Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
Hello Folks,
Can anyone recommend a really good sounding DAC at a reasonable price. I know reasonable is relative in this industry and I have spent when I thought it was important to but does one need to spend thousands of dollars on a DAC or are there great performers at good prices (under $500). Do you get what you pay for when buying a DAC. I understand there are only a number of chipsets used by DACs and I liken a DAC to a PC. I can build a PC cheaper from 3rd party components that will out perform the big brand names. Wouldn't DACs behave the same way...the more bits and over sampling the better? Thank you in advance.... |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:14:26 -0800, RoninTO wrote
(in article ): Hello Folks, Can anyone recommend a really good sounding DAC at a reasonable price. I know reasonable is relative in this industry and I have spent when I thought it was important to but does one need to spend thousands of dollars on a DAC or are there great performers at good prices (under $500). Do you get what you pay for when buying a DAC. I understand there are only a number of chipsets used by DACs and I liken a DAC to a PC. I can build a PC cheaper from 3rd party components that will out perform the big brand names. Wouldn't DACs behave the same way...the more bits and over sampling the better? Thank you in advance.... Cambridge DacMagic http://www.head-case.org/forums/home...mbridge-audio- dacmagic-400-balanced.html |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
On 20 Feb 2009 04:14:26 GMT, RoninTO wrote:
Hello Folks, Can anyone recommend a really good sounding DAC at a reasonable price. I know reasonable is relative in this industry and I have spent when I thought it was important to but does one need to spend thousands of dollars on a DAC or are there great performers at good prices (under $500). Do you get what you pay for when buying a DAC. I understand there are only a number of chipsets used by DACs and I liken a DAC to a PC. I can build a PC cheaper from 3rd party components that will out perform the big brand names. Wouldn't DACs behave the same way...the more bits and over sampling the better? Thank you in advance.... I'm not sure that the PC analogy holds (there are so many short cuts available to the really big manufacturers). But I sense that you are correct in thinking that the core DAC chipsets are pretty much commodity items and that the supporting infrastructure ought to be pretty much run-of-the-mill design. Also that a high proportion of the cost of a commersial unit is in the casework/sockets/switches (let alone how the price is carved up). |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
"RoninTO" wrote in message
Hello Folks, Can anyone recommend a really good sounding DAC at a reasonable price. The one that is already in the piece of gear you were thinking about attaching to the DAC. Can't beat the price and if it is reasonably new, its probably better than any media you'll play through it. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:51:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "RoninTO" wrote in message Hello Folks, Can anyone recommend a really good sounding DAC at a reasonable price. The one that is already in the piece of gear you were thinking about attaching to the DAC. Can't beat the price and if it is reasonably new, its probably better than any media you'll play through it. You're overlooking something. Their are some music server applications that need a DAC and few CD players et al allow outside sources. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
On 20 Feb 2009 04:14:26 GMT, RoninTO wrote:
Hello Folks, Can anyone recommend a really good sounding DAC at a reasonable price. I know reasonable is relative in this industry and I have spent when I thought it was important to but does one need to spend thousands of dollars on a DAC or are there great performers at good prices (under $500). Do you get what you pay for when buying a DAC. I understand there are only a number of chipsets used by DACs and I liken a DAC to a PC. I can build a PC cheaper from 3rd party components that will out perform the big brand names. Wouldn't DACs behave the same way...the more bits and over sampling the better? Thank you in advance.... My recommendation would be the EMU 0404USB (http://www.emu.com/products/product.asp?product=15185) which is a standalone USB-based box. Great sound at a bargain price. .....and it's an ADC too, and a very good one at that. --- Rob Tweed Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd Registered in England: No 3220901 Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
On Feb 20, 12:41*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:51:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "RoninTO" wrote in message Hello Folks, Can anyone recommend a really good sounding DAC at a reasonable price. The one that is already in the piece of gear you were thinking about attaching to the DAC. *Can't beat the price and if it is reasonably new, its probably better than any media you'll play through it. You're overlooking something. Their are some music server applications that need a DAC and few CD players et al allow outside sources. Yes...I am looking for an external DAC to work with my media player. The Sonos product has a great interface for accessing music from my network but the built in DAC is lacking in top end fidelity and sound staging. I don't believe the Sonos product was ever intended for high end audio. It is a great multi-room home audio solution. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
