I think this is an "infommercial"? For one thing, he says no existing DAC's have better than 20 bit resolution, but FWIW Stereophile has tested and measured quite a few that have between 23 and 24 bit resolution (delta-sigma and dcs "ring"), and even Schitt's best R2R DAC gets between 21 and 22 bit resolution. And even skimming it I noticed a few other half-truths as well.
I think this is an "infommercial"? For one thing, he says no existing DAC's have better than 20 bit resolution, but FWIW Stereophile has tested and measured quite a few that have between 23 and 24 bit resolution (delta-sigma and dcs "ring"), and even Schitt's best R2R DAC gets between 21 and 22 bit resolution. And even skimming it I noticed a few other half-truths as well.
Using the lowest noise power supplies, the most sophisticated grounding, and the most sophisticated resonance control currently available in a digital-to-analog converter, you can’t resolve the least significant bit on a 20-bit recording.
In reality, there are no DACs in the world that are capable of discerning greater than an 20-bit resolution. So any company that claims greater than 20-bit resolution from their DAC is simply full of ****. Oh they can decode 24-bits, because 24-bits does exist in software, but the output from their DAC has less than 20-bits of resolution and dynamic range.
Of course that doesn’t even account for the significant amount of distortion added by signal cables, amplification, and speakers, all of which would not allow resolving even an 18-bit recording.
Take a look at Stereophile reviews and measurements of dcs, Benchmark, Auralic and some other DAC's. I'm pretty sure the S/N ratios are around 140 dB, which is between 23 and 24 bits. And the last time I checked, 21 bits is also more than 20 bits. Instead of assuming I don't know what I'm talking about, why not assume that the author of your linked article might be trying to sell you something, then see what happens from there?
Based on a 2.5V output on a DAC (higher than average), below are the voltages power supply noise must be below in order to hear the LSB:
16-bit LSB noise floor voltage = 76uV
18-bit LSB noise floor voltage = 19uV
20-bit LSB noise floor voltage = 4.75uV
24-bit LSB noise floor voltage = 0.3uV
For a reference, a common LM317 regulator, the quality used in most commercial electronics, has about 150uV peak-to-peak noise, and the world’s lowest noise power supplies (we’re talking NASA, not audiophile) have about 5uV of peak-to-peak noise. That means even with the most sophisticated linear power supplies or batteries available today, 20-bit is theoretically the highest playback resolution and dynamic range possible.
Don't get me wrong, though, 120 dB S/N (or dynamic range) is plenty. 24 bit is mostly about the extra flexibility and resolution in recording and mastering, not an absolute need or benefit from 144 dB dynamic range.
Then why use these insanely high sampling rates and bit depths? The reason is that higher resolution digital formats minimize quantization errors and quantization noise when editing, mixing, and mastering the recording in a studio environment. These higher resolution digital formats truly only exist in a software and are not capable of existing in actual sound reproduction.
24 bit is mostly about the extra flexibility and resolution in recording and mastering, not an absolute need or benefit from 144 dB dynamic range.
If you mean measurements like this DCS Vivaldi DAC:Take a look at Stereophile reviews and measurements of dcs, Benchmark, Auralic and some other DAC's. I'm pretty sure the S/N ratios are around 140 dB, which is between 23 and 24 bits.
. . . .For example, would genuinely 24-bits of resolution (144dB SNR) provide any subjective musical improvement versus 20-bits (120dB SNR), or even 16-bits (96dB SNR)? Is this why digital is sometimes disappointing with music? Good vinyl has what, less than 80dB SNR? I just don't see that dynamic range is, musically speaking, anywhere near an issue for consumer digital playback. This parameter seems like the kind of objective spec-manship that once was common for amplifier THD figures.
Good points, although as you know dynamic range and s/n ratio for analog tape is not necessarily the same thing, since tape records and plays signals well below the noise floor, as can digital (to a much lesser extent) by using dithering. Still, it's likely that a dynamic range of 120 dB is "best", since live musical signals can have peaks that loud (although it is true that 0 dB on the lower end is more challenging to achieve). And I suspect most of us agree that what happens in the digital domain is not the biggest obstacle to good sound, but rather in ADC and DAC.These are interesting technical questions, however, I feel they more serve to highlight the larger issue of digital audio having having unquestionably excellent traditional performance figures, yet too often failing to deliver a commensurate subjective performance.
