16/32 bit? Is it supporting 24 bit audio?
Hi-Fi An USB ESS sabre DAC, Simply a performer.
Hi-Fi An USB ESS sabre DAC, Simply a performer.
|
|
Sep 26 2013, 11:27 PM
Return to original view | Post
#1
|
![]() ![]()
Junior Member
101 posts Joined: Jan 2010 From: Kuching |
16/32 bit? Is it supporting 24 bit audio?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 27 2013, 09:54 AM
Return to original view | Post
#2
|
![]() ![]()
Junior Member
101 posts Joined: Jan 2010 From: Kuching |
QUOTE(LittleGhost @ Sep 27 2013, 07:42 AM) superior 32 bit ya, 32 bit is sure superior. But where can I buy the 32bit audio now? I was hoping it supports 24bit which is available abundantly nowadays. Anyway, I am still OK with 16bit. hehe. Thumbs up for UD110, proudly Malaysian made. The bit control is firmware level controlled. I believe he's making it 16/32 bit is so that user either chooses "highest bit" or lowest common bit. Either way, you should just use 32 bit even with actual 16/24 bit media. The extra padding gives you better headroom in terms of software attenuation. |
|
|
Sep 27 2013, 10:30 AM
Return to original view | Post
#3
|
![]() ![]()
Junior Member
101 posts Joined: Jan 2010 From: Kuching |
QUOTE(LittleGhost @ Sep 27 2013, 10:18 AM) Aiya, that's not the point. Use 32 bit processing rate??? The raw I have is either 16bit or 24 bit. Bit is bit depth, it is how much information contain in the sound sample or you can call it sound resolution. It has nothing to do with the processing rate. You cannot get 32bit if your sound's bit depth is only 16bit and 24bit, just like TV resolution, if the resolution is 640 x 480, you cannot force it to give you 1920 x 1080 resolution.You should use 32 bit even if you're playing 16 bit/ 24 bits. The point is to use a higher bit processing rate for everything so you can afford better dynamic range and without loss of fidelity in case you software attenuate. |
|
|
Sep 27 2013, 11:37 AM
Return to original view | Post
#4
|
![]() ![]()
Junior Member
101 posts Joined: Jan 2010 From: Kuching |
QUOTE(LittleGhost @ Sep 27 2013, 11:15 AM) You're essentially representing the data at a higher bit rate. It doesn't do anything to the existing resolution, but merely gives you the capability to "software attenuate" without losing the one bit per 6 dB. I see. Thanks for the explanation. Just started with this digital music thingy, really confusing for me. I primarily still use CDs. hehe.It's not so important if you don't use software attenuation. Either way it's good to run at higher bit rates. |
|
|
Oct 1 2013, 12:00 AM
Return to original view | Post
#5
|
![]() ![]()
Junior Member
101 posts Joined: Jan 2010 From: Kuching |
Cool. I have got my UD110, it is a very capable DAC
|
|
|
Aug 27 2014, 11:26 PM
Return to original view | Post
#6
|
![]() ![]()
Junior Member
101 posts Joined: Jan 2010 From: Kuching |
The UD120 has a much better overall clarity compared to UD110, the vocal exhibits a slight warmth in it. I am very satisfied with the sound improvement over the previous UD110.
|
| Change to: | 0.0157sec
0.49
7 queries
GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 6th December 2025 - 05:37 PM |