IMO, 32 bit is a worthless waste of space, all the '32 bit capable' DAC chips existent today have actual resolution less than 24 bit.
Twistedpear's Buffalo III has a 32bit DAC.
32bit DACs make sense for designers since they do not have to care about bit decimation from 32 to 24 (i.e. most PCI sound interfaces support 32bit DMA samples only, yet they have to output 24bits on their I2S lines to codecs.
Maybe someone wants 32bit output to their DAC. It's hardly just "shamless marketing" and a "worthless waste of space". Maybe I misunderstood what SoNic67's post was trying to convey.
Foobar in my opinion does the right thing telling you that that format is not supported.
Maybe someone wants 32bit output to their DAC.
For real audio resolution, the number to look for is the THD+N.
I said that the driver is the one that "lies"... Probably uses DS to change the bitrate/bitdepth to match the real capabilities? In this case using WASAPI with those drivers would be useless...
Quote from: SoNic67 on 26 May, 2012, 02:23:38 PMFor real audio resolution, the number to look for is the THD+N.Can You defend this statement with some additional information?Then why include Dynamic Range into specification? Just go for THD+N, right?
THD is used because in the old days it was easier to compute then dynamic range. But now that we have computers, in some sense its unnecessary, since its usually dynamic range you actually want. However, THD does have the advantage that its somewhat standardized in meaning, so you at least have a good idea whats actually being measured. Dynamic range less so, since different people pick different ways to measure it, and often the one that makes them sound the best. THD+N at 1khz for instance is harder to fudge.
Quote from: SoNic67 on 26 May, 2012, 02:23:38 PMFor real audio resolution, the number to look for is the THD+N.THD+N includes noise. There is only so far you can improve this number for practical reasons such as thermal noise stopping it going any better. That's not the same thing as dynamic range which is a different spec.
Besides, specs aren't everything.
Different DACs might measure the almost the same but that doesn't mean they would sound almost the same.
Untill the moment best headphones's THD I known it's HD800's one. It's <0.02% (-74 dB). Elestrostatic phones don't count as they require a special dedicated type of amplification. If soundcard has THD+N -20 dB below of HD800's (-74 dB), let's say -94 dB then final THD of the soundcard + headphones will be (-94 dB) + (-74dB) = -73.96 dB. Futher improvement of soundcard's THD+N is pretty pointless.
According to J.B. Johnson this limit is about 131 dB for a bandwith of 20 kHz.
No, but measurements are.
So in theory, 22 bits of sample depth should be sufficient. There is no need for 32 bit DACs, 24 bit DACs are good enough in any case.
As far as I know there is a upper physical limit of the achivable Signal-to-noise-ratio in the domain of analog signals.According to J.B. Johnson this limit is about 131 dB for a bandwith of 20 kHz.
how about we go the other way and have a DAC outputting ~20V RMS instead of the usual level of around 1-2V RMS. Wouldn't that help achieve better results?