Should I replace my DAC for a 24bit one?

[fedocable]

Hello there. I own a Schiit Modi Multibit DAC, which sounds just fine in my system (paired with a little tube amp and Cabasse speakers). Now, since I bought it I've been stocking a huge and growing library of Hi-Res music (mostly 24/96 FLACs), and so I started wondering whether I should go for a new DAC with a real 24bit chip (the Mimby handles 24bit files ok but has a 16bit chip). Would that make a perceptible step-up? If so, what brand / model should I look into? My budget is -say- under $400.
Thanks for any help!

 

[sKiZo]

Good to keep the bit rate the same all thru the audio stream if at all possible. Not a lot of real hires in my collection (mostly my vinyl rips), but I use jRiver Media Center to upsample everything to 24 bit prior to feeding it to my Maverick TubeMagic. I suppose that would only be an issue if you're feeding your system with digital files from a computer though.

Does it make a big difference? Eh ... it's all in the ear of the beholder I guess. Biggest difference is the DAC's chipset ... mine tops out a lot higher res (96/24) using optical or coaxial, but I much prefer what I hear from the Tenor chipset (96/24) used for the USB stream.

 

[Tiver]

My thought is that there are about a thousand DACs in your budget and while recommendations are great, the ultimate sonic enjoyment on your end could possibly be met by many of what is available. You know, synergy, room acoustics, your listening style......

I read post after post about things I think I want to upgrade or change, and often do nothing for months and months because the information is so ambiguous and I just wonder and wonder if I will actually benefit from small incremental moves.

So sometimes I just grasp for a straw to subdue my curiosity about something. So, my addition to your quest is that I think you should get the SMSL M8(A) or SMSL SU-8. I do not own, but will admit I am very intrigued by either of these.

couple links
http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/topping-d30-vs-smsl-m8a-a-novice-impressions.802019/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/.../review-and-measurements-of-smsl-m8-dac.2457/

 

[sgmlaw]

Hello there. I own a Schiit Modi Multibit DAC, which sounds just fine in my system (paired with a little tube amp and Cabasse speakers). Now, since I bought it I've been stocking a huge and growing library of Hi-Res music (mostly 24/96 FLACs), and so I started wondering whether I should go for a new DAC with a real 24bit chip (the Mimby handles 24bit files ok but has a 16bit chip). Would that make a perceptible step-up? If so, what brand / model should I look into? My budget is -say- under $400.
Thanks for any help!

It can, obviously. But it will ultimately depend on the quality of the recording. Not every 24-bit ‘HD’ version is decidedly better than its 16-bit counterpart.

I have a number of recordings in multiple formats. Many in 44/16, 96/24, and in vinyl. In some, the 16-bit version sounds just as good as the 24-bit. In others, the 24-bit version is a definite improvement. And in many instances, if the vinyl is a good copy, it blows both digital versions out of the water.

I have a hard time noticing discernible differences between 96 and 192 khz digital, so have resisted investing in the latter. YMMV, but if the cost to upgrade to 192 is the same as 96, go for the 192 capability. You’ll still enjoy all the downsampled rates as well.

 

[SterlingOne]

I connected iTunes running on one of my laptop's to the usbDAC on my OPPO 205 Player, which outputs to stereo RCA inputs on my pre/pro allowing me to listen to AAC, ALAC, AIFF, and wav. files sent to my JBL L100t3 mains. I have the usbDAC set to up sample all input to 24/192. The result is all input sounds better than native output and the AAC files are pretty much indistinguishable from 24/96 files of same content residing in my iTunes Library. The bottom-line is my 99 cent downloads sound as good as the stuff I used to buy from HDtracks at over twice the price. It all sounds great. One thing though, my 50's and early 60's DOO WOP music collection in AAC although sounding more detailed up sampled to 24/192 also allows me to hear tape splice editing from some of this music. I guess with more detail, comes more revelation of recording error too. At any rate, I'm now a believer in state-of-the-art DACS.

 

[gvl]

If you don't upgrade the DAC at least make sure you're using a player that allows to limit the output to 16 bits with dither before sending to the Modi when playing hi-res. If fed 24 bits directly Modi Multibit just truncates the 8 LSBs which raises THD.

 

[Yamaki]

I say Yes to the upgrade. Why have 24 bit source material if you can't decode it?

 

[for_p1]

Hello there. I own a Schiit Modi Multibit DAC, which sounds just fine in my system (paired with a little tube amp and Cabasse speakers). Now, since I bought it I've been stocking a huge and growing library of Hi-Res music (mostly 24/96 FLACs), and so I started wondering whether I should go for a new DAC with a real 24bit chip (the Mimby handles 24bit files ok but has a 16bit chip). Would that make a perceptible step-up? If so, what brand / model should I look into? My budget is -say- under $400.
Thanks for any help!

Find used Teac UD-501. This is a good DAC which can play PCM up to 24/384 and also DSD128. I liked how it sounds with high-res material. You can play with its multiple filters and upsampling mode to get best from 16/44 material too. They are commonly sold on e-bay for under $500.

 

[fedocable]

Thanks for the answers!
Tiver: you're absolutely right. I guess starting a thread is in fact a (lazy) way of narrowing down the options. Throw the stone and choose some of the echoes. You are also right about audophilia being a Sisyphusian desease.
Gvl and Yamaki -and everybody: I posed this same question to the Schiit customer support, and got an interesting answer. First, there are no "real 24 bit D/A chips" as I thought. I was asking whether I would be better off using a "32bit" AK4490 DAC, like their cheap Modi3; this was the answer: "The most powerful DAC in the world currently (our Yggdrasil) only uses 21 bits. The Modi 3 uses a Delta-Sigma DAC. Delta-Sigma DACs have this measurement known as “equivalent number of bits.” This means, in English, how many bits of resolution they really have. And that number, for most of them, is about 2- to 5-bits."
So my obsession with the chip not matching the bit depth of the files was an in fact illusion: "Today, virtually every DAC uses a reduced-bit technology known as 'delta sigma'", Schiit tells me.
Bottom line, I'm keeping my Mimby, which sounds really good, at least in my humble set, and move my obsessions to another link of the sound chain.