On Feb 20, 10:50*am, Dick Bowman wrote:
On 20 Feb 2009 04:14:26 GMT, RoninTO wrote: Hello Folks, Can anyone recommend a really good sounding DAC at a reasonable price. *I know reasonable is relative in this industry and I have spent when I thought it was important to but does one need to spend thousands of dollars on a DAC or are there great performers at good prices (under $500). *Do you get what you pay for when buying a DAC. I understand there are only a number of chipsets used by DACs and I liken a DAC to a PC. *I can build a PC cheaper from 3rd party components that will out perform the big brand names. *Wouldn't DACs behave the same way...the more bits and over sampling the better? Thank you in advance.... I'm not sure that the PC analogy holds (there are so many short cuts available to the really big manufacturers). But I sense that you are correct in thinking that the core DAC chipsets are pretty much commodity items and that the supporting infrastructure ought to be pretty much run-of-the-mill design. *Also that a high proportion of the cost of a commersial unit is in the casework/sockets/switches (let alone how the price is carved up). I hate to say it but I believe the majority cost associated with the production and commercialization of a high end DAC unit is marketing. Preception is reality for those willing to pay, especially in high end audio. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
"RoninTO" wrote in message
On Feb 20, 12:41 pm, Sonnova wrote: On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:51:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "RoninTO" wrote in message Hello Folks, Can anyone recommend a really good sounding DAC at a reasonable price. The one that is already in the piece of gear you were thinking about attaching to the DAC. Can't beat the price and if it is reasonably new, its probably better than any media you'll play through it. You're overlooking something. Their are some music server applications that need a DAC and few CD players et al allow outside sources. Don't they pretty universally have built- in DACs? Yes...I am looking for an external DAC to work with my media player. The Sonos product has a great interface for accessing music from my network but the built in DAC is lacking in top end fidelity and sound staging. Says who? I don't believe the Sonos product was ever intended for high end audio. It is a great multi-room home audio solution. These days even reasonbly cheap DAC chips are really pretty good. The Sonos is not a particularly cheap device, I'd expect it to have a built-in DAC that sounds and measures just fine. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:11:13 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "RoninTO" wrote in message On Feb 20, 12:41 pm, Sonnova wrote: On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:51:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "RoninTO" wrote in message Hello Folks, Can anyone recommend a really good sounding DAC at a reasonable price. The one that is already in the piece of gear you were thinking about attaching to the DAC. Can't beat the price and if it is reasonably new, its probably better than any media you'll play through it. You're overlooking something. Their are some music server applications that need a DAC and few CD players et al allow outside sources. Don't they pretty universally have built- in DACs? Not very good ones. I.E. Most are 16-bit/44.1 KHz. Not much use if you are serving 24-bit, 88, 96 or 192KHz audio. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:11:13 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "RoninTO" wrote in message On Feb 20, 12:41 pm, Sonnova wrote: On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:51:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "RoninTO" wrote in message Hello Folks, Can anyone recommend a really good sounding DAC at a reasonable price. The one that is already in the piece of gear you were thinking about attaching to the DAC. Can't beat the price and if it is reasonably new, its probably better than any media you'll play through it. You're overlooking something. Their are some music server applications that need a DAC and few CD players et al allow outside sources. Don't they pretty universally have built- in DACs? Not very good ones. I.E. Most are 16-bit/44.1 KHz. Not much use if you are serving 24-bit, 88, 96 or 192KHz audio. Given that even $40 DVD players have DACs capable of 24/192, I find this hard to believe. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:43:44 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:11:13 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "RoninTO" wrote in message On Feb 20, 12:41 pm, Sonnova wrote: On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:51:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "RoninTO" wrote in message Hello Folks, Can anyone recommend a really good sounding DAC at a reasonable price. The one that is already in the piece of gear you were thinking about attaching to the DAC. Can't beat the price and if it is reasonably new, its probably better than any media you'll play through it. You're overlooking something. Their are some music server applications that need a DAC and few CD players et al allow outside sources. Don't they pretty universally have built- in DACs? Not very good ones. I.E. Most are 16-bit/44.1 KHz. Not much use if you are serving 24-bit, 88, 96 or 192KHz audio. Given that even $40 DVD players have DACs capable of 24/192, I find this hard to believe. How do you get a 24-bit 192KHz wave file THROUGH a DVD player? Very few (if any) have auxiliary inputs that give one access to those DACs. You'd have to burn a 24-bit, 192KHz DVD of every download to use the DACs in the average DVD player. I was under the impression that the whole idea of high-res downloads was to eliminate physical media. