Should I replace my DAC for a 24bit one?

Hello there. I own a Schiit Modi Multibit DAC, which sounds just fine in my system (paired with a little tube amp and Cabasse speakers). Now, since I bought it I've been stocking a huge and growing library of Hi-Res music (mostly 24/96 FLACs), and so I started wondering whether I should go for a new DAC with a real 24bit chip (the Mimby handles ok 24bit files, but has a 16bit chip). Would that make a perceptible step-up? If so, what brand / model should I look into? My budget is -say- under $400.
Thanks for any help!

 

I'm interested in this too. I don't know much about DAC implementations. The Schiit Bifrost multibit is $600 and still 16-bit.

 

once you understand what bits actually do, youll understand that more bits just isnt important after the recording and mixing is done. Bits provide dynamic range. That is all. Anyone who says 24 bit has a clearer high end or anything other than more dynamic range doesnt know what they are talking about. Since final recordings generally have a dynamic range of 10-50dB and since 16 bits can provide about double that at 96dB (over 100dB with tricks) youll see that more bits is completely not necessary. Its part of selling people stuff that has a bigger number so it must be better right! The biggest differences in DAC's today come in the analog sections where there a lots of differences in how the analog audio is handled.

 

If what you are looking for is a magic DAC that takes your sound to a higher level it takes BOTH better digital implementation AND better analog circuits to get you there.
In comparison a good sounding preamp with good sounding circuits in the "high end" STARTS at over a grand just to pay for superior parts and design.
And a DAC has a preamp circuit inside it so guess what?
The same applies to it too.
A great DAC will offer tighter digital focus AND much better analog "sound" circuits.
Most all of these are higher bit rates because that comes with the territory.
At low prices all you can hope for is the "least mediocre" sound for the buck.
Sorry.
But there aren't any real shortcuts to finding a super DAC at a cheap price.
To my ear the "good" ones start with something like a Benchmark and then go UP from there.
A Berkeley Alpha DAC Ref 2 MQA would be nice but those run twenty grand.

 

I'm no expert but I doubt that is how it works.

Think of it this way. Take two DACs, one capable of 16 bit max and the other 24 bit max decoding. Assume they both have a max analog output at the RCA connections of 2v. Then the variable range of output power is between -2v to +2v AC. Within that +/- 2v one player has 16 bits of resolution, the other has 24 bits of resolution.

 

Bit depth matters for a few reasons but it is all dependent on the recording, mixing & mastering.
24-bit give the mixer\masterer much more overhead. It also allows for wider\higher frequencies if present.
Also the noise floor is lowered.
I can't claim that having a 24-bit DAC is a pancea but if as a collector of 24-bit recordings, I certainly want a 24-bit capable DAC.

 

Well I have a bifrost multibit and a modi multibit and hi res music sounds much better to me than through an ess sabre 24 bit dac with them. They are great dacs. I don't really think going to a 24 bit dac will sound better. Most music doesn't take advantage of the 24 bits of resolution. Nor is there any home owner dacs that can resolve 24 bits of resolution.

 

From Schiit's website, specifically, Yggdrasil's FAQ section:

But the Arglebargle has like twelve 32-bit DACs in it! Yours only has 21 bits! Hell, that’s not a full 24 bits even! What about my 24-bit recordings?
If your 24 bit recordings actually have 24 bits of resolution, we’ll eat a hat. And those "32-bit" DACs? Well, they have this measurement known as “equivalent number of bits.” This means, in English, how many bits of resolution they really have. And that number, for most of them, is about 19.5.

But it’s only 21 bits! I can’t get over that!
We can’t get over the fact that delta-sigma DACs are actually 2- to 5-bit designs. Different strokes for different folks.

 

I would! I mean, if you are really interested in, and buying source material in 24 bit, you won’t be getting the most out of it without a DAC that does 24 bit

 

bit depth absolutely does not allow for wider/higher frequencies. I taught music technology on the college level and bits have nothing to do with frequency response. bits only deal with the dynamic range, sampling only deals with the frequency response. anything else is a misunderstanding of how digital audio works.

 

As someone who taught this at the university level, i can assure you that it is indeed how things work. the detail closer to zero bits will be quieter on a quality 24 bit recording compared to 16 bits but I dont think ive seen very many recordings that used more than 10bits recently. Theres no harm in having the rest of the bits filled with zeroes or noise but thats how this works despite it being counterintuitive.

 

In theory. In reality, never. A couple of MSB DACs come close, but very very few DACs that I've ever seen tested have more than 20 bits of dynamic range.

yes

no, not at all, nothing to do with it as mentioned by@Frost

Eh, probably not. I do recall seeing a Vladimir Horowitz recording analyzed with about 100 dB of dynamic range from the peaks down to the noise floor, but haven't seen other recordings. Most "24 bit" stuff is converted from old analog tape, which no way has even 16 bits of dynamic range.

 

I severely doubt it. First off, I'm pretty sure the reason your DAC has a 16 bit chip is BECAUSE it is a multibit, not a 1-bit. True multibit chips at a low price are probably pretty rare. And as mentioned by others, the DAC chip is just one part of the sound. In fact when I was working in digital audio, we felt the analog circuitry and the POWER SUPPLY were just as important or likely even more important. That stuff just takes serious money, so at $400 enjoy your DAC and don't worry be happy.

 

The Schiit Modi Multibit plays high-res (up to 24/96) just fine and does so better than some DACs that claim 24-bit or 32-bit performance. The 16-bit processing of the Modi Multibit is not compromising high-res playback.

