Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: 16 bits is more than enough (Read 6311 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: 16 bits is more than enough

Reply #50
* Sampling rates in the six-figures - current record (?) 768k, to capture the degradation when running a 352.8 DXD through an analog tape.   Sure this is always 24 bit, but 24 bits isn't enough to impress anyone, so ... that other number must increase. (Of course the "third" number - channel count - would make an audible difference!)
* DSD. Just an impressive bit-rate and file size, but quite a useless format for audio that has been processed.
Looks like my prediction in 2016 was not too far from the reality. One thing I could not predict is the "fourth" number: the SINAD pissing contest. The EMU products I mentioned only have about 101-105dB SINAD.
If you talk about price, E-MU 1212m with 115dB SNR (loopback) and 24bit 44-192khz support only cost $200 in 2004, in 2005, X-Fi XtremeMusic, unlike Audigy which supports native 44/48/88/96khz with 109dB DAC and 102dB ADC only cost $128, in 2007, Asus Xonar DX with 44-192khz support and 117dB SNR (loopback)...

Audio formats like 24/96 and DSD already have more than 10 years of history (as stated by other members in earlier discussions in this thread). Nowadays placebophiles already talking about 32-bit 768khz PCM and DSD512.

Maybe ten years later people will talk about 64-bit 2.8mhz PCM or DSD4096, or some other new formats. 24/96 will become pure crap. Who still cares about Lavry's theory? "Engineers" will write some new papers about why Nyquist's theory is flawed, how the dots are connected, how the XtraFidelityMastaXD format override the difficulties in the past 30 years and so on. Are you prepared to argue with those people and say 96khz+ can cause distortion?
The last paragraph... MQA was announced, but not commercially available to consumers yet, IIRC.

Re: 16 bits is more than enough

Reply #51
Oh, why settle for 32-bit when there is 64-bit float that both subsubes 32-bit float and 32-bit integer and is in actual use? You know ...
Aaaand, I was not at all aware until Bryant mentioned it, but ... 80-bit float with AIFF for over thirty years? Oh they should have known, those who were touting AIFF as superior to WAVE only ten years ago, when when ... hm, B&W had a download service that offered AIFF but not WAVE. 

... but float is inherently inaccurate, right? No high fidelity about that, at least not compared to vinyl.

Re: 16 bits is more than enough

Reply #52
The "advancement" in bit-depth and sample rate has nothing to do with transparency, or whether people have watched Monty's video/article or not. It is simply because technology has evolved to the point that "hi-res" (24/192) production can be made on a notebook and a $100 interface with built-in mic and instrument preamp. Low quality analog equipment, poor acoustic treatments, inexperienced studio workers etc don't change the fact the recording format is indeed "hi-res". Recently 32/768 or DSD256 recording interfaces are still more expensive, like $2000, but labels just need to sell dozens of "one-step" vinyls or Studer degraded processed hi-res files to cover the cost.

Now AKM has a 1536kHz 64-bit chip, likely integer as the product brief talked nothing about float and AD/DA chips are all integer. Pay attention to the specs before making any doubt as -153dB THD+N and 156dB S/N are in digital domain.
https://www.akm.com/eu/en/products/audio/audio-dac/ak4191eq/

DAC is on a separate chip accepting 7-bit multi-MHz modulated data, with analog specs:
https://www.akm.com/eu/en/products/audio/audio-dac/ak4499exeq/

While a separate chip for digital processing prior to analog conversion is not a new idea (Google SAA7030), this AKM chipset is a new product and I have not seen any actual DAC-in-a-box using this chipset on the market yet, it is not hard to imagine a few years later single-chip DACs can do the same thing or even better, at least in digital processing like filter and modulator, as 150dB-ish digital performance is not really all that ground-breaking these days. At that time 64-bit float will have the same "issue" that it can only losslessly represent 54 bits of integer within +/-9007199254740992.

Re: 16 bits is more than enough

Reply #53

Now AKM has a 1536kHz 64-bit chip, likely integer as the product brief talked nothing about float and AD/DA chips are all integer. Pay attention to the specs before making any doubt as -153dB THD+N and 156dB S/N are in digital domain.
https://www.akm.com/eu/en/products/audio/audio-dac/ak4191eq/


Extreme high-res playback: PCM 64-bit/1536kHz,

To return to my analogy, 1 bit among 64bits is like 1mm on a 18 trillion kilometers sheet.

20 millions times the total journey of Apollo 11  ;D



Don't forget the dithering !






