Cheap soundcard,dac that supports 24 bit 192khz and MQA

[gasolin75]

#20

Dynamic range are just bnetter at 24 bit, should in theory give no noticeable sonic degradationwhen turning the volume down from tidal, wmp,vlc (playing a dvd or losless audio) compared to 16 bit

 

[Robin L]

#20

Dynamic range are just bnetter at 24 bit, should in theory give no noticeable sonic degradationwhen turning the volume down from tidal, wmp,vlc (playing a dvd or losless audio) compared to 16 bit

If you turn down the volume of a 16-bit recording, you will end up with less need of all of those 16 bits. Bit depth can also be a description of dynamic range. The lower the volume, the lower the dynamic range.

 

[johny_2000]

No more MQA. It's dead. Forget about this option in DACs.

 

[gasolin75]

Quick question, im having trouble with my internal asus card (almost as stock as it can be but better than what is on most mb's)

When im using from tidal it can happen to stop teh musicand say the soundcard disconnects (something like that) so i found an audioquest dragonfly black outlet (40% off) i bought (could be tidal related)

No cable from my pc to the usb unit (if i bought a studio soundcard fra esi that supports 24 bit and 192khz for under 60 euros new i had to use 2 cables) only the unit in a usb port and a cable from the unit to my amp (marantz pm 6007, i can't adjust the gain,volume like a studio soundcard but in both cases i avoid the digital filter although i don't seem to hear a difference, it will allow me to go more direct from my pc into the amp and out, without using the filter option on the amp,a filter i think it uses even when i use source direct )

I can only use 24 bit and 96khz atm im using 24 bit and 192khz, how much is recorded and uploaded to tidal in 24 bit and 192khz, are we talking about less than 1% or is it more like 10% ?

 

[DVDdoug]

I can only use 24 bit and 96khz atm im using 24 bit and 192khz, how much is recorded and uploaded to tidal in 24 bit and 192khz, are we talking about less than 1% or is it more like 10% ?

I don't know but I wouldn't worry about it. Generally, "CD quality" (16-bit/44.1kHz) is better than human hearing and in a proper blind
ABX test you are unlikely to hear a difference between a high resolution file and a copy down-sampled to CD quality. If you do hear a difference you'll have to listen VERY carefully and the next day you almost certainly couldn't tell which one you are listening to.

in both cases i avoid the digital filter although i don't seem to hear a difference,

If the DACs reconstruction filter is working properly it's operating above the audible range and you shouldn't hear it (or any effects from it). At 96kHz the filter should be operating WAY out of the audible range. Of course, EQ or other filters in the audible range will make a difference.

...I once had a soundcard with no filtering and I never heard anything wrong! I didn't do any "critical listening" with that computer and I was using cheap computer speakers, but I'm not sure if I would hear a difference anyway. I was doing some experiments with an oscilloscope and I was SHOCKED to see an unfiltered "perfectly" stair-stepped waveform! But after I thought about it, the harmonics are above the audible range, the amplifier in the speakers may have had some filtering (or high frequency roll-off) and the tweeter would have high-frequency roll-off. (The cheap tweeter probably didn't go to 20kHz, but my ears don't either.)

 

[gasolin75]

The filter i have is just what marantz chose to implement (digital inputs) and to me and others is a unusefull feature that could have made it a little cheaper or used for something slightly better, to benefit the sound quality, not using it would disable that effect it has, which is not a bad thing, if it doesn't work with source direct enabled i don't know why they don't have the choice to disable it (no light), why they want us to have this option.