mean the USB stream to the DAC chip (if separate) is using 24-bit.
 
The rest of your challenges are best suited for the sound science forum.  I offered an opinion based on years of experience.  I've listened to both for quite some time, built a hell of a lot of them, and tested them extensively.  You might take a look at some of the things in my signature for a start.

I'm aware that there are a number of 16 bit chips still available.  The company I retired from still has a number of 16 bit ICs - dacs adcs, multifunction codes, etc.  In my original post I said I wasn't aware of any consumer 16 bit dacs being marketed or sold.  You said there were several.  Hence, my question.
 
As far as any challenges are concerned, my comments related only to the fact that I found yours to be somewhat vague and unclear - at least to me.  If you felt that I impuned your integrity or experience in any way, it was unintentional.  Please accept my apology.  My background in this stuff is only 18 years in product and application engineering for a large semiconductor company in the high-speed data converter products division.  I'm sure you have more experience with this than I do.
And I'll leave it at that.
 
Apr 26, 2015 at 9:51 PM Post #8 of 8

tomb

Member of the Trade: Beezar.com
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Posts
10,513
Likes
743
 
  Any audio DAC based on a PCM2704/5/6/7 chip will be using 16-bit.  Many others will claim 24-bit resolution, but that doesn't mean the USB stream to the DAC chip (if separate) is using 24-bit.
 
The rest of your challenges are best suited for the sound science forum.  I offered an opinion based on years of experience.  I've listened to both for quite some time, built a hell of a lot of them, and tested them extensively.  You might take a look at some of the things in my signature for a start.

I'm aware that there are a number of 16 bit chips still available.  The company I retired from still has a number of 16 bit ICs - dacs adcs, multifunction codes, etc.  In my original post I said I wasn't aware of any consumer 16 bit dacs being marketed or sold.  You said there were several.  Hence, my question.
 
As far as any challenges are concerned, my comments related only to the fact that I found yours to be somewhat vague and unclear - at least to me.  If you felt that I impuned your integrity or experience in any way, it was unintentional.  Please accept my apology.  My background in this stuff is only 18 years in product and application engineering for a large semiconductor company in the high-speed data converter products division.  I'm sure you have more experience with this than I do.
And I'll leave it at that.

 
No problem.  It's just that being "aware of any consumer 16 bit dacs being marketed or sold" cuts a very wide swath.  It almost says you have to be aware of every single product that's sold in the world.  I know exactly what I sell, however. Some of us are quite small and may have missed your attention. 
wink.gif

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top