The difference is not in the "bits" by themself. The difference is in the chip used to extract the bits and the surrounding topolgy of the component. Like anything else we discuss, a cheap 24bit chip is not going to provide the benefits of an excellent 20bit chip. If the chip is fed information with a high number of errors, then it doesn't matter what chip is employed downstream.
David, there may be a slight sonic advantage when playing discs where the files have been downloaded as 24 bit (example Linn Records). Maybe similar to the difference between redbook and HDCD discs, but that's only - wait for it - sew, sew.
However, for redbook playback I doubt the 525 would be as good as the 545, though it may be close.
Tomorrow a silly nuclear (or if I'm GW nucular) medicine test...ick. Nothin' serious just gall bladder...however I've been quite ill the last few weeks, since before xmas...I feel like celebrating as the doc said tonight he'll start the paperwork for surgery. Trust me this is good...so yeah I'm feelin' quite optimistic...scotch anyone!
We'll be optimistic for you too Art. Hope it gets you better quickly.
As for you Jan - I was having a brain phart. Getting old you know! I've been playing DVD-A's today and got my bits confused. And my wife hates it when that happens.
I ain't smart enough to be worried....too busy entertaining myself.
I had a player with an 18 bit chip which replaced a player with a 24 bit chip and it out performed it by a good distance. That was my Audio Refinement which replaced the NAD. YBA was paying attention to some detaials that NAD wasn't apparently.
Let's return to the original question of this thread. If there was a player with everything identical except that the DAC had a variance of four bits - from 20 to 24bits - the higher spec component would have a theoretical advantage. In a 16bit Redbook player there exists a lowest useable bit. To achieve a useable 16bit format, dither is applied to the recording which acts somewhat like a bias voltage on an amplifier. By applying dither - or noise to the lowest bits - the player can more effectively retrieve the lowest useable bit. Due to the restrictions placed upon digital circuitry at the time Redbook standards were put in place, the lowest useable bit is still restricted to about a twelve bit format with the other four bits essentially being thrown away as noise. By raising the number of bits available to the DAC, the number of bits thrown away can remain the same but the player can theoretically retrieve more information from the remaining bits. This should give the 24bit DAC an advantage at both the lowest and highest points of dymanic range.
To support a 24bit DAC, it is unlikely the DAC itself is still meant to operate at 44.1kHz sampling. This sort of chip is probably intended to operate at a higher sampling rate. Though I doubt the NAD player incorporates upsampling of any sort, the potential of the DAC to run at a higher sampling frequency should provide a slight advantage in its linearity since the filters would/could push the aliasing frequencies further away from the 20-20kHz range.
But it would be unusual I would think to find a player where the only difference is the DAC.
Sorry, Art. I can't raise a glass of Scotch with you. Not since alchohol is one of those things most doctors will tell you to avoid when you are having gall bladder problems. But gall bladder surgery is one of the most common performed today so you should do fine and you'll be able to entertain yourself again in no time.
My doctor didn't tell me that, he said you will know what you can intake and what you can't...he's right.
Thanks David...like I said just the gall bladder. Scheduled to see the surgeon next week surgery soon to follow. Just don't want to miss the The Bad Plus on Feb 14 or the Super Bowl...any other day is fine, sooner the better.
Back to the original question.
A well built and designed player will sound good regardless of the whether it has a 16 bit or 24 bit chip. I remember back in the late eighties having a Philips single bit player that was all the rage.
So do you remember those Philips decks from either the late eighties or early nineties. It seems it was pretty good...I traded it in on a Marantz CD63.
I was in limbo during those years, my Beta substitute for reel to reel didn't quite pan out, I was using a Garrard TT and I had my TV running through my receiver before they invented HT (I think).
I was making babies and upgrading wives about then so I was a bit distracted lets say, so no vote on CD players around then.
