ev13wt
Super Member
Not sure about cross posting forums, but this is a great read:
24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!
"It seems to me that there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding what bit depth is and how it works in digital audio. This misunderstanding exists not only in the consumer and audiophile worlds but also in some education establishments and even some professionals. This misunderstanding comes from supposition of how digital audio works rather than how it actually works. It's easy to see in a photograph the difference between a low bit depth image and one with a higher bit depth, so it's logical to suppose that higher bit depths in audio also means better quality. This supposition is further enforced by the fact that the term 'resolution' is often applied to bit depth and obviously more resolution means higher quality. So 24bit is Hi-Rez audio and 24bit contains more data, therefore higher resolution and better quality. All completely logical supposition but I'm afraid this supposition is not entirely in line with the actual facts of how digital audio works. I'll try to explain:
When recording, an Analogue to Digital Converter (ADC) reads the incoming analogue waveform and measures it so many times a second (1*). In the case of CD there are 44,100 measurements made per second (the sampling frequency). These measurements are stored in the digital domain in the form of computer bits. The more bits we use, the more accurately we can measure the analogue waveform. This is because each bit can only store two values (0 or 1), to get more values we do the same with bits as we do in normal counting. IE. Once we get to 9, we have to add another column (the tens column) and we can keep adding columns add infinitum for 100s, 1000s, 10000s, etc. The exact same is true for bits but because we only have two values per bit (rather than 10) we need more columns, each column (or additional bit) doubles the number of vaules we have available. IE. 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024 .... If these numbers appear a little familiar it is because all computer technology is based on bits so these numbers crop up all over the place. In the case of 16bit we have roughly 65,000 different values available. The problem is that an analogue waveform is constantly varying. No matter how many times a second we measure the waveform or how many bits we use to store the measurement, there are always going to be errors. These errors in quantifying the value of a constantly changing waveform are called quantisation errors. Quantisation errors are bad, they cause distortion in the waveform when we convert back to analogue and listen to it.
... read more'
24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!
"It seems to me that there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding what bit depth is and how it works in digital audio. This misunderstanding exists not only in the consumer and audiophile worlds but also in some education establishments and even some professionals. This misunderstanding comes from supposition of how digital audio works rather than how it actually works. It's easy to see in a photograph the difference between a low bit depth image and one with a higher bit depth, so it's logical to suppose that higher bit depths in audio also means better quality. This supposition is further enforced by the fact that the term 'resolution' is often applied to bit depth and obviously more resolution means higher quality. So 24bit is Hi-Rez audio and 24bit contains more data, therefore higher resolution and better quality. All completely logical supposition but I'm afraid this supposition is not entirely in line with the actual facts of how digital audio works. I'll try to explain:
When recording, an Analogue to Digital Converter (ADC) reads the incoming analogue waveform and measures it so many times a second (1*). In the case of CD there are 44,100 measurements made per second (the sampling frequency). These measurements are stored in the digital domain in the form of computer bits. The more bits we use, the more accurately we can measure the analogue waveform. This is because each bit can only store two values (0 or 1), to get more values we do the same with bits as we do in normal counting. IE. Once we get to 9, we have to add another column (the tens column) and we can keep adding columns add infinitum for 100s, 1000s, 10000s, etc. The exact same is true for bits but because we only have two values per bit (rather than 10) we need more columns, each column (or additional bit) doubles the number of vaules we have available. IE. 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024 .... If these numbers appear a little familiar it is because all computer technology is based on bits so these numbers crop up all over the place. In the case of 16bit we have roughly 65,000 different values available. The problem is that an analogue waveform is constantly varying. No matter how many times a second we measure the waveform or how many bits we use to store the measurement, there are always going to be errors. These errors in quantifying the value of a constantly changing waveform are called quantisation errors. Quantisation errors are bad, they cause distortion in the waveform when we convert back to analogue and listen to it.
... read more'
Tin Bird
Active Member
Did you have the CD Box or the CD Box DS? They are two different players with different specs. The regular CD Box is considered the entry point, the DS is a step up from that. I have seen reviews of the CD Box being lean sounding. The CD Box DS does not sound as thick as the C7030 (or as warm), but hits way lower frequencies and overall the bass sounds much cleaner and defined.
mhardy6647
Lunatic Member
Oh, I had to smile reading this. A treatise on Newtonian physics could have been similarly written, and would have likewise been taken by most readers as absolutely true, complete and correct... until the early 20th Century. And we'd still be dealing with inexplicable things like the "Ultraviolet Catastrophe" and the photoelectric effect.
The immutable facts quoted are models. Useful (as is Newtonian physics -- still used in many disciplines) but approximations to the truth.
So, yeah, I am guessing the author of that piece is an engineer and not a scientist.
As a VP of research for whom I once worked used to say: "hold your theories lightly" -- i.e., keep an open mind, especially when one encounters data that don't fit one's theories. It does happen.