 

[gvl]

Mimby is inadequate for hi-res despite what Schiit says.

 

[dewdude]

Oversampling/delta-sigma DACs have been around for years....in fact unless you're buying a botique reaiator ladder DAC....it's been the standard since the 80s.

Things went multi-bit around 2007; my MAudio featured AKMs very first multi-bit oversampling DAC. It was an improvement over previous units.

The SMSL M8 I bought to replace it in 2016 was even better. The quality of converting between PCM to delta-sigma has matured and improved.

It might be worth checking out.

 

[gvl]

I think you got it backwards, DACs were multi-bit until Phlips came up with the 1-bit bit-streaming DAC chip circa 1988, that was the start of delta-sigma. Oversampling applies to both multi-bit and d-s.

 

[Mystic]

I have a number of recordings in multiple formats. Many in 44/16, 96/24, and in vinyl. In some, the 16-bit version sounds just as good as the 24-bit. In others, the 24-bit version is a definite improvement.

Same here, and IMO there are more examples among my 44/16s that sound better than their (various level) HI-REZ counterparts, i.e., the 24-bit example is a decided dis-improvement. As for that 192 bizz (or should I say buzz?... fairy dust.

Flame away...

 

[dewdude]

I think you got it backwards, DACs were multi-bit until Phlips came up with the 1-bit bit-streaming DAC chip circa 1988, that was the start of delta-sigma. Oversampling applies to both multi-bit and d-s.

No.

Prior to oversampling DACs worked pretty much directly from PCM. There was no Delta sigma.

 

[gvl]

No.

Prior to oversampling DACs worked pretty much directly from PCM. There was no Delta sigma.

There was no delta sigma but oversampling digital filters were used in pretty much all mainstream CD players or DACs, except maybe about the very first Sony consumer CD player CDP-101 and maybe some early models from other manufacturers. Oversampling and delta-sigma are completely independent concepts. Oversampling works with non delta-sigma just fine. TDA1541 chip from Philips hit the market in the mid-80s and the designs utilizing it were typically 4x oversampled,

 

[sgmlaw]

I don't want to start any 'chip wars' here, as the DAC chip itself is really only a small part of the overall equation, and there are digital filtering and analog stages to be considered that in aggregate may make a bigger impact . . . and all of which ultimately affect effective resolution. A bad filtering front end implementation can shave a number of bits off the effective resolution before it even reaches the DAC.

But the best designs into the early 90s were all ladder R2R designs. And they still sound wonderful today.

And I am still in love with all the PCM1704K grade chips in my one DAC, which is a much later 96/24 R2R design.

The biggest reason chipmakers went to delta sigmas and the '1-bit' marketing parade was manufacturing and implementation costs. Resistor ladder architecture chips are very expensive to make and correctly implement.

But I'm sure someone will chime in about how DS has superior low level linearity, etc., etc. Both can sound terrific or horrible, depending on implementation.

 

[gvl]

No chip wars, but even considering an ideal design around the DAC chip you ideally want a chip that can manage at least 20 bits of linearity for hi-res content, because if it is not there then no implementation can fix it. Will you hear the differences - who knows, but technically this is how it is.

 

[sgmlaw]

No chip wars, but even considering an ideal design around the DAC chip you ideally want a chip that can manage at least 20 bits of linearity for hi-res content, because if it is not there then no implementation can fix it. Will you hear the differences - who knows, but technically this is how it is.

True that. But even the very best high end 16-bit players of the 90s and into the early 2000s only reached 11 or 12 effective bits resolution. You had to spend nearly five figures on a digital front end to get much above that. Most decent 24-bit equipment can reach 20-bit resolution with a test stream.. So even a substandard 24-bit implementation with an effective resolution at 18-bits is going to sound considerably better up to the analog stage . . . PROVIDED the source stream is of similar quality.

And that was my earlier point. Many "24-bit" recordings are simply not that great sounding, because the source tapes or other masters were badly consoled over to 24-bits. When I have high resolution dreck, sometimes slightly lower resolution dreck is a little more palatable.

. . . and a crummy analog output stage can make it all fall apart at the end anyway.

 

[gvl]

But even the very best high end 16-bit players of the 90s and into the early 2000s only reached 11 or 12 effective bits resolution.

I don't know if that's true, the best players of the 90s used 18 or 20 bit R2R DAC chips with 8x oversampling digital filters in front of them, those nailed 16 bits or even higher on a regular basis.

 

[sgmlaw]

"Effective bits" was a term of art at that time, and contemplated losses from all three stages of the process. Four if you counted the transport stage.

Because all that was generally commercially available then was 44.1/16 media. Losses of 4 to 6 bits resolution from laser to output jacks was quite common. High transport jitter was a further factor, and was only just beginning to be fully understood. Even a "20-bit" nominal processing schemes suffered some losses off the 16-bit data stream.

While the mastering of discs at that time was often performed at higher bitrates (and I just learned that my JVC copy of one of Chet Atkins discs is now worth over $400, woo-hoo), I don't know anyone outside of a studio or laboratory setting that was starting with "16-bits or higher" at that time. 99% of it was plain old Red Book.