For example, would genuinely 24-bits of resolution (144dB SNR) provide any subjective musical improvement versus 20-bits (120dB SNR), or even 16-bits (96dB SNR)? Is this why digital is sometimes disappointing with music? Good vinyl has what, less than 80dB SNR? I just don't see that dynamic range is, musically speaking, anywhere near an issue for consumer digital playback. This parameter seems like the kind of objective spec-manship that once was common for amplifier THD figures.
The actual noise floor is not -140+ db. Oversampling is used in the measurements resulting in much lower measured noise floor. Without it we would be seeing the ADC noise of the measurement system itself!
The next test they do is a better judge of that with this text that goes with it:
"With a dithered 1kHz tone at –90dBFS, increasing the bit depth from 16 (fig.12, cyan and magenta traces) to 24 (blue and red) dropped the noise floor by 24dB, indicating that the Vivaldi DAC has at least 20-bit resolution, which is the state of the art.
Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/dcs-vivaldi-digital-playback-system-measurements#f6btlsLLrVvIUcTE.99"
There is also the issue of linearity. It is not sufficient to output something but rather, it needs to be accurate representation of those bits.
The article does have some technical errors but his overall message is sound. In analysis of I have done so far of high resolution recordings I can't find evidence of true 24 dynamic range. I will be testing more but for now, what he says is true in my opinion.
Also, in listening tests I find people can't tell 16 bit and 15 bit apart let alone these types of bit depths.
Gentlemen, interesting conversation! How do considerations here change in the case of digitized vinyl?
If you mean measurements like this DCS Vivaldi DAC:
....
The actual noise floor is not -140+ db. Oversampling is used in the measurements resulting in much lower measured noise floor. Without it we would be seeing the ADC noise of the measurement system itself!
These are interesting technical questions, however, I feel they more serve to highlight the larger issue of digital audio having having unquestionably excellent traditional performance figures, yet too often failing to deliver a commensurate subjective performance. To be more specific, to me, digital typically sounds wideband, high in dynamic range, and seemingly low in distortion. Where I find digital to fall down is in long term listening fatigue, often manifesting as boredom with the music (a cardinal sin). The onset of this fatgue is gradual these days, yet it still seems to rear it's ugly head much more quickly and frequently than it does with vinyl, for example.
Would genuinely 24-bits of resolution (144dB SNR) provide any subjective musical improvement versus 20-bits (120dB SNR), or even 16-bits (96dB SNR)? Is this why digital is sometimes disappointing with music? Good vinyl has what, less than 80dB SNR? I just don't see that dynamic range is, musically speaking, anywhere near an issue for consumer digital playback. This parameter seems like the kind of objective spec-manship that once was common for amplifier THD figures.
Exactly, imo this is where higher resolution seems to help, especially DSD. Not sure it really has much to do with resolution as upsampling redbook to DSD provides a lot of the same benefits, but in comparing I do think DSD has a more relaxed and less fatiguing sound.
Fortunately I, and it seems many others, are not affected by the long-term listening fatigue issue. I can listen to digital for hours on end, and, if the music is good, be as excited at the end as at the beginning. I am never 'bored' with digital, ever. Of course, physical fatigue is a different matter, but that can rear its ugly head also when I listen to vinyl. I don't see any correlation there.
Fortunately I, and it seems many others, are not affected by the long-term listening fatigue issue. I can listen to digital for hours on end, and, if the music is good, be as excited at the end as at the beginning. I am never 'bored' with digital, ever. Of course, physical fatigue is a different matter, but that can rear its ugly head also when I listen to vinyl. I don't see any correlation there.
And yes, I listen to 16/44.1 material exclusively (and as PCM, without DSD conversion). That's where all the music is. Also, I still fail to see a consistent benefit of hi-res, and I am not interested in computer audio either.
I do sympathize with those who are affected by digital fatigue. On the other hand, I do get bored with an overly 'polished', 'relaxed' and 'inoffensive' sound, a sound that many audiophiles seem to prefer. Live music doesn't sound polished, relaxed and inoffensive either, so I want no part of that.