32 BIT/384 KHz

I was just looking over the specs on my NDS and Core,and noticed the NDS is limited to 24/192 on WAV and FLAC.Yet the Core will do 32bit/384 KHz,I am curious if anyone has tried 32/384 files,and is there a big difference over 24/192 files? The reason I was looking the specs up,I loaded some DFF files onto my Core,but the NDS would not play them.I assume they must be DSD 128 to not play.Are the 32/384 numbers more future proofing,or do people actually have these files?

2L.no record label website has a “test bench” with various resolutions of a number of different pieces of music recorded by them, all from the same master at the highest resolution, where you can compare the sound of different resolutions without worrying about whether it is the same version or mastering. However, I don’t recall tge, doing 32 bit.

32 bit is probably academic, as IIUC even 24 bit covers a wider dynamic range tgan ever encountered in music.

I think I might have those 2L test files somewhere on one of my hard drives.It seems like a lot of new streamers and mostly DAC’s advertise these really high playback capabilities,but there is no music to play on them.I have seen DSD 512, or even 1024 capable DAC’s advertised somwhere,can’t remember where though.

Also remember the PCM1704K devices used in the NDS (and ND555) are 24 bit DACs, so ultimately this most likely about compatibility as opposed to SQ.

The label 2L encodes its productions in different formats, up to DXD (which is PCM 24 bits / 352,8 kHz). They do not provide 32 bits files.

Some sample files here:

Hi Simon,so are you saying 32 bit is usable on the ND555,but might be compromised in some way?

Compromised has various conertations, what I am saying is the DAC is specified upto 24 bit and formally upto 96kHz sample rate, but can be driven to 768kHz within its design parameters if using seperate filtering.
But 32 bit samples would need to be decimated to 24 bits before being delivered to the DAC.
The PCM1704 data sheets are readily available on the web.

I have a couple of albums at 24/352, on my ND555, no 32 bits so far. Do I notice the difference with the 192…, very little it’s a bit more effortless / relaxed at the higher resolution. But it’s not as big a difference that you would always need it. As I standard always get the highest resolution available, I am at the safe side…

I think a better approach to these high res formats for me,will be to add a Chord TT2 and mscaler,which will upsample RedBook to 705khz I believe.Rather than trying to find the music you like in these sample rates.

I don’t belief in the upsampling and for me also the music is the starting point. Whatever the music is which I like I will buy the highest resolution recording. I am not like some techies which get water in the mouth just by the mere fact that it’s sampling frequency is so high…

Music encoded at high sample rates carries “more information” and therefore brings you closer to the real thing.

Upsampling RedBook won’t add anything in terms of information, it’ll ease the data processing. Which is good. But that’s all.

1 Like

Well that may be the case,but I have heard a Chord Dave and Blu2 many times at my dealers house,and it is the most lifelike digital I have ever heard.Mind you,I have not heard an ND 555 yet.The blu2 had a regular CD playing in the tray.

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.