Attached is an example where more bits worsen INL and DNL.
http://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/AD5424_5433_5445.pdf
Identical DAC architecture, different bit depths.
And these are R-2R DACs, muchby audiophiles (whereas Delta-Sigma DACs are
)
George
less linear with more bits? Could be.... but doesnt have to be. I also see more detail/resolution.
THx-RNMarsh
Ok. That is the end of this discussion, then. I certainly am not going back to CD nor LP for the highest potential in my system.
Might even help with greening of the planet without all those plastic disks..... kinda offset things for my high gas usage. Pos points to cancel the demerits.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I can counter that with this excerpt from the BB seminarAttached is an example where more bits worsen INL and DNL.
http://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/AD5424_5433_5445.pdf
Identical DAC architecture, different bit depths.
And these are R-2R DACs, much
George
Attachments
Does that really work? What a great idea. I'm going to try that with a selfee right now.
But your experience wasn't under controlled conditions.
While we don't know everything, one thing we do know is that our subjective perceptions are trivially easily influenced by biases which have nothing to do with actual audible differences.
And until you can control for that (and ego and vanity cannot overcome it), and establish actual audible differences then "looking for where improvements can be found and why" is just chasing your tail.
And maybe that's all you want to do. Put on a big show to look impressive to those who don't know any better. Typically that's called "charlatanism." Sadly however it fits right in with much of that which is "high end" audio, which has no real intention to progress, but to simply "impress."
I don't know why you keep bringing up CD. Compact Disc is just a medium. It has nothing inherently to do with the points myself and others have been trying to make. But then confusing the issue is a common tactic used by the charlatan so I guess I'm not surprised that you keep referencing it.
se
I can counter that with this excerpt from the BB seminar
There you are! This is exactly what I/anyone with the appropriate test equipment can do, easily. And we have poor levels of distortion at higher levels (than -60) as well. These are quit audible levels to me.
Se... your points are your points. i am making my own points and have pointed always to eliminating the CD from the listening experience by going direct with 24b downloads. Pay attention.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
No, you need two photographs of yourself. One taken when you were young and one when you're older. Put them both together in a plastic bag and put them in your freezer.
This is one of many "tweeks" from Peter Belt, and actually practiced by Dave and Carol Clark of the "high-end" review magazine Positive Feedback. Not something I just made up.
se
An acquaintance of my wife's who travels extensively says that whenever she arrives in a new place she eats some locally-made yogurt, which will contain local micro-flora that aid digestion and protect one from the most common local bugs. She says she never gets Delhi belly.
Yes, it's as simple as that - an "accumulation of errors" is as good an expression as any to describe what goes on. Every audio system is a system, always - and what you hear is the desired, plus errors introduced in every area of the system's operation. The latter has to be reduced below a certain level - to get say, "convincing" sound, my metric - and the mindset to have is that any part of the system can potentially be the biggest problem; your mission, should you choose to accept it
, is to locate that part ...
Those graphs are for R-2R vs DS. You have a DS DAC in your system. Haven't you just said that your system is suboptimal by your own rules.
dac Lynn likes multibit.
There is some logic behind that and it's a major area of research. In the future we all might pop a suppository before travelling. After all a human is only 10% Eukaryotic cells.
Me neither, digital is finally coming of age and it's still improving.
24/96 is however a ceiling as far is i'm concerned, 24/192 is beyond pointless when most existing recordings don't even make full use of 16/44.1
I only have a few albums which show any benefit at all in using 24/96 and thats subjective - macro detail, things like a sense of slightly increased sound stage. I would not like to have to demonstrate this in any way that would satisfy the more scientific minded among us. If people are tempted to buy such downloads, my advice is make sure it's music you really love AND that is exceptionally well recorded to start with. Dam few in other words but i don't rule it out.
I don't see the point in upsampling either, how can it possibly have any merit?
Richard, you would help your cause if you got some of your "best" HDTracks put through the downsampling to 16 bits, followed by resampling to the original hires, routine - and tried comparing original and "corrupted". If you could still hear a difference then people might respond more positively ...
Why would he need to re sample to 24 bit?
And he's never going to do it. At least not without peeking. He said so himself.
se
Quite a bit, depending upon everything. The trick, always, is to help the electronics do the best job of turning the digits into an analogue signal - with the least amount of mucking up happening at the actual time of this conversion. The current measuring of how well this is done is pretty useless in telling the full story - hence the ongoing, endless, dogfights!!
Personally, I have found offline upsampling remarkably effective for cheap, PC DACs - big difference in the treble performance ...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.