[sdiy] Re: Inexpensive 16 bit DAC?

[Bob Weigel]

In boards where effect calculations are done, we know it's good to keep 
24bits going in the digital real to keep enough headroom not to loose 
quality at points.  Once things are being converted back to the analog 
realm 16bits starts to sound quite adequate.   12 bits with 4 bit 
exponent however...sounds better.  I use a Kurzweil K1200 and one of the 
things I love about it is it doesn't loose the detail of the sound as 
you do extreme dynamic changes.  16 bits straight is not adequate for 
keeping that feeling of reality down at extremely low dynamic passages.  
Basically, when you are playing a loud rock passage you never notice 
anything wrong at 12 bits if it's filtered right.  But then when you 
drop the volume of your playing for a quiet passage...all the sudden you 
are only using a small fraction of the digital headroom but..the ear 
doesn't care.  The human ear adjust to hearing the finest details of the 
sound and it sounds bad when you use straight 16bit to represent soft 
passages.  -Bob

Mete BALCI wrote:

>20-bit DAC in D-50, I dont know that. What is that for
>? Do you think it is really needed or just for
>marketing purpose ?
>
>As I know D-50 is an hybrid (analog filters) with
>16-bit samples, does it use its DAC immediately after
>the pcm wave generation ? If so, why is there a need
>for 20-bit DAC for 16-bit samples ? Does its internal
>processing is greater than 16-bit ?
>
>Mete
>
>--- Jaroslaw Ziembicki <aon.912230836 at aon.at> wrote:
>  
>
>>Around 1985, I would say. The 16 bit Burr-Brown chip
>>PCM54
>>(parallel inputs) was widely used.
>>In the Roland D-50 synthesizer there was a PCM54
>>plus an
>>additional resistor network to get a 20 bit
>>resolution.
>>
>>Regards, Jarek
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>