N.B. It is entirely possible that some of the qualitative effects that are coldly debunked in the reference are perceptual (even psychological) -- but that doesn't make them unreal. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle holds, in essence, that the simple act of observing an event can alter the nature of that event. (Specifically, the principle holds that one cannot determine the trajectory of a particle without altering that trajectory). This is very real and has broad and fundamental implications. Who knows? we might know more about encoding analog data in digital space in a century than we do now. Stuff happens.
Last edited:
DaveVoorhis
Addicted Member
I agree that psychological effects are real and are a factor, but the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle -- which all too often gets cited to provide scientific-sounding woo in places where it doesn't belong -- neither applies here, nor does it have anything to do with the Observer Effect. See the last paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
The only difference in output waveform between equivalent (say) 16bit and 24bit AD/DA systems employing dithering is the noise floor level. The audio signal is identical. This is established both theoretically (via mathematical proof) and empirically.
Is that difference in noise level perceptible?
Maybe or maybe not, but theoretically and empirically, that's the only difference between otherwise-equivalent 16bit and 24bit digital recordings. As this is a mathematical relationship and therefore not subject to the discoveries of natural science, it is highly unlikely that there is more to discover about the relationship between bit depth and the signal emitted by a DAC. If there are discoveries to be made in this specific area, it is in the area of what noise levels can or cannot actually be perceived, or in the psychoacoustic effect of knowing whether or not you're hearing (say) a 24bit recording as opposed to a 16bit recording.
Tin Bird
Active Member
Aren't we also dealing w the analog filters/output of these devices too? Sure, some DACs probably have a "sound" to them...some more detailed than others...some more warm, but overall it's the processing that goes on in the system following the D/A conversion that makes the most audio difference, isn't it?
Djcoolray
Addicted Member
DaveVoorhis
Addicted Member
Yes. Arguably, the reconstruction filter at the output of the DAC, and the anti-aliasing filter at the input of the ADC, make the most audible difference.
Djcoolray
Addicted Member
You have to realize that a cleaner defined sound as in well defined background instrumentals and vocals is due to the combined effects of the entire system. A cleaner defined sound is dependent on how much total THD and N/S ratio your system is dealing with and an amp has more to do with that than the CD player.
Especially since what you really hear is the analog output stage which involves many variables such as power supply, active devices and topology.
Tin Bird
Active Member
I appreciate your point and I do not disagree...but I've used the C7030 for three years as my main CD player...I listen to it almost everyday. When I purchased the Pro-Ject CD Box DS, I literally put it in the same exact system..just unplugged the 7030 and plugged in the Pro-ject...listened to three tracks and then immediately plugged the 7030 back in and listened to the same three tracks..I did this over the course of a week probably 4 or 5 times with different tracks/CDs...so...while in theory you are correct, in my case, every other variable is completely the same and I can assure you that it is not minor how different the CD players sound...it is fairly major. Like I said, I can hear details in CDs that I have listened to for 10 years that I never heard before. My son has spent time with me doing this as well and he noted hearing things in tracks he had never heard before too...the sound is overall livelier, clearer, more detailed, more airy, vivid...those are the words that come to mind. If I had to quantify, I would say 30% more detail..that would probably be fair...so that may not qualify as a "major" difference, but I am pretty sure that 9 out of 10 people that listened would note the difference. Of course, taste and preference would vary depending...as noted, I still think the 7030 was a bit warmer and thicker sounding overall...but I prefer hearing more of the details of the music and a more lively sound. I found it cool that a CD player could make this much difference and I will admit that I was surprised...pleasantly so...
Djcoolray
Addicted Member
I appreciate your point and I do not disagree...but I've used the C7030 for three years as my main CD player...I listen to it almost everyday. When I purchased the Pro-Ject CD Box DS, I literally put it in the same exact system..just unplugged the 7030 and plugged in the Pro-ject...listened to three tracks and then immediately plugged the 7030 back in and listened to the same three tracks..I did this over the course of a week probably 4 or 5 times with different tracks/CDs...so...while in theory you are correct, in my case, every other variable is completely the same and I can assure you that it is not minor how different the CD players sound...it is fairly major. Like I said, I can hear details in CDs that I have listened to for 10 years that I never heard before. My son has spent time with me doing this as well and he noted hearing things in tracks he had never heard before too...the sound is overall livelier, clearer, more detailed, more airy, vivid...those are the words that come to mind. If I had to quantify, I would say 30% more detail..that would probably be fair...so that may not qualify as a "major" difference, but I am pretty sure that 9 out of 10 people that listened would note the difference. Of course, taste and preference would vary depending...as noted, I still think the 7030 was a bit warmer and thicker sounding overall...but I prefer hearing more of the details of the music and a more lively sound. I found it cool that a CD player could make this much difference and I will admit that I was surprised...pleasantly so...
That's why I think it's your amp combination with the CD player, I'm not experiencing a warmer, thicker sound. No one else has said that about the C-7030 either. Everyone is just saying instrumentals that sound like the real thing... But all that matters is that your enjoying yourself, sorry for the inconvenience....
Similar threads
