Originally Posted by Gary Seven
The DAC is nothing more than a processor with a firmware of proprietary algorithms converting analog to digital and back.
Nope. DACs are purpose-built chips. The mixture of analog and digital processing requires more complex processing. There are a number of SOC (System On A Chip) products that have both a full-fledged computer function along with a number of DACs on the same chip, but these are far more complex chips than the ordinary DAC chip you find in a digital player.
The higher the bit, the higher the floating point precision.
Digital audio is generally based on fixed point arithmetic. Floating point formats exist, but they are not widely used.
A 69 dollar player will use a lower bit DAC than a higher end player. So the higher bit DAC will provide a more accurate presentation.
Not necessarily true. Repeats the audiophile myth that their is a linear relationship between cost and sound quality. In many cases the extra cost of higher priced products are due to the manufacturer and distribution/dealership chain simply taking higher profits. Also, there are high end products that make a big show out of expensive features such as milling the chassis of the device out of a piece of billet metal which does not necessarily improve sound quality. Finally detailed examination of some high end music players shows that they may use the same transport mechanism as a $30 boom box, may contain subassemblies from lower-cost products, or may be a lower cost product that is sold under a different brand name rebranded.
In a system, other things being equal, some people will hear a difference, others won't.
Repeats the audiophile myth that there are extreme differences among the sensitivity of hearing among people with normal hearing, and that there is no limit to the sensitivity of human hearing.
When a person is looking for audiophile quality, to me, it is assumed this person can hear a difference.
That assumption is just that an assumption, and it is easy to show that it often false. Many differences are perceived differences and relate to the circumstances, not the audible performance of the equipment.
I am not too familiar with scientific testing involved but I can say that no matter what testing is done, the algorithm used requires a constant representing what the human ear can hear. Apparently the accepted value is 20 to 20000 hz but it is not absolute as other can hear more, others less.
There are variations in the range and sensitiviy of human hearing but just like other areas of human performance, there are limits. For example, a person who can run a mile in 1 minute remains elusive.
I understand my claims of difference is subjective but nonetheless, I trust my ears and I go with it.
That is hard to quibble with, but baseless disputation of well known scientific findings is easy to quibble with.
But, being open minded, perhaps FMW can provide the necessary steps for this bias testing.
It's up to you to educate yourself. ITU Recommendation BS 1116-1 is in a downloadable PDF, and contains the details of one generally recognized procedure for doing bias-controllled listening tests. If you have any specific questions based on it, several of us would be happy to explain them to you.