Can I get 4k resolution and 240fps out of these headphones? Do they support raytracing? Etc, etc.

I'm too spoilt with my 32bit DAC, 24 is just not gonna cut it for me - nice as these products are. When are 64bit DAC's going mainstream? I know they are out there in chip form already, but nothing for consumers?

Loobyluggs:

I'm too spoilt with my 32bit DAC, 24 is just not gonna cut it for me - nice as these products are. When are 64bit DAC's going mainstream? I know they are out there in chip form already, but nothing for consumers?

Forget 64-bit. I've heard that 128-bit is so good you don't even need headphones or speakers to hear the sound waves.

yasamoka:

Forget 64-bit. I've heard that 128-bit is so good you don't even need headphones or speakers to hear the sound waves.

Where did you hear that from; I have not heard anything about 128 bit DAC chips?

Loobyluggs:

I'm too spoilt with my 32bit DAC, 24 is just not gonna cut it for me - nice as these products are. When are 64bit DAC's going mainstream? I know they are out there in chip form already, but nothing for consumers?

Are you sure you're not confusing bit depth with sample rate? A bit depth of 24 has more dynamic range than what almost any human could possibly notice. Given sufficient equipment and a track with a lot of dynamic range (such as an action movie, or an orchestra), I think the average person could notice the difference going from 16 to 24, but I'm very confident nobody (except maybe a handful of savants) could confidently tell the difference from 24 to 32 in a blind test. That being said, I'm sure the sample rate is why you enjoy your DAC so much. That, and the overall signal quality it produces. Sample rate determines how much detail is captured in the recording. A sample rate going from 96KHz to 48KHz is very noticeably worse. Sometimes even going from 48KHz to 44.1KHz can be noticeable. From what I've heard (pun intended), 196KHz adds far more depth than what humans can hear. Some audiophiles ostensibly can tell the difference from that between 96KHz. I think there are DACs that go higher, but that's obviously pointless. Side note: I think it makes perfect sense to record audio in uncompressed 32-bit, then step down to a 24-bit FLAC or whatever - much in the same way a professional photographer edits with raw photos but will distribute their content as JPEGs or TIFFs. Once you have the audio levels normalized properly, 32-bit is utterly useless for playback purposes. I can't imagine any situation where your dynamic range will be so wide-spread that having 32-bit would retain any practical (let alone desirable) use for playback. So, I predict 64-bit audio chipsets will never exist for commercial use. They'll probably exist for scientific and industrial purposes, though. Should a commercial one ever exist, it'll be a placebo marketing scam, like speakers that cost more specifically because they can play sounds at 50KHz.

So, what you are saying is, 32-bit is better than 24-bit.

Loobyluggs:

So, what you are saying is, 32-bit is better than 24-bit.

What 32-bit audio content do you play over your DAC?

yasamoka:

What 32-bit audio content do you play over your DAC?

I have no idea, but the audio content that is being analysed, is being analysed at greater depth wouldn't you say? Is that not why we have DAC's ? To convert digital into analogue?

Loobyluggs:

I have no idea, but the audio content that is being analysed, is being analysed at greater depth wouldn't you say? Is that not why we have DAC's ? To convert digital into analogue?

More numbers the better, you are right. Personally I find 16bit/44100hz more than enough with my audio gear, I am human being for god sake. But if you manage to placebo yourself by number, please enjoy it.

Loobyluggs:

I have no idea, but the audio content that is being analysed, is being analysed at greater depth wouldn't you say? Is that not why we have DAC's ? To convert digital into analogue?

The DAC is the final stage in audio output, all processing is done before that. A 24bit audio signal has 144dB of dynamic range, currently there's no circuitry that support such dynamic range. Your DAC even if is "supports" 32bit signals, will be limited by the output circuitry (like the DAC itself, opamps, etc). I think currently the max dynamic range is at 126dB. Also you need speakers or headphones sensitive enough to to also output those dynamic ranges. Also Human ears are not that sensitive that can discern audio with such a dynamic range.

kado:

The DAC is the final stage in audio output, all processing is done before that. A 24bit audio signal has 144dB of dynamic range, currently there's no circuitry that support such dynamic range. Your DAC even if is "supports" 32bit signals, will be limited by the output circuitry (like the DAC itself, opamps, etc). I think currently the max dynamic range is at 126dB. Also you need speakers or headphones sensitive enough to also output those dynamic ranges. Also Human ears are not that sensitive that can discern audio with such a dynamic range.

Would you be able to branch that out, because I think it is this which I lack the knowledge on: My understanding is a basic and simple as this: Digital Audio Input (an audio, audio/visual file) containing digital audio binary information that needs to be analysed => DAC => Speakers. So, where is your processing being done in the above, if in fact I have got this right? I just do not know where the flaws are in truth, as my (limited) understanding is that: you have digital audio that is analysed by the DAC to convert the digital information in usage analogue information that the speakers understand so they can create vibrations. The higher the number, the more analysis is done (by the chip) to send to the speakers.

glutto:

Can I get 4k resolution and 240fps out of these headphones? Do they support raytracing? Etc, etc.

