Is bit depth about dynamic range or data?

[audiojerry]

I thought after all this time I was correctly explaining bit depth and sample rates to my non-audiophile friends, but now I"m not so sure. I thought that bit depth or bit size determines how much information can be captured in a single sample taken from an analog signal. So if, for example, you are recording a symphony orchestra, there are lots of instruments creating a lot of complex tonal information and sound  levels. This creates a complex analog waveform, and when you take a sample of this waveform, you are going to digitize it and store it in a file. This single sample of the waveform would obviously contain a lot of information about what was happening in this symphony orchestra in that instant of time. The larger the bit depth, the more information you can capture, and you have a better quality file to produce a better quality recording.

 

But now I'm hearing that bit depth is all about dynamic range. That seems too simplistic to me.  

Any experts out there who can set me straight?

 

 

[audiojerry]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Bit depth is about the signal to noise ratio. If you reduce the depth, you get a higher level of random noise - tape hiss is the obvious analogue variant. A decent digital encoding can capture that tape hiss with ease, so "everything that matters" is being transferred

 

This all assumes that the person who might be playing around with bit depth, while recording and/or mastering, knows how to apply the correct dither, at the correct point of operations ... get it wrong, and you can hear the mistake.

 

Human hearing can compensate for random loss of data, or excess noise, remarkably well - good handling of digital data can rely on that ability, to make even poor bit depth "sound OK".

 

Dynamic range is purely about mastering decisions - nothing to do with bit depth.

Thanks for the knowledgeable reply, but it leaves me confused on a couple of levels.

 

It seems like you are saying that bit depth is not relevant to capturing all the musical information needed for a good sounding recording. If so, then why bother going beyond 16 bits? Maybe some of my confusion goes back to computer programming where a 16 bit word can contain only half the data of a 32 bit word.

 

As far as tape hiss is concerned, some of the best sounding recordings I've heard are full of tape hiss, but my ears ignore it, and only notice it when there is no music. The best sounding music has always come when listening to a reel-to-reel tape.  

[audiojerry]

Remember me? I'm the guy who originated this discussion - LOL.

 

I am delighted that my query has generated so much fantastic and exceptionally intelligent dialogue. I admit that much of what has been said is over my head in terms of technical understanding, but has been enlightening nonetheless. Please keep it going. To me it provides some insight into the complexities of capturing, recording, and producing a digitized version of music and why it has taken so long to have finally arrived at an era where digital recordings actually sound great.

 

This discussion may also parallel ongoing controversy about the best methods for recording and playback surrounding PCM and DSD, and more recently, MQA.

  

I found Bluesman's analogy to movies easy to grasp and very helpful. Thank you sir.

 

But so far, I don't feel like my original question has been answered - at least to my benefit. As best as I can determine, bit depth captures both musical data and dynamic range - it is not exclusively one or the other. Part of my remaining confusion can be attributed to my conception of dynamic range. My simplistic view is that dynamic range is the range of loudness from the noise floor (zero) to the loudest peak in terms of spl.   

[audiojerry]

I like the photo resolution analogy - it helps this layman understand.

 

I also like the dithering explanation, but I question the argument that human hearing can compensate for shortcomings in the digital recording. Does that viewpoint imply that the quality of the digital recording or the quality of one's dac aren't important?

 

To me an exceptional dac is an absolute requirement to tolerate listening digital music    

[audiojerry]

5 hours ago, SJK said:

In my experience the DAC wasn't as important as what it was being fed with - or from.  I won't disagree that some manufacturers do a better job than others, particularly on the analog side of things.  But, much like back in the mainframe days there was always a big sign somewhere in the computer room - GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out.  

 

The biggest changes recently wasn't with the DAC, but going from a laptop feeding it through USB to a streaming input over Ethernet where the DAC/DSP does all the work.  Same DAC, better sound.  