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:43:44 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:11:13 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "RoninTO" wrote in message On Feb 20, 12:41 pm, Sonnova wrote: On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:51:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "RoninTO" wrote in message Hello Folks, Can anyone recommend a really good sounding DAC at a reasonable price. The one that is already in the piece of gear you were thinking about attaching to the DAC. Can't beat the price and if it is reasonably new, its probably better than any media you'll play through it. You're overlooking something. Their are some music server applications that need a DAC and few CD players et al allow outside sources. Don't they pretty universally have built- in DACs? Not very good ones. I.E. Most are 16-bit/44.1 KHz. Not much use if you are serving 24-bit, 88, 96 or 192KHz audio. Given that even $40 DVD players have DACs capable of 24/192, I find this hard to believe. How do you get a 24-bit 192KHz wave file THROUGH a DVD player? DVD-A. However this is not the point I was trying to make. My point is that even very low cost DVD players can contain DAC chips that would be capable of 24/192 operation, regardless of whether or not the player would operate that high. This fact contradicts the idea that cheap DVD players only have 16/44 DACs in them. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:08:30 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:43:44 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:11:13 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "RoninTO" wrote in message On Feb 20, 12:41 pm, Sonnova wrote: On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:51:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "RoninTO" wrote in message Hello Folks, Can anyone recommend a really good sounding DAC at a reasonable price. The one that is already in the piece of gear you were thinking about attaching to the DAC. Can't beat the price and if it is reasonably new, its probably better than any media you'll play through it. You're overlooking something. Their are some music server applications that need a DAC and few CD players et al allow outside sources. Don't they pretty universally have built- in DACs? Not very good ones. I.E. Most are 16-bit/44.1 KHz. Not much use if you are serving 24-bit, 88, 96 or 192KHz audio. Given that even $40 DVD players have DACs capable of 24/192, I find this hard to believe. How do you get a 24-bit 192KHz wave file THROUGH a DVD player? DVD-A. However this is not the point I was trying to make. My point is that even very low cost DVD players can contain DAC chips that would be capable of 24/192 operation, regardless of whether or not the player would operate that high. This fact contradicts the idea that cheap DVD players only have 16/44 DACs in them. I was referring to CD players and the DACs usually included in devices like the Apple Airport Express or Logitech's Squeezebox. But, it doesn't really matter. The fact remains that if someone wants to use/access their computer music library (unless the computer is in the same room as their stereo system) they are going to need an accessible DAC for anything other than MP3 and 16-bit, 44.1KHz sources. I'm also not convinced that all DACs sound alike either. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
"Sonnova" wrote in message
I was referring to CD players and the DACs usually included in devices like the Apple Airport Express or Logitech's Squeezebox. In this day and age, I'd give the DAC the benefit of the doubt, and run some tests on it with the Rightmark program. People are actually doing this sort of thing for themselves on some of the HTML audio forums I frequent. They are finding what insiders already know, which is that even some of the cheapest DAC chips around are getting to be pretty respectable. For example, most portable digital players have converters with +/- 0.05 dB frequency response and 90+ dB dynamic range. For example, the motherboard-resident audio chips on PCs now routinely have 8 discrete analog output channels, +/-0.05 dB frequency response and 90+ dB dynamic range. 10 years ago those numbers were +/- 6 dB or worse response coupled with as little as 45 dB dynamic range. The worst converters around are in CDROM drives. These converters are rarely if ever used since the days of Win98, when windows started using a 100% digital connection to play audio CDs. Next up the food chain are the audio outputs of cheap portable CD players. But the problem has not been the converters for a long time, the problem has been the anti-shock buffers which used data compression. The truth about modern converters is that their goodness is almost all in their design. Once a good design has been committed to silicon, the production costs are nearly nil - certainly under $1 in manufacturing volumes. Between more efficient fabrication processes that put more gates on the same amount of silicon, and the fact that silicon is being produced in vast