I'm able to hear a difference between high-res and 16/44.1 res with some recordings. Daft Punk's "Random Access Memories" is one. There is an audible difference that I hear between the CD version and the 24/88.2 high-res. The 16 effective bit Modi Multibit allows me to hear that difference. The 19 effective bit Gungnir Multibit allows me to hear those differences. The 21 effective bit Yggdrasil allows me to hear those differences. The limited effective bit depth of the Schiit Multibit DACs is not something I have any concerns about. It's a non-issue to me. Zero concerns.

Enjoy your Modi Multibit. Don't worry about its effective number of bits. Just listen and enjoy.

 

Agreed. I have one of those DACs that plays 24 bits and in reality has an equivalent output of 18 or 19 bits. Can't remember which.

Just wanted to correct the quoting. I didn't mention the noise floor.

 

On the frequency width, you're correct, it's the sample-rate.

Most or whatever but there are a ton of recordings done with true 24bit gear that do have a lower noise floor.
It goes with the mixing\mastering

 

If you have invested in 24 bit hi-res files I would recommend trying a modern 24 bit DAC and decide for your self. If you don't find a difference then you can return it. Advances in both digital and analog IC's have brought performance up and prices down for DAC's and it is no longer necessary to spend a lot of money to get excellent performance. A resource I have found very helpful for objective measurements on a large number of current DAC's is Audio Science Review: Articles, Reviews and Measurements of Audio Products .

 

Amir is a controversial figure. His methodology is considered flawed by many. I believe that objective measurements do NOT tell the whole story with DACs. R2R may not measure as well as Delta Sigma but can sound better or vice versa (it's subjective, I know). Amir also has a hard on for Schitt DACs.

 

When I worked in Burr-Brown many years ago we knew it was impossible for mere mortals to detect LSB changes in 18 or (mostly) even 16 bit R2R ladder DACs.
Delta Sigma came around because high resolution DACs could be produced on vanilla CMOS processes because they didn't rely on absolute accuracy of on chip resistors, but on the relative accuracy of on chip capacitors to each other, which of course CMOS was good at. Only a few companies had the laser trim processes to accurately trim the on chip resistors of R2R ladders, and it was more expensive.
We had some low volume boutique companies ask us to provide higher spec specials but we always said no. But companies like Denon etc would always get better service due to their higher sales. We always thought the boutique CD player supplier claims were cobblers compared to the especially high design standards of the good Japanese companies (and a few US and European).

 

I agree with this but I think power supplies also are an important element to consider.

 

The noise floor of the mix chain can sure be lower, but I question if the actual recording itself has noise more than 16 bits below the peaks. I'd think it would be very hard to find a recording environment where the room noise was less than that. But I've never seen it analyzed so that's a theoretical posture on my part.

Anyone have a setup to actually measure this in the digital domain? It would sure be interesting.

 

The only time I'd be concerned about the 16 effective bitness of the Modi Multibit or Bifrost Multibit would be when doing something like doing critical listening to hear the difference in dithering algorithms when dithering 24-bit down to 16-bit. The Modi Multibit and Bifrost Multibit are probably not a suitable DAC to be using for that particular critical listening evaluation.

My only issue with the Modi MB with high-res is that it only oversamples 4x up to 176.4 or 192. Which means if you play a 176.4 or 192 high-res file the music does not get processed through Schitt's proprietary oversampling filter. 176.4 and 192 get played without any oversampling applied. Effectively a NOS (non-oversampling) mode of the DAC. Schiit's proprietary oversampling filter affects the sound and is a big part of what makes the MB DACs sound neat to me. 88.2 and 96 get the benefit of that oversampling filter. 176.4 and 192 do not. When I play 176.4 or 192 source files through the Modi Multibit I actually have JRiver downsample down to 88.2 or 96 (using the SoX resampler) so that the music will get the benefit of the DAC applying its oversampling filter. 176.4 and 192 source files end up sounding better to me that way when played back on the Modi MB.

The Gungnir MB and Yggdrasil don't have that problem. They both do 8x oversampling up to 352.8 or 384. So 176.4 source files and 192 source files get run through the proprietary oversampling filter and all is good.

That's really my only technical complaint about the Modi MB or Bifrost MB. But that is also kinda neat. Because it allows you to explore what the oversampling filter sounds like and how it affects the sound. Play a 196 kHz source file through the Modi MB. Then play a 96 kHz version of that same source file through the Modi MB. The difference you hear between the 192 and 96 versions is what the special proprietary oversampling filter sounds like. Sort of. Oversampling filters in a DAC do affect the sound and all oversampling filters don't sound the same.

 

Hey I bought a Bifrost Multibit and it sounds amazing. Certainly better than some other $1k+ boutique brit-gear DACs I've tried. No-brainer.

 

Yes, exactly. They're your ears and it's your money. There is no clear answer, and the difference is more likely to be in other parts of the DAC implementation than the bit depth handled. So the best advice is (and I'm sorry, how boring it must be to hear this!) to try anything you're considering, so you can tell if you like it better in your own system.

Audio is annoying, in that questions like this rarely have unequivocal answers.

 

The only problem I have with the s*** dacs they don't play DSD files at least they don't list it on any of their specs on there Dacs. I happen to like DSD files that's the only thing that turns me off about s*** audio.

I would upgrade 24 bit / 96 sounds pretty good but even sounds better at 24-bit / 192.

There's plenty of Dacs out there to choose from me personally I like the sound of the ESS Sabre dacs.

Why don't you look up Z reviews on YouTube and click on his section he reviews all kinds of Dacs and gives a pretty good doubt breakdown of how they sound.