Absolute top tier DAC for standard res Redbook CD

@fuzzbutt17

Victims of marketing.

A few years ago at RMAF we held a contest (with some pretty cool prizes) to determine if people could guess the resolution of of five songs.

We had a 25 song playlist printed on a single page with columns for song names and check boxes to the right for "16/44.1" and "24/96" and "24/192." We literally passed out a dozen clip boards and had a pile of sharpened pencils at the info table when you enter.

Each Attendee had to stay for five songs and mark a check next to what resolution they thought each song was. We had a few hundred Attendees enter the contest.

How many songs out of five do you think the average person got right?

NONE.

We had about a dozen prizes and had trouble finding enough people that got ONE out of five guesses correct. We had to give one of the prizes to a person that crossed out and wrote over but their crossed out guess was right (seriously).

Not one person could even get two right.

BTW, more than half of the songs we used were nothing more than well recorded 16-bit 44.1KHz Reed Book CD rips.

What does that tell you?

This is a faulty test, IMO, as most people do not have experience with 24 bit music that is dithered down and converted to Redbook CD. If you do not know what to listen for, this is a difficult test. There would likely be many more correct answers if you played each song at 16/44.1, and then a 24 bit version, in random order. If you disagree, please feel free to hold this contest at your next show.

I agree that current technology does a great job with Redbook CDs. However, there is no replacement for 24bit masters, IMHO.

@fuzzbutt17 

Benjamin,

I just skimmed through your article, "The 24-Bit Delusion" and I see we will not agree. You article is full of untrue claims, IMO. 24 bits are not just about dynamic range. Higher bitrates properly used in recording are for greater headroom, to avoid digital clipping, or unneeded processing. Higher bitrates also provide for greater S/N levels, lower digital distortion, reduction of noise from processing, and eliminating unneeded processing. 

"In contrast, some of my favorite digital recordings were digitally mastered from 1950s analog recordings. Many of these recordings were done as a group of musicians playing in a room with one take per track and a minimum of post-production editing. Though these recordings have a much higher background noise being limited by old-school pre-Dolby 60dB dynamic range master tapes, they retain an organic character that can't be duplicated any other way. When you hear the organic character and coherent in-the-room harmonics, it is clear why so many audiophiles prize these recordings."

You conclusion is incorrect. Your preference has nothing to do with dynamic range, but with the use of tube mics & gear, RtR analog recordings, as well as the recording style. Digital masters can retain many elements of analog recordings, and higher bitrates are much more capable.

Remove the filtering from your DAC, and see how you like 16 vs 24 bits.

@sadono

You write with wisdom like a child, directly to the heart. I trust you will interpret my questions as genuine.

Simple yes/no questions if I may... no need to elaborate beyond yes/no but by all means do so if so inclined...

- does this 16 vs 24 bit "difference" effect your enjoyment of listening to music?

- are you able to discern a difference between 16/24 in a blind test (assuming you’ve tried)?

Thanks.

Gdhal,
I cited George as he has repeated this often on this particular thread/site. I realize that there are manufacturers who share this view but certainly not all do. Given that Empirical Audio has produced both I was interested in their opinion regarding the multi bit/R2R "bit perfect" claim. More importantly how relevant is it ultimately to actual sound quality.
Charles

@charles1dad 

Understood. Thanks.