volumes, the need to cut back on complexity is reduced. More complexity and speed - higher performance. But, it doesn't really matter. The fact remains that if someone wants to use/access their computer music library (unless the computer is in the same room as their stereo system) they are going to need an accessible DAC for anything other than MP3 and 16-bit, 44.1KHz sources. I'm also not convinced that all DACs sound alike either. One of the more interesting web pages that sheds light on the issue of DAC audibility has files that have been bounced through the converters on a $25 SoundBlaster card, up to 20 times. Anybody can download one of the many PCABX comparators on the web and do their own reliable, bias-controlled listening tests. I can definitely hear a difference when the sound has been bounced many times, but I would not characterize the flaws as being seriously objectionable. After just a few bounces, nobody who does reliable tests has ever reported hearing anything. Compare that grueling test to typical consumer use of just the DAC half of the ADC/DAC pair that this test covers, and the fact that we usually only listen to the first pass. The presumption that a built-in DAC is causing a serious loss of sound quality is no longer a good assumption. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:11:07 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message I was referring to CD players and the DACs usually included in devices like the Apple Airport Express or Logitech's Squeezebox. In this day and age, I'd give the DAC the benefit of the doubt, and run some tests on it with the Rightmark program. People are actually doing this sort of thing for themselves on some of the HTML audio forums I frequent. They are finding what insiders already know, which is that even some of the cheapest DAC chips around are getting to be pretty respectable. I don't doubt it. The job of a DAC chip is pretty simple. The problems have been that in the past, the linearity of the stair-steps varied greatly and real linear DACs were a product of selection rather than process. IOW, the most linear DACs were chosen from each wafer and priced at a premium while the less accurate samples were priced lower. Today, the process is much more tightly controllable, and while there might still be a spread between the most linear DACs on a given wafer and the least linear, the yield of very accurate DACs is much higher than it was a few years ago and the premium for those very linear examples is much less. This means that manufacturers of even fairly mundane equipment can afford to use DAC chips that, a few short years ago, would have been found in only very high-end equipment. One still finds great variance in such things as analog stages, anti-ailising filters, power supplies and even the digital clock accuracy, etc. For example, most portable digital players have converters with +/- 0.05 dB frequency response and 90+ dB dynamic range. For example, the motherboard-resident audio chips on PCs now routinely have 8 discrete analog output channels, +/-0.05 dB frequency response and 90+ dB dynamic range. 10 years ago those numbers were +/- 6 dB or worse response coupled with as little as 45 dB dynamic range. The worst converters around are in CDROM drives. These converters are rarely if ever used since the days of Win98, when windows started using a 100% digital connection to play audio CDs. Next up the food chain are the audio outputs of cheap portable CD players. But the problem has not been the converters for a long time, the problem has been the anti-shock buffers which used data compression. Agreed. The truth about modern converters is that their goodness is almost all in their design. Once a good design has been committed to silicon, the production costs are nearly nil - certainly under $1 in manufacturing volumes. Between more efficient fabrication processes that put more gates on the same amount of silicon, and the fact that silicon is being produced in vast volumes, the need to cut back on complexity is reduced. More complexity and speed - higher performance. But, it doesn't really matter. The fact remains that if someone wants to use/access their computer music library (unless the computer is in the same room as their stereo system) they are going to need an accessible DAC for anything other than MP3 and 16-bit, 44.1KHz sources. I'm also not convinced that all DACs sound alike either. One of the more interesting web pages that sheds light on the issue of DAC audibility has files that have been bounced through the converters on a $25 SoundBlaster card, up to 20 times. When I say DAC, I'm not referring to the digital-to-analog converter chip, I'm referring to the box that takes a digital signal from a coax, or an optical connector and outputs a line-level audio signal. Anybody can download one of the many PCABX comparators on the web and do their own reliable, bias-controlled listening tests. I can definitely hear a difference when the sound has been bounced many times, but I would not characterize the flaws as being seriously objectionable. After just a few bounces, nobody who does reliable tests has ever reported hearing anything. Compare that grueling test to typical consumer use of just the DAC half of the ADC/DAC pair that this test covers, and the fact that we usually only listen to the first pass. The presumption that a built-in DAC is causing a serious loss of sound quality is no longer a good assumption. While you are probably right, the quality of the DAC chips used in today's players are pretty irrelevant when the listener wants to be able to stream his "high-resolution" downloads from his computer to his stereo system. He's going to have to buy a stand-alone DAC capable of the required 24-bit resolution and the 192 KHz sampling rate (unless he's willing to have a dedicated computer connected to his stereo system with a good sound card on-board). These are not cheap and can easily cost more than a grand for models like the excellent Benchmark DAC1. That's my only point here. I mostly agree with the points you've made about the general quality of today's DAC chips. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
