2. digital
  3. 169879-41852

16 bit vs 24 bit vs 35 bit vs 36 bit vs 64 bit DAC sampling

I have limited knowledge about DAC's, but as I understand it, a typical CD player used to have 16 bit sampling, and supposedly no one was supposed to be able to hear the difference between anything more than 16 bit sampling; however, I recently purchased an Esoteric K-01X, which has 35 bit sampling (why 35 bits? no doubt only to differentiate it from their then top of the line 36 bit sampled Grandioso series).  

Now I can hear a big difference between my old Musical Fidelity kW DM25 DAC with 24 bit sampling (circa 2005), and the newer Esoteric DAC with 35 bit sampling, although I'm not supposed to, although maybe there are some other electrical programs playing with the sound besides the sampling rate.  

Now, there are 64 bit sampling DAC's, and I'm wondering how much the ear actually does hear from the sampling, or if it's something else entirely that's making the digital sound better?  

Any insightful opinions or perspectives?  

Thanks.
drbond

Showing 2 responses by cleeds

Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,658 posts
 
clearthinker
... the wave form of digital sampling is a jagged zig-zag saw, like an endless flight of stairs. The little triangles at created by joining the teeth of the saw is a measure of the departure of the digital representation from the true waveform of the sound ...
It’s amazing that this misnomer still exists two decades into the third millennium. Digital audio may have its problems, but "stairsteps" ain’t it.

We know from Nyquist that we can get a continuous (analog) signal from a digitally discrete code provided that the bandwidth is half (or less) of the sampling rate. This isn’t a theory - it’s a theorem. It’s a fact.
The higher the sampling rate the smaller the little triangles and the closer you get to the original sound.
Not so. The higher the sampling rate the greater the bandwidth.

For those who can’t comprehend this truth, this video may help.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,658 posts
 
noske
I understand the steps appearance in the time domain. Instead of the sinewave looking smooth in the time domain, it looks stepped up in increments, then down, up, down with the flow of the sinewave ... As bit rate increases, the size of these steps decrease. With 65,536 of the little buggers, I reckon the curve would be pretty smooth(but not continuous) ...
No, you’re mistaken. That’s why I provided you a link that demonstrates it for you visually. There are no "stair steps" in digital audio.
In any event, I query the theorem that a continuous signal may be obtained. One may be approached.
Do you understand the difference between a theorem and a theory? Do you understand that a theorem is a fact proven by math? That you don’t understand or accept the math, or that you won’t watch a video to learn, doesn’t invalidate the theorem.

Digital audio is not intuitive. It’s math.
More to discover