240 fps with CAM installed?! Keep dreaming.

Loobyluggs:

Would you be able to branch that out, because I think it is this which I lack the knowledge on: My understanding is a basic and simple as this: Digital Audio Input (an audio, audio/visual file) containing digital audio binary information that needs to be analysed => DAC => Speakers. So, where is your processing being done in the above, if in fact I have got this right? I just do not know where the flaws are in truth, as my (limited) understanding is that: you have digital audio that is analysed by the DAC to convert the digital information in usage analogue information that the speakers understand so they can create vibrations. The higher the number, the more analysis is done (by the chip) to send to the speakers.

Processing is performed before it is fed to the DAC. DAC chips and supporting circuitry have enough noise to prevent needing more than 21bit output. Any more bits on the DAC chips output serve little other purpose than to give headroom on the volume control before quality is reduced. Processing can already be done at 64bit or higher independently of the DAC chip, either in a PC or a processor on a DAC. Dont expect any higher than 32bit DAC chips other than for marketing.

Mufflore:

Processing is performed before it is fed to the DAC. DAC chips and supporting circuitry have enough noise to prevent needing more than 21bit output. Any more bits on the DAC chips output serve little other purpose than to give headroom on the volume control before quality is reduced. Processing can already be done at 64bit or higher independently of the DAC chip, either in a PC or a processor on a DAC. Dont expect any higher than 32bit DAC chips other than for marketing.

Wait...the DAC does NOT do any analysis of the file whatsoever?

Loobyluggs:

Wait...the DAC does NOT do any analysis of the file whatsoever?

A DAC chip converts the signal from Digital to Analogue. The acronym stands for Digital to Analogue Converter. It has a set process for doing this which could vary on the bitrate and if it is DSD. Some can change the volume and some have filters you can change that modify the sound in small ways. What analysis are you expecting?

The only thing that really effects DAC quality is isolation from noise - or maybe if its using something like DSD but even then I doubt it. I've had multiple different DACs - once you're over 16bit I don't recognize any sound quality differences. I'd be willing to bet significant money that in a blind test no one could tell the difference between a 24 and 32 bit DAC or one that implements DSD or not. Most of the audio engineers I follow don't even do mixes over 24bit. Honestly the audiophile world is filled with a lot of snakeoil nonsense. This is coming from someone with $4200 stereo speakers (KEF R7s) and a $3000 amplifier (Parasound Halo A21+). The parasound for example - so many people told me having a more powerful amplifier for both my LS50s and my R7s would make a massive difference in sound quality. I went from a Marantz to the Parasound, nearly doubled the wattage.. the Parasound colors the audio a bit (makes it less warm compared to the Marantz) but calling it "better" is a joke.. it's just a slightly different tone - swapping the amplifier for Yamaha sounds identical to the Parasound - just less volume.. and the AMP is going to effect the sound far more than the DAC. Anything 24bit+ with a half decent design is going to sound identical to anything else. In this case for a gamer product I'd much prefer they go with 24bit over a 32 and pass the savings onto the consumer. 95% of gamers are running like $50 headphones or logitech speakers.

Loobyluggs:

So, what you are saying is, 32-bit is better than 24-bit.

Technically, yes, particularly for recording. For listening, no, you will not notice any difference over 24-bit. You won't notice any difference over 16-bit either, provided the track was recorded over a higher bit depth then properly down-sampled. But in some cases, there might be too much dynamic range for 16-bit to be viable.

Loobyluggs:

The higher the number, the more analysis is done (by the chip) to send to the speakers.

Audio quality is determined by the lowest quality part throughout the entire system, including the one it was recorded from. No matter how good your DAC is, you can never revive lost detail. That detail can be lost not just because of the chip's capabilities, but also transcoding (so, your bit rate, not to be confused with bit depth or sample rate) as well as anything that may interfere with the physical signal quality (such as crappy amplifiers, background noise, or EMI).

Denial:

The only thing that really effects DAC quality is isolation from noise - or maybe if its using something like DSD but even then I doubt it. I've had multiple different DACs - once you're over 16bit I don't recognize any sound quality differences. I'd be willing to bet significant money that in a blind test no one could tell the difference between a 24 and 32 bit DAC or one that implements DSD or not. Most of the audio engineers I follow don't even do mixes over 24bit.

Nor should you notice a difference. I'm guessing you already know all of this, but just in case: Whether you've got 8 bits or 64 bits, the only way bit depth affects sound quality is clipping and distortion, which is caused by the amplitude exceeding the Y axis, as seen from the spectrogram. 16-bit is perfectly adequate in most cases, since most media is normalized to be within a "comfortable hearing range". That's why when you watch a movie, your speakers don't burn out whenever there's an explosion, and you don't have to crank up the volume whenever a character is whispering. If movies were to be as true to the real audio as possible, you'd most likely notice a difference going from 16 to 24. I'm not convinced anyone can tell the difference from 24 to 32. Like I said before, for best results, you want to record at 32-bit and then step down after editing.