Re: 16 bits is more than enough

Reply #55
Now AKM has a 1536kHz 64-bit chip, likely integer as the product brief talked nothing about float and AD/DA chips are all integer. Pay attention to the specs before making any doubt as -153dB THD+N and 156dB S/N are in digital domain.
https://www.akm.com/eu/en/products/audio/audio-dac/ak4191eq/

DAC is on a separate chip accepting 7-bit multi-MHz modulated data, with analog specs:
https://www.akm.com/eu/en/products/audio/audio-dac/ak4499exeq/
OK. To prevent years later people posting in this thread saying there were floating point audio AD/DA chips, find these datasheets:

YM3014B
YAC512
YAC513

Looks like the reason for floating point was that these DAC chips are designed to work with some vintage Yamaha FM synth, including the popular OPL chips, which also used floating point operations.
https://www.righto.com/search/label/dx7

Re: 16 bits is more than enough

Reply #56
OK. To prevent years later people posting in this thread saying there were floating point audio AD/DA chips, find these datasheets:

YM3014B
YAC512
YAC513

Looks like the reason for floating point was that these DAC chips are designed to work with some vintage Yamaha FM synth, including the popular OPL chips, which also used floating point operations.
https://www.righto.com/search/label/dx7

Think you need to be a bit clearer, actually.
Just reading aloud it looks like you are first saying that you don't want people to believe that they were using float, and then trying to explain why they were using float.
From the DX7 link it seems they had a 12 bit signed and two bits for an exponent. That means some floating-point involved - but not necessarily in the conversion to analog. (And, a 16-bit integer representation can losslessly contain the range.)

Re: 16 bits is more than enough

Reply #57
Think you need to be a bit clearer, actually.
Just reading aloud it looks like you are first saying that you don't want people to believe that they were using float, and then trying to explain why they were using float.
From the DX7 link it seems they had a 12 bit signed and two bits for an exponent. That means some floating-point involved - but not necessarily in the conversion to analog. (And, a 16-bit integer representation can losslessly contain the range.)
I am not trying to explain things in great detail from the DX7 article -- I don't have the actual hardware, and I can't completely decipher what the author of that article wanted to explain.

The official datasheet, for example YAC512, which is supposed to be used with the OPL chips (DX7 was "OPS" and I don't know the differences in detail), indeed identified itself as a floating point DAC chip.
https://www.datasheets360.com/pdf/2132239016875191991
This part explains the things in an OPL chip before sending to the DAC chip:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_OPL#Internal_operation

According to the datasheet I believe 16-bit integer is compatible in terms of numeric representation, using floating point in these specific applications could be due to lower production cost, better yields, simpler hardware design when used with the specific Yamaha synth chips and so on.

Re: 16 bits is more than enough

Reply #58
Wikipedia tells me the DX7 was launched in 1983, which is then a little bit later than the first CD player, Sony CDP-101 CD with a 16-bit DAC. (Infamously, just one at 88200, alternating the channels.)

DX7 would work at a rate of 768 (= 48*16) kiloHz to accommodate 16 voices. Here with two:

... and then with low-pass filter:

(Oh, digital = staircase rant.)


Re: 16 bits is more than enough

Reply #60
Id say changing bitrate from 16 to 8 is compression. compression of dynamics.




Re: 16 bits is more than enough

Reply #64
Sample depth is not strictly speaking a "bitrate" even if eventually the bitrate depends on the depth.

Yes it is, although I recognise your incessant obsession with assigning various terms more restrictive definitions than their actual definitions, so I concede that in your fantasy world you're correct. The only problem is that the rest of us don't live in your fantasy world.

Re: 16 bits is more than enough

Reply #65
I will surely not say that my CD-ripped FLAC files have a "bitrate" of "16".
There are several obvious reasons it would be inadequate. Here are a few statements that are generally perceived as true, and would then have to go out of the window:

"FLAC bitrate depends on the number of channels."
"FLAC bitrate is lower than for uncompressed PCM, except for the most noise-alike signals."
"FLAC bitrate depends on encoder settings."
"FLAC employs a wasted bits strategy, so if you zero-pad a 16 bit PCM signal to 24 bits, the FLAC bitrate is virtually unchanged."

Re: 16 bits is more than enough

Reply #66
I will surely not say that my CD-ripped FLAC files have a "bitrate" of "16".

Right, because it's not a "file bitrate" as such, but a sample bitrate. Regardless, it is a bitrate. Not every "rate" is "per unit of time".

Re: 16 bits is more than enough

Reply #67
Bit depth is not bitrate. It seems you talk nonsense in several topics.

Re: 16 bits is more than enough

Reply #68

Right, because it's not a "file bitrate" as such, but a sample bitrate. Regardless, it is a bitrate. Not every "rate" is "per unit of time".

There's no "rate" for a "sample" whatever its depth / size as it's sampled in "no time" - its instantaneous. At least in direct-conversion.



Re: 16 bits is more than enough

Reply #69

Yes it is, although I recognise your incessant obsession with assigning various terms more restrictive definitions than their actual definitions, so I concede that in your fantasy world you're correct.


It's because my native tongue is Kobaïan  :D



Last Edit: Today at 15:34 by korth


How dare you !