Inferior DSP?

I noticed on the Cirrus Logic website that their CS 49326 DSP engine, which is used in the 950, appears to be only a 24-bit processor. Since most "higher end" AV receivers and processors are advertising multiple 32-bit DSP engines nowadays, I am now left wondering if the 950's DSP is an inferior product... Any comments?

Don't get suckered in by such specmanship. 24 bits is actually the bit depth of the data path used in most professional digital audio workstations for internal math, and is so good that no actual 24 bit analog to digital converter can be built that actually records anything more than it's own electronic noise in the lower 4-6 bits or so. 36 bits is WAY overkill, and impractical overkill at that. Nothing in the way of useful information exists at anywhere below the 24th bit level, if even that, let along the 36th. The math performed during DSP operations may produce 'bits' down there, but they won't represent anything useful. When people start talking 36 bit, Run Like Hell.

Processing power is another matter. That can be dealt with in the same manner as in your computer's processor: higher clock speed, wider data path among other things. But the fact is that it takes a certain amount of DSP capability to do the things that a preamp/processor must do, and as long as the DSP has enough power to do it's job, then more than that is wasted. Kind of like doing only word processing on the fastest computer in the world.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited January 06, 2003).]

Most modern CPUs use a 32 or greater register and data path and there might be some simplification in the code to perform the various DSP operations due to greater bit depth, but none of that would effect the end user. With care 24 bits is plenty to do the various data transformations without audible loss. Some extra steps might be required on a 24 bit DSP vs. 32 bit that might potentially cause it to do fewer ops per second, but either it's fast enough or it's not, so as a consumer this isn't something I'd worry about.


[This message has been edited by charlie (edited January 06, 2003).]

I used to think that 32 bit engines were "better" than 24 bit engines, and *theoretically* that is true. But here's is a simple fact to disuade that idea:

Analog Device Sharcs have been out for more than 4 years and are 32 bit. Most Sony receivers use these now, among other manufacturers.

But Motorola is still at 24 bit. That includes the new Anthem and B&K Ref 50 processors:

http://www.chipcenter.com/dsp/DSP000928F1.html

So "no", Outlaw's DSP isn't inferior. Same DSP that Rotel uses in their 1066 btw...

But does the fact that Rotel uses it really mean it's not inferior? After all, it's the second cheapest pre/pro on the market.


[This message has been edited by dmeister (edited January 06, 2003).]

Ha ha ha. Until Sherwood Newcastle follows up their excellent AV-P9080 that is....

------------------
Philip Hamm

Well, Rotel saves money by using IMO inferior 24/96 DACs instead of the 24/192's that Outlaw uses...

Can anyone give me some insight on the cirrus logic feature? Can it only be used with a 6.1 or 7.1 system? I have a 5.1 system with only digital connections and have been unable to engage the cirrus logic with a stereo source.

Yep. You need 6.1 at least for it to engage.