On Feb 24, 3:15*pm, Sonnova wrote:
The job of a DAC chip is pretty simple. The problems have been that in the past, the linearity of the stair- steps varied greatly and real linear DACs were a product of selection rather than process. That would be in the WAY WAY past, like more than 25 years ago. And the problem, when it existed, was solved not through selection but through trimming. IOW, the most linear DACs were chosen from each wafer and priced at a premium while the less accurate samples were priced lower. You're talking the WAY ancient past, not much past the very earliest CD players. Today, the process is much more tightly controllable, No, today a completely different architecture is used. The VAST majority of audio DACs are based on delta-sigma technology, where the step size is rendered irrelevant altogether. and while there might still be a spread between the most linear DACs on a given wafer and the least linear, the yield of very accurate DACs is much higher than it was a few years ago and the premium for those very linear examples is much less. No, the yield is 100% for any of the ships that work. Delta-sigma conversion makes this so. One still finds great variance in such things as analog stages, anti-ailising *filters, There are no anti-aliasing filters in DACs, as they don't alias. There ARE anti-imaging or reconstruction filters, and, again, the architecture of DACs is something that changed decades ago. Very few DACS have anti-imaging filters physically separate from the actual converter: it's not they they are physically associated: they work together algorithmically in modern DACs. power supplies and even the digital clock accuracy, etc. All my assertion above are rendered moot by any number of pathologically nutso high-end companies that exhibit behaviors effectively indistinguishable from grotesque technical incompetence that produce products that, if they were presented in a company with reasonable technical competence, would result in the designer being summarily fired. I'm speaking of "well regarded" and "respected" (in the oxygen-deprived realm of high-end audio) companies that make DACs with NO anti-imaging filters, dreadful clock recovery designs, incompetent mixed-signal design, and much, much more. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
"Sonnova" wrote in message
I don't doubt it. The job of a DAC chip is pretty simple. The problems have been that in the past, the linearity of the stair-steps varied greatly and real linear DACs were a product of selection rather than process. IOW, the most linear DACs were chosen from each wafer and priced at a premium while the less accurate samples were priced lower. Today, the process is much more tightly controllable, and while there might still be a spread between the most linear DACs on a given wafer and the least linear, the yield of very accurate DACs is much higher than it was a few years ago and the premium for those very linear examples is much less. The big change happened about 18 years ago when they started making delta-sigma converters. These chips are inherently linear and can't possibly have missing codes in the middle of their range. It took a while to perfect the technology. To some degree resolution can be traded off with speed, and speed is something that modern chips have plenty of. This means that manufacturers of even fairly mundane equipment can afford to use DAC chips that, a few short years ago, would have been found in only very high-end equipment. Exactly. One still finds great variance in such things as analog stages, anti-aliasing filters, DACs have no anti-aliasing filters, just low-pass reconstruction filters. The other technological advance happened before delta-sigma, and that was oversampling. The precison filters that are characteristic of excellent converters were moved into the digital domain. Again, there's a speed/performance tradeoff but again there is plenty of speed to trade off. Not only are digital filters potentially far less expensive, but there is considerably more latitude in the type of filter. So called Phase Linear filters are now very, very common. They have essentially no phase distortion, but instead act like a broadband delay line with fairly minimal delay. power supplies Long a solved problem because of low-cost voltage regulator chips. and even the digital clock accuracy, etc. Digital clock accuracy and stability is another long-solved problem. When I say DAC, I'm not referring to the digital-to-analog converter chip, I'm referring to the box that takes a digital signal from a coax, or an optical connector and outputs a line-level audio signal. The performance of that box is largely defined by the DAC chip. One of the finest analog op amps for the past 3 decades has been the NE5534/32 which again has become a very economical buy due to its maturity. The presumption that a built-in DAC is causing