SINAD table colour brackets

[pozz]

1. █ >120dB (>20 bits): Provably inaudible noise and distortion.
2. █ 109dB—119dB (18 bits—20 bits): Well beyond 16-bit (CD) resolution.
3. █ 96dB—108dB (16 bits—18 bits). Meets and exceeds 16-bit (CD) resolution.
4. █ 86dB—95dB (14.3 bits—16 bits): Does not meet 16-bit (CD) resolution.
5. █ <85dB (<14.3 bits): Performance is below the minimum lenient threshold defined in this thread.

Unless anyone cares to say something to the contrary I'm going to go with these ranges and descriptions. The only other version I seriously considered was:

1. Wow.
2. Nice.
3. Ok.
4. Nah.
5. Whoops.

For now, I'll start adding links according to @digicidal's idea. Hopefully we'll be able to figure out a hyperlinked chart at some point.

 

[amirm]

A slight snag with the current image/chart is it's not terribly scaleable. More than a few hundred entries and it's going to get pretty crowded.

We are definitely headed for trouble at this rate. Whoever invented bar graphs, did not think of some creating hundreds of data point for it.

 

[AudioSceptic]

I think the descriptors have just as much potential to be misleading as anything.

For example...

>116 dB. Absolute engineering overkill, you're paying for extra performance that doesn't make an audible difference.

...is just as true as calling it "Superior".

Agree, but perhaps we could come up something less aggressive, such as
>116 dB. The best technical performance available, but beyond domestic listening requirements.

 

[Matias]

Personally I dislike "recommendations" on the scale. Just use an arbitrary cut of real world data and let the numbers speak for themselves.

 

[Rja4000]

Unless anyone cares to say something to the contrary I'm going to go with these ranges and descriptions. The only other version I seriously considered was:

1. Wow.
2. Nice.
3. Ok.
4. Nah.
5. Whoops.

For now, I'll start adding links according to @digicidal's idea. Hopefully we'll be able to figure out a hyperlinked chart at some point.

I personally vote for the second option.

But I still think ranking is just a better criteria.
Because that's what it's about.
Who will be able to decide if limit is 94, 95, 96 or 98 dB ? Or 116dB ?
That's all subject to endless discussion.
While ranking is not. That's ranking. That's it. You just have to do with it.

 

[garbulky]

I think the descriptors have just as much potential to be misleading as anything.

For example...

>116 dB. Absolute engineering overkill, you're paying for extra performance that doesn't make an audible difference.

...is just as true as calling it "Superior".

Yep and this way we can make the entire graph one color - except for perhaps the last four dacs. (but for real!)

 

[pozz]

The introductory post in the master chart thread now looks like this: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-index-of-measurement-comparison-charts.8246/

See if it makes sense.

I'll begin adding hyperlinks below each chart soon.

 

[martijn86]

The introductory post in the master chart thread now looks like this: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-index-of-measurement-comparison-charts.8246/

See if it makes sense.

I'll begin adding hyperlinks below each chart soon.

Incredible! What a wealth of information. Good job!

 

[Matias]

It is really excellent work. But a small typo: ">120dB (>20 bits): Provably inaudible noise and distortion."

 

[pozz]

It is really excellent work. But a small typo: ">120dB (>20 bits): Provably inaudible noise and distortion."

Sorry, I don't see it in that thread. Is it in the legend?

 

[Matias]

Sorry, I don't see it in that thread. Is it in the legend?
View attachment 32570

Yes, it is probably the correct spelling.

 

[pozz]

Yes, it is probably the correct spelling.

Nice pun. If you mean that I'm overstating the case for "provably inaudible", I referenced the research that amirm and flipflop put together in that note.

 

[Veri]

It is really excellent work. But a small typo: ">120dB (>20 bits): Provably inaudible noise and distortion."

Provably, as in 'proven'. What is the typo?

 

[Matias]

Oh, sorry, I got it wrong then. I understood "probably" as in not proven yet. Thanks for the correction.

 

[pozz]

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...easurement-comparison-charts.8246/post-207205

This is what the new DAC SINAD chart looks like. (Ignore the 0.0 values—Excel is responding to a data series error I can't quite locate.) Scroll down to see a list of text entries ordered by SINAD.

Link creation is going slow. There are some 972 seperate entries composing the 21 unique charts in that thread. Don't expect these to be finished anytime soon.

Edit: Thanks to @Matias for helping me with the Excel issue.

 

[FooYatChong]

Link creation is going slow.

Can the forum-software create a sitemap? At least then you'll have all the links in one document.

 

[Matias]

Shouldn't amplifiers SINAD brackets use the same criteria as DACs?

 

[pozz]

Shouldn't amplifiers SINAD brackets use the same criteria as DACs?

All the SINAD-based charts will be updated eventually. I didn't have time to do it today.

 

[watchnerd]

Shouldn't amplifiers SINAD brackets use the same criteria as DACs?

Well....but there is the issue that almost no DACs actually provide true 24 bit resolution.

 

[pozz]

Well....but there is the issue that almost no DACs actually provide true 24 bit resolution.

Nothing currently can provide beyond ~21 bits of resolution. The limitation is noise and distortion.