This is a general question on audio D/A converters. Is there a really big difference (noticeable or otherwise) between a 96kHZ 24 bit converter and a 192kHZ 24 bit converter. I know that the 192 is better and more advanced, but does it really make that big of a difference and if it does, how so?
In a word..yep! But I will qualify this by saying that if you are running a "budget HiFi system" and replace your budget DVD player that has budget DAC's with a super slick DVD unit (eg. Denon 2900) with super slick Burr-Brown DAC's, then nup it's not gonna make much difference at all. Your HiFi system is only as good as the weakest component. Like a garden hose that starts 2 feet in diameter but reduces to ¼ inch at the nozzle, the 2 foot diamter section of hose will help push more water to the nozzle, but the nozzle will only ever let ¼ inch stream escape. In other words, you could have the best speakers, DVD, leads, cable but if your amp and DAC's within are ordinary, then you're going to get ordinary sound.
A high quality DAC like the Burr-Brown Hi-Res PCM1738E 24bit 192kHz, very basically, controls the conversion of a digital signal to an analogue signal that eventually ends up at your speakers. The better the DAC the better the S/N (signal to noise) processing, thus ultimately resulting in your system producing it's optimum fidelity. BLIZZ
I understand buying a DVD player with outstanding video capabilities. But for audio, what if you plan to run your dvd through the DACs of a high quality pre-amp/amp--specifically one with an asynchronous sample-rate converter, like the Analog Device AD1896?
In other words, I don't see the point of buying premium DACs for both the DVD player & the AV pre-amp. I'd prefer to save money on the audio part of the dvd player & reinvest it in a top-line pre-amp. Any advice?
In other words, I don't see the point of buying premium DACs for both the DVD player & the AV pre-amp. I'd prefer to save money on the audio part of the dvd player & reinvest it in a top-line pre-amp. Any advice?
I think you have the right idea. Most likely you are going to be using a digital connection to the pre-amp or receiver and it will be it's DACS that determine the sound quality. Although some people swear by the use of external dacs, really it's pointless. The difference between dacs is very slight - nobody can reliably tell the difference between burr brown, analog devices, or cirrus dacs.
'In a word..yep! But I will qualify this by saying that if you are running a "budget HiFi system" and replace your budget DVD player that has budget DAC's with a super slick DVD unit (eg. Denon 2900) with super slick Burr-Brown DAC's, then nup it's not gonna make much difference at all. Your HiFi system is only as good as the weakest component.' - Blizz
In all likelihood your loudspeakers are almost always the weakest component.
Rane Audio has a helpful discussion of this topic. It is directed more towards analogue to digital conversion, but it is still interesting and relevant:
I read this some time ago, but here are what I would consider the important conclusions:
'Here is what is gained by using 20-bits:
* 24 dB more dynamic range
* 24 dB less residual noise
* 16:1 reduction in quantization error
* Improved jitter (timing stability) performance
And if it is 24-bits, add another 24 dB to each of the above and make it a 256:1 reduction in quantizing error, with essentially zero jitter!
As stated in the beginning of this note, with today's technology, analog-to-digital-to-analog conversion is the element defining the sound of a piece of equipment, and if it's not done perfectly then everything that follows is compromised.'
'...can the human ear tell the difference. In most cases, once you go beyond true 16-bits, the answer is no. All benefits above 16-bits/48 kHz are very small refinements, not monumental improvements. What really is going on, is that the advertised "16-bit/48 kHz" recordings of yesterday weren't. They used 16-bit converters but their accuracy was not 16-bits, it was more like 14-bits. Similarly today, the advertised "24-bit" converters are not 24-bit accurate, but they are certainly at least 18-bit accurate, and that makes an audible difference. So, if you can find a true 16-bit system and compare it with a typical 24-bit system of today, they will sound very nearly identical. And the sampling rate getting faster makes even less of an audible difference. For example if you compare a typical 16-bit/96 kHz system against a 24-bit/48 kHz, you will pick the 24-bit system every time. If you have a choice, always choose more bits, over a higher sampling rate.]'
You should also note that the analogue-to-digital converter (ADC) performance is usually more important than digital-to-analogue converter performance. There is, of course, nothing you can do about the quality of the original recording and ADC used. It is worth saying that even the earliest digital audio production equipment was considered very good:
'...experience has shown that even the first generation of digital systems are as good as some of the best analogue systems which have been evolved over many years. Digital tape recorders, of which several have been developed by the broadcasting organisations and record companies, have performance qualities which are far superior to the best analogue studio recorders.'
- Practical Hi-Fi Sound, R. Driscoll, page 63-64, 1980 Hamlyn.
This is a general question on audio D/A converters. Is there a really big difference (noticeable or otherwise) between a 96kHZ 24 bit converter and a 192kHZ 24 bit converter. I know that the 192 is better and more advanced, but does it really make that big of a difference and if it does, how so?
Thanks!
As some posted, or left out, there are no recording today or in the past that uses 96dB red book dynamic range in the recordings. And, what is the use of 96kHz sampling if you cannot hear it?
Simply, use what you have now. Spend your $$$ on software, room acoustics, or speakers.