 

Yes, I completely agree - almost completely. I had a chance to audition a PS Audio Direct/Stream dac with an ethernet bridge in my system for a week. It allowed me to compare it to my Oppo Sonica dac with an ESS 9038PRO Sabre chip.S9038PRO and USB/ethernet streaming.The Oppo represented a big sonic improvement over my previous dac, and at $700, it was a tremendous value in my

opinion. To my chagrin the PS DirectStream was far superior to the Oppo. Even digital recordings from the mid 80's that I could not tolerate for the most part sound very good through the DirectStream. I don't know if its 1 bit comversion was the reason, but I did not like the realization that a multi thousand dollar component could bring about such improvement.   

[audiojerry]

On 3/2/2020 at 6:18 PM, SJK said:

Perhaps you could expand on exactly what was the difference, whether the input type or the source. 
 

PS Audio was ethernet input, Oppo was USB?  And that the PS Audio made a difference?
 

Enquiring minds need to know....

 

Sorry I did not get around to answering your question. I'm not a reviewer, and I get a rash when I try to describe my sonic experiences using typical analogies, so I will briefly offer a few observations.

 

When I compared the PS to the Oppo, I did not have a wifi switch in my listening room to use ethernet, so I used USB for comparison. Simply put the PS sounded less digital. What does that mean? For me I originally thought I liked digital because I thought I was hearing a lot more detail (clarity), and I wasn't hearing surface noise, clicks and pops, rumble, etc. But over time I found that my enjoyment when listening to music via vinyl was eroding when listening to cd. What used to be involving and relaxing grew increasingly annoying, and even painful. It was almost as if the nerve endings in my inner ear or brain were being irritated. No matter how much I spent on upgrades to equipment, cables, and isolation periperals, I could never overcome that seemingly inherent flaw in digital music.   

 

I did realize improvements by upgrading things like power supplies, dacs and transports, and, to a great extent, streaming. But I was never completely satisfied, so I always relied on vinyl playback for my preferred listening pleasure. 

 

As I said before, the Oppo dac offered a solid improvement over my previous twice as expensive dac, but in comparison to the PS, there simply was no comparison. Why? The PS took away much of the hardness of digital, it put flesh back on the bones of instruments, voices sounded more natural and human, and the irritation to my nerve endings virtually went away (unless the quality of the digital recording was nasty).  I wouldn't say the PS offered more detail or resolution, but I was able to hear into the performance more and pick out more nuance. I was just able to enjoy the music for music's sake, and I could forget about hi-fi. Things got even better once I was able to use ethernet.

 

Hope that helps. 

 

[audiojerry]

1 hour ago, SJK said:

Thanks for a detailed response.  I've seen not so subtle changes with hardware but was never sure if it was due to a change in connection type or simply because they did a better job with the analog side of things.  I went from a Bryston BDA-2 DAC with a BDP-2 player over USB because with the player there was a better sound than with a laptop.

 

When I went to a PS Audio DSJ I found I didn't need the BDP-2 player anymore, the sound from the laptop still with USB was great.  It's so hard to quantify in empirical terms what will make a difference without consideration for an entire system.

 

This is not intended as a one-up, but just to share my personal experience:

 

After hearing the DS SR, I grabbed a good deal on a DS JR demo unit with Bridge II from Underwood Wally. I was very pleased with the sound and promptly put my Oppo up for sale, which I sold for more than list, once Oppo announced it was stopping production. Unfortunately, I began experiencing frequent drops in the DLNA connection with my JRiver player when using the PS Bridge. 

 

After numerous calls with PS Support to try to fix the issue, PS surprisingly offered to exchange the PS JR with a PS SR plus $1500. Although that was more than I ever anticipated paying for a dac, i rationalized that the offer represented a nearly $3k discoount, so I bought it but asked PS to ship the SR before I returned the JR. This allowed me to directly compare the SR with the JR. As much as I liked the JR, the SR put a smile on my face that I couldn't wipe away. The SR just takes the sound of the JR to a higher level. For whatever reason the SR does not have the Bridge issues of the JR. I have read that the dac designer, Ted Smith, is brilliant.

 

With the dac's ability to perform free firmware updates, I am a real fan.