a serious loss of sound quality is no longer a good assumption. While you are probably right, the quality of the DAC chips used in today's players are pretty irrelevant when the listener wants to be able to stream his "high-resolution" downloads from his computer to his stereo system. The same chips that are used in digital music players are also used in computers and computer interfaces. He's going to have to buy a stand-alone DAC capable of the required 24-bit resolution and the 192 KHz sampling rate (unless he's willing to have a dedicated computer connected to his stereo system with a good sound card on-board). These are not cheap and can easily cost more than a grand for models like the excellent Benchmark DAC1. That's my only point here. I mostly agree with the points you've made about the general quality of today's DAC chips. The benchmark DAC-1 is vastly overpriced. You'll notice that there are no reliable listening tests showing that it has a sonic advantage over far more humble hardware, just anecdotes. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
wrote in message
I'm speaking of "well regarded" and "respected" (in the oxygen-deprived realm of high-end audio) companies that make DACs with NO anti-imaging filters, dreadful clock recovery designs, incompetent mixed-signal design, and much, much more. The really crazy part is the fact that many of these high attitude designers actually brag about these deficiencies like they were features. And there's apparently a market that actually gobbles it up. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:36:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message I don't doubt it. The job of a DAC chip is pretty simple. The problems have been that in the past, the linearity of the stair-steps varied greatly and real linear DACs were a product of selection rather than process. IOW, the most linear DACs were chosen from each wafer and priced at a premium while the less accurate samples were priced lower. Today, the process is much more tightly controllable, and while there might still be a spread between the most linear DACs on a given wafer and the least linear, the yield of very accurate DACs is much higher than it was a few years ago and the premium for those very linear examples is much less. The big change happened about 18 years ago when they started making delta-sigma converters. These chips are inherently linear and can't possibly have missing codes in the middle of their range. It took a while to perfect the technology. To some degree resolution can be traded off with speed, and speed is something that modern chips have plenty of. This means that manufacturers of even fairly mundane equipment can afford to use DAC chips that, a few short years ago, would have been found in only very high-end equipment. Exactly. One still finds great variance in such things as analog stages, anti-aliasing filters, DACs have no anti-aliasing filters, just low-pass reconstruction filters. I meant as part of the rest of the process, not the DAC chip itself. A complete DAC processor has these things, not the DAC itself. Sorry for the confusion. The other technological advance happened before delta-sigma, and that was oversampling. The precison filters that are characteristic of excellent converters were moved into the digital domain. Again, there's a speed/performance tradeoff but again there is plenty of speed to trade off. Not only are digital filters potentially far less expensive, but there is considerably more latitude in the type of filter. So called Phase Linear filters are now very, very common. They have essentially no phase distortion, but instead act like a broadband delay line with fairly minimal delay. power supplies Long a solved problem because of low-cost voltage regulator chips. and even the digital clock accuracy, etc. Digital clock accuracy and stability is another long-solved problem. When I say DAC, I'm not referring to the digital-to-analog converter chip, I'm referring to the box that takes a digital signal from a coax, or an optical connector and outputs a line-level audio signal. The performance of that box is largely defined by the DAC chip. One of the finest analog op amps for the past 3 decades has been the NE5534/32 which again has become a very economical buy due to its maturity. The presumption that a built-in DAC is causing a serious loss of sound quality is no longer a good assumption. While you are probably right, the quality of the DAC chips used in today's players are pretty irrelevant when the listener wants to be able to stream his "high-resolution" downloads from his computer to his stereo system. The same chips that are used in digital music players are also used in computers and computer interfaces. He's going to have to buy a stand-alone DAC capable of the required 24-bit resolution and the 192 KHz sampling rate (unless he's willing to have a dedicated computer connected to his stereo system with a good sound card on-board). These are not cheap and can easily cost more than a grand for models like the excellent Benchmark DAC1. That's my only point here. I mostly agree with the points you've made about the general quality of today's DAC chips. The benchmark DAC-1 is vastly overpriced. You'll notice that there are no reliable listening tests showing that it has a sonic advantage over far more humble hardware, just anecdotes. Pretty moot point when the cheapest full-featured standalone DACs are about $400 (the Cambridge DACMagic). They may well be overpriced, but if you want one you have to pay their price. Even the Apogee Mini-DAC is around a grand. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
