 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
100.2.133.74
In Reply to: RE: ...and the answer is posted by flood2 on April 21, 2025 at 18:50:50
Padding a couple of 0s doesn't add any information more than 16bits. Dither will introduce distortion. There is a thing called bit perfect.You mentioned Benchmark. Yes my Benchmark DAC3 HGC is in storage. I usually put something in storage when they sound particular bad.
If you enjoy software volume control, go ahead enjoy it. I will stay with hardware volume control or analog volume control.
Edits: 04/22/25 04/22/25Follow Ups:
Just out of interest, what is your background exactly? Your statements suggest that you don't have any background that involved learning about signal processing.
I would suggest studying a bit more before asserting what is simply an uninformed opinion.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
I have a master degree in EE. 35 years ago I was teaching postgraduate student "Digital Random Signal Processing". I have two Plinius AMPs and I am selling them. No more Plinius AMP. Do you have an issue with that?As a loyal Plinius customer of 25 years, I am disappointed to say you have lost my business. Congratulations.
Edits: 04/22/25
It adds a little bit noise that removes the quantization distortion from small signals.
Why you guys can't just use hardware volume control? Cost reduction? Every cent counts?
Leo, I do volume control in the digital domain. For my purposes I only change the volume by, maybe, 3dB between songs/pieces. My system gain is adjusted so I am always working near the top of the range. I would contend that in my application this volume control is as good as, or better than I could achieve with any stepped attenuator working in the analog domain.
I think it perfectly fine for you to prefer the latter. However, when I correct an error in your post you make an ad hominem suggestion that I am somehow cheap for not adding an analog attenuator. I would contend there is less evidence in my posts on AA that I am cheap than there is evidence in your posts of idiocy. And yet I do not call you an idiot!
You might misunderstand me.
"Why you guys can't just use hardware volume control? Cost reduction? Every cent counts?"
you guys = chip design/manufacture company
Cost reduction = manufacture cost reduction
Every cent counts = manufacture every cent counts
Aren't you a director of IC design?
What do you mean by "hardware volume control". Do you mean an analogue volume control or additional electronic hardware to do the volume control external to the DAC? Neither is likely to be as good as doing the volume control internal to a DAC that internally converts and processes the incoming data at full 32 bit resolution because extending the signal path and routing the data to another circuit can only increase the noise floor.
In the case of the Benchmark DAC and other DACs using the ESS DACs (I'm not sure about the AKM DACs but I believe they are the same), they can achieve a full range of volume adjustment because they are using the full capability of the 32bit DAC so the 16 bit or 24 bit word is converted to 32bit and processed at that word length, therefore the volume can be adjusted with full precision down to the limits of the DAC itself. An analogue volume control can only be better than the -135dB range of the ESS DAC if it has lower noise...which is highly unlikely.
So the answer to your question is that it depends on the DAC and overall system design. Your concerns apply to older DAC designs from the early 2010s such as Cambridge Audio DACs (DacMagic plus) which had an 8 bit (-48dB) range of volume adjustment before bit truncation on a 24 bit word. NAD had a -66dB range which was very usable for "typical" listening behaviour.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Hi Leo, I didn't intend to be offensive so apologies. I don't find your posts idiotic but I do find them idiosyncratic, which is not a bad thing. I am an engineer, and good engineering means better = doing the same job for less cost or doing a better job for the same cost. That is pretty much the opposite of audiophilia where better = more expense, more stuff, more boxes, 'special' components. Maybe digital volume control is a good example. When I bought my CD player, a long time ago, it had bespoke filtering and a digital volume control. Back then that was expensive to implement as it needed a special DSP chip and software. That made it an expensive product but was hailed as audiophile. Later other companies jumped on the bespoke filtering bandwagon to set themselves apart and justify high prices. These days multiple filter options and digital volume control are now integrated into DAC chips making the whole solution much, much cheaper. The solution is still as good but because the price is now low those products are looked down on. This is sad because a lot of effort and talent went into making those features affordable whereas, the technical bar for entry into high end audio is not as high as the prices. If you have access to a CNC machine then you can sell a product and how often do you see the first product spec line being how thick is the face plate?
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