Honestly the audiophile world is filled with a lot of snakeoil nonsense. This is coming from someone with $4200 stereo speakers (KEF R7s) and a $3000 amplifier (Parasound Halo A21+). The parasound for example - so many people told me having a more powerful amplifier for both my LS50s and my R7s would make a massive difference in sound quality. I went from a Marantz to the Parasound, nearly doubled the wattage.. the Parasound colors the audio a bit (makes it less warm compared to the Marantz) but calling it "better" is a joke.. it's just a slightly different tone - swapping the amplifier for Yamaha sounds identical to the Parasound - just less volume.. and the AMP is going to effect the sound far more than the DAC.

Totally agree. In a lot of cases, you can make a very dramatic improvement in sound quality just by: * Changing the shape of the container the speaker is mounted in, or even where the speaker is positioned * Changing what's in the room to prevent stuff like reverberation or secondary vibrations * Changing your equalizer settings

Gamer gear with no RGB? This just can't be!

Mufflore:

A DAC chip converts the signal from Digital to Analogue. The acronym stands for Digital to Analogue Converter. It has a set process for doing this which could vary on the bitrate and if it is DSD. Some can change the volume and some have filters you can change that modify the sound in small ways. What analysis are you expecting?

Just as an aside before I reply to your post, I am learning stuff here, so these are all great replies. In reply, I do know what DAC means, but was led to believe that the DAC itself is the chip that does the analysis of the signal, and then outputs the waveform data to the speakers so they can vibrate them to generate sound. You are saying this is not true? That the DAC does not perform any analysis whatsoever on the signal/file prior to the speakers getting the info? I have switched my soundcard to 16 bit, 24 bit and 32 bit and (using a variety of music CD's and applications) I can tell the difference - the best way to describe it is 'warmth' or perhaps, 'breadth'. The speakers I have used are very simple creative labs gigaworks (the most recent release) and, the cheapest sennheisers I could find.

Loobyluggs:

Just as an aside before I reply to your post, I am learning stuff here, so these are all great replies. In reply, I do know what DAC means, but was led to believe that the DAC itself is the chip that does the analysis of the signal, and then outputs the waveform data to the speakers so they can vibrate them to generate sound. You are saying this is not true? That the DAC does not perform any analysis whatsoever on the signal/file prior to the speakers getting the info? I have switched my soundcard to 16 bit, 24 bit and 32 bit and (using a variety of music CD's and applications) I can tell the difference - the best way to describe it is 'warmth' or perhaps, 'breadth'. The speakers I have used are very simple creative labs gigaworks (the most recent release) and, the cheapest sennheisers I could find.

Its confusing when you ask about analysis, what do you think needs analysing. What analysis do you expect to hear about? Audio data is already in the format it needs to be as it enters the DAC, directly representing the waveforms that will come out. This undergoes a conversion to what comes out of the DAC as sine waves. Different DACs operate in different ways, a lot involve internal processing within the DAC to minimise noise in the pass band, phase issues, distortion, in some cases they interpolate data when upsampling is used, ... ... The DAC has set processes it performs, some without even using a processor. For those using a processor, which of those processses are used depend on user choice and the format/bitrate of the incoming data. That is the analysis. A 16bit DAC chip uses 16 bit internal processing, 24bit DAC uses 24bit internal processing and 32bit uses 32bit internal processing. This helps improve accuracy which helps keep the noise floor low. Note, a 32bit audio DAC may only have 24bits on its output because anything above 21bits is wasted. The electrical output value of the other bits are so tiny they are lost in the noise produced by the DAC and the system it is used in. Even the power supply is a source of noise in itself and can carry noise from other circuits being powered. That covers electrical noise, there is also EM noise travelling through the air from anything electrical, even the motor from a CD player. There can even be noise on the data which can vary the timing of when a data sample is taken. When data is so late that the DAC has nothing to work on, it tries to work out what it thinks is the best guess, which might not be correct. This can make a DAC sound worse as well. My DAC performs zero data analysis or processing (in the digital sense). It relies on resistor ladder networks to convert the data to the stepped analogue waveform which is smoothed with capacitors. There are 2 different ladder networks on each channel, one is for PCM, the other for DSD. Resistors can slightly vary their value as they age and with temperature. Some might not even be quite the exact correct value to start with. It has a parallel compensation network that varies the value of the resistors should any not be within spec. This keeps accuracy high (distortion low) to produce as pure sine waves as possible. ie as low a variation from pure sine waves as can be done for the budget for the type of DAC That is the only form of active processing in my DAC and it doesnt act on the data, it acts on the DAC itself.