I'm not sure about that, mtrycrafts. Chris made a similar point on an earlier thread. The Rachmaninov performance in Shine has peaks up to 108 dB (dolby Digital). Certainly many Dolby Digital and DTS soundtracks do make full use of the headroom available compared to 16 bits. I'm also pretty sure that Telarc's hybird SACD/Audio CD version of the 1812 Overture has a very large dynamic range. On the cover, it has a warning about 'DSD (direct stream digital) cannons'!
I'd also say that if you have 24 bit/96kHz playback technology available, then why bother converting down to 16 bit/44.1 kHz? There's no reason to reduce the dynamic range of a recording for the sake of it. Some people with high quality systems may benefit from the greater dynamic range available. I would think that the benefit of extended dynamic range would be in better bass and sub-bass reproduction (extra thump in the timpani, depth in the low notes of a pipe organ, grand piano, etc.).
'there are no recording today or in the past that uses 96dB red book dynamic range in the recordings' - Mtrycrafts
Hi mtrycrafts,
I think that this is a common misconception, which I used to have, that people think about dynamic range. You have to consider the background noise present in most home listening environments, which is usually 30 dB (~20 dB at night). This reduces the dynamic range by 30 dB. It is also worth knowing that the dynamic range of audio CD can be increased using dither, which can increase the dynamic range to 120 dB (Digital Domain, Bob Katz's site, has more about this).
With a Dolby Digital/DTS soundtrack, you could get around 85 dB of dynamic range in a very high quality playback system. I think that this is the spec required for THX cinemas. The Audioholics site has more details about this in the article about noise control/acoustics. With audio CD, I don't think you could get 85 dB of dynamic range, it would be 20 dB less than this (65 dB). Maybe you can get more dynamic range with dither. I don't know enough about dither to say for certain.
You have to consider the background noise present in most home listening environments, which is usually 30 dB (~20 dB at night).
The typical averaged noisefloor of a home environment averages around 40-45 dB. A noisefloor of 20-30dB can be obtained commonly in the following ways:
(1) special acoustic isolation room conditions(this can include suspended room constructions, exceptional building structures, et cetera)
(2) rural dwelling, away from traffic and other external noise sources, with all sound producing devices inside of the house turned off(heating, A/C, et cetera)
Quote:
With audio CD, I don't think you could get 85 dB of dynamic range, it would be 20 dB less than this (65 dB). Maybe you can get more dynamic range with dither. I don't know enough about dither to say for certain.
The only time where the bit-depth of CD is not sufficient for playback is under unique test conditions that are designed to exploit the difference or generally undesirable conditions. For example, it would be obvious that 16 bits was noiser than 24 bits if one turned up the volume to levels above actual listening levels, using a special recording with very low noise levels. 16 bits would not be sufficient to realisticly play back a high school marching band in a very quiet practice room that suddenly starts playing a high SPLs. This would end up being in the 125-130dB peak SPL ranges at close distance. Assuming an extraordinaryly quiet room (20dB), this would require an *effective SNR of about 110dB. But the desirability to reproduce such dangerous levels is highly questionable. Consideration: a very good full range floorstanding speaker with generous bass capabilities that is not limited by amplification is generally capable of 100-105dB(which equals 80-85dB SNR in that extraordinary quiet 20dB environment, and much worse in actual average environments) at the listening position before excessive distortion takes effect. In order to be able to use the high school band recording as specified above, this would require an extraordinary speaker such as a large line array or very efficient, very large horn-based system.
-Chris
__________________ Dedicated to improving the real[quantifiable] parameters of sound reproduction.
'The only time where the bit-depth of CD is not sufficient for playback is under unique test conditions that are designed to exploit the difference or generally undesirable conditions.' - Chris
So are you saying that DTS/Dolby Digital are only useful in the sense of having multichannel capability? In a theatre environment, the greater headroom available with DTS/Dolby Digital is used in many films. You wouldn't be able to get the same sound quality at high volumes with 16 bit as you do with higher bit rate formats. I don't know much about dither, but I'm guessing that 24 bit dithered to 16 bit sounds worse than true 24 bit.
'Assuming an extraordinaryly quiet room (20dB), this would require an *effective SNR of about 110dB. But the desirability to reproduce such dangerous levels is highly questionable.'
The fact that some people do enjoy listening at Dolby reference level in the cinema would suggest that such volumes are worth reproducing. These high volumes, normally in bass and sub-bass, aren't dangerous over short exposure times.
'Consideration: a very good full range floorstanding speaker with generous bass capabilities that is not limited by amplification is generally capable of 100-105dB(which equals 80-85dB SNR in that extraordinary quiet 20dB environment, and much worse in actual average environments) at the listening position before excessive distortion takes effect.'
Such high volumes (and higher) can be reproduced using subwoofers (effectively bi-amping with active subs). Distortion isn't a huge problem because our ears are less sensitive to distortion at low frequencies.
Many forms of music, symphonic works, rock music etc. have peak volumes way above the digital clipping point of audio CD. To me, therefore, it makes sense to want to preserve these peak volumes in the recording. Admittedly, as you point out, you'd need very capable equipment (and most likely some form of acoustical treatment) to accurately reproduce and enjoy such high volumes in the home.
Linear Mode
