No, that is not correct. Greater bit depth translates to higher resolution of dynamic level, but the dynamic range is the same. As an analogy, imagine a 1 foot ruler. One ruler is marked only in inches, and another ruler has 1/16 inch markings. They both measure the same minimum to maximum (1 foot) which is like dynamic range, but the one with 1/16 markings can measure more accurately, which is like having greater bit depth.
No, that is not correct. Greater bit depth translates to higher resolution of dynamic level, but the dynamic range is the same. As an analogy, imagine a 1 foot ruler. One ruler is marked only in inches, and another ruler has 1/16 inch markings. They both measure the same minimum to maximum (1 foot) which is like dynamic range, but the one with 1/16 markings can measure more accurately, which is like having greater bit depth.
Thanks rkw... I didn't mean to imply that upspampling to more bits for playback adds dynamic range to the original signal.
Though as I understand it, recording at higher bit rates could capture a greater dynamic range - which at 16 bits already covers the difference between the loudest and softest passages of almost all music. The benefit of doing so would be, as you say, smaller, more precise detail of volume differences (whether we can discern those differences is a different question
but also more discrete steps between the noise we don't want and the sound we do - which is beneficial in mixing, mastering and filtering - as I understand it - which granted, could be wrong
But for playback, discerning the volume differences between 16bit and 24bit is theoretically beyond our ability to hear - certainly it is beyond mine - or at least I think so!
I think it was an old article on ESS Sabre 32 chip that described the benefits of bit rate upspampling for digital volume control (but this was many, many years ago) and while it made sense to me, maybe was just marketing propaganda.
I use to be more concerned about the technical stuff, which is still interesting, but now it is way more about enjoying the experience - even if what I hear is placebo or snake oil - if I LIKE it better - that's enough these days.
For example, last night I listened to flac files from Amazon hd vs the same files on YouTube music... And despite the blind tests I have seen that demonstrate our (or most people's) inability to distinguish between lossy and lossless formats - the flac files were a little more precise in imaging, a little clearer on vocal reproduction, a little more enjoyable and I liked them better - even though not a night and day difference on my es100 and meze 99s - nice, but certainly not top end.
All that said and to stay on topic, I'm inclined to trust Jason and torq and many others that the Bifrost 2 sounds great and is technically competent - whether I like it better than what I have, I'll only know for sure when I get one