dScope doesn't have sufficient resolution to measure linearity in that way. The internal ADC of the dScope is probably only 8 bits. There's a way to do it, but it's much more involved where you can't just bring up a few config screens and press a button on the dScope.
Here are some
real DAC linearity plots (integral and differential):
ok I'm really not experienced with those types of measurements but they do seem straightforward and counting in LSB does make lot of sense(if I got something wrong, plz let me know as again I discover those kind of measurements).
so here is my reasoning:
2^16= 65536 least significant values available. at least in theory for "perfect 16bit".
what we usually accept as being around 6*16=96db of usable range.
making going from one least significant bit to the next a jump of about 96/65536 = 0.0015db (I doubt it's exactly this, but surely somewhere around that order of magnitude).
I don't know if what you posted are usual values for audio DACs or not. still I'll use what's offered to me, if I understand that right, it would say that some errors in this example can be as big as jumping maybe 4values of least significant bit. so a good deal bigger than quantization error, yet still ludicrously small.
something not too far away from 0.0015*4=0.006db error.
so here is my problem: are you trying to say that you heard that kind level of amplitude differences from the dynamic of 2DACs? seriously?
even if it was 0.05db I wouldn't believe it while listening to music.
see why irony was my first thought? "oh the guitar was 0.006db quieter than it should, a few times for 1/44000th of a second. I should mention microdynamic for this DAC and explain it." that's pretty much how I understood the post and how impossibru it seemed to me.
[angry rant for who knows what reason]
Based on your condescending and "confused" rant you seem to have a problem with terminology. Here is a book that may help you get un-confused:
http://tvr.vejas.lt/uploads/Literatura/High%20Performance%20Audio%20Power%20Amplifiers%201.pdf
Refer to 1.10.4 for a description of dynamics (including microdynamics). There is also a definition for detail (or space) in 1.10.3 which is described in more depth in 1.10.5.
I have no problem with the words, I have a problem with what they're used for.
talking about microdynamic or microdetail for a song doesn't trouble me that much if it's with the idea that the composition makes use of such characteristics. microdetail and microcontrast sure go perfectly when talking about picture treatment, and how increasing microcontrast can improve the subjective sharpness up to a point, and how it is DSP abused on cheap cameras inside phones. so I'm not sure I have a problem with the terms themselves.
but read his post again, with your rational thinking and tell me there is nothing wrong with it plz. those words were clearly used and surrounded with explainations of how one DAC was pretty much acting as a DSP and compressing the dynamic of certain loudness levels. as I said imagine the nightmarish measurements we would get from such a DAC.
those modifications of the signal would read as distortions or at least noise right? when looking at some usual DAC specs like THD+noise and SNR it's not hard to see how small the actual micro variations described can be and how they are unrelated to actual music perception. plz tell me you don't believe he actually heard changes of microdynamic between 2 DACs. being purrin's buddy shouldn't forbid you from having an objective opinion on the matter.
if I'm wrong or really missed something plz explain me where. I do usually trust your judgement and have no problem telling how stupid and sorry I am when I'm shown to be wrong. (the perk of having no self esteem).