On Feb 24, 6:19*pm, Sonnova wrote:
DACs have no anti-aliasing filters, just low-pass reconstruction filters. I meant as part of the rest of the process, not the DAC chip itself. A complete DAC processor has these things, not the DAC itself. Sorry for the confusion. No, they do not. DACs don't suffer from aliasing: that's a sampling problem. No DAC, complete or otherwise, an antialias filter. None. They have anti-imaging filters, also known as reconstruction filters. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:36:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message I don't doubt it. The job of a DAC chip is pretty simple. The problems have been that in the past, the linearity of the stair-steps varied greatly and real linear DACs were a product of selection rather than process. IOW, the most linear DACs were chosen from each wafer and priced at a premium while the less accurate samples were priced lower. Today, the process is much more tightly controllable, and while there might still be a spread between the most linear DACs on a given wafer and the least linear, the yield of very accurate DACs is much higher than it was a few years ago and the premium for those very linear examples is much less. The big change happened about 18 years ago when they started making delta-sigma converters. These chips are inherently linear and can't possibly have missing codes in the middle of their range. It took a while to perfect the technology. To some degree resolution can be traded off with speed, and speed is something that modern chips have plenty of. This means that manufacturers of even fairly mundane equipment can afford to use DAC chips that, a few short years ago, would have been found in only very high-end equipment. Exactly. One still finds great variance in such things as analog stages, anti-aliasing filters, DACs have no anti-aliasing filters, just low-pass reconstruction filters. I meant as part of the rest of the process, not the DAC chip itself. A complete DAC processor has these things, not the DAC itself. Sorry for the confusion. DAC chips generally incorporate the filtering within themselves. The benchmark DAC-1 is vastly overpriced. You'll notice that there are no reliable listening tests showing that it has a sonic advantage over far more humble hardware, just anecdotes. Pretty moot point when the cheapest full-featured standalone DACs are about $400 (the Cambridge DACMagic). Interesting. There are a number of full-featured standalone DACs being sold on eBay by small, China-based manufacturers. There are extant technical tests showing good performance. They may well be overpriced, but if you want one you have to pay their price. Even the Apogee Mini-DAC is around a grand. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
I have a Squeezebox and believe it has a burr brown PCM1748. Are
Dpierce and Arny telling me that I am wasting my time if I try and improve its sound via an external DAC? Does this apply to head phone amps as well? Also Arny said that benchmark DAC is overpriced and there are many cheaper equivalents. Maybe you can list a few. Steve |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
"Steve" wrote in message
I have a Squeezebox and believe it has a burr brown PCM1748. http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm1748.pdf Seems like it has CD quality dynamic range, and bandwidth figuratively coming out of its ears. Why would anyone want more? Are Dpierce and Arny telling me that I am wasting my time if I try and improve its sound via an external DAC? Yes. Does this apply to head phone amps as well? Well most line level outputs are not so good for driving low impedance headphones. People tell me that these are good: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Amplifier.html or: http://www.amazon.com/Behringer-Ultr.../dp/B000KU87SM Also Arny said that benchmark DAC is overpriced and there are many cheaper equivalents. Maybe you can list a few. What you already got! |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
On Feb 25, 11:09*am, Steve wrote:
I have a Squeezebox and believe it has a burr brown PCM1748. Are Dpierce and Arny telling me that I am wasting my time if I try and improve its sound via an external DAC? Possibly. Here are the Stereophile measurements of the Squeezebox: http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcom...im/index3.html Just what is it you think you'll be improving? Noise floor, maybe, but unless you listen at screamingly loud volumes, I'm not sure you'll notice. Does this apply to head phone amps as well? Not necessarily. Why should it? Amps and DACs are not the same thing. Also Arny said that benchmark DAC is overpriced and there are many cheaper equivalents. Maybe you can list a few. Here's a DBT comparing the Benchmark to a Behringer unit.: http://snipurl.com/cmp4v The babelfish translation is a tough slog, but the bottom line is that nobody could tell the difference. bob |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
On Feb 25, 11:09 am, Steve wrote:
I have a Squeezebox and believe it has a burr brown PCM1748. Are Dpierce and Arny telling me that I am wasting my time if I try and improve its sound via an external DAC? Care to show me where I made any such statement? |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
Arny Krueger wrote:
: "Steve" wrote in message : : I have a Squeezebox and believe it has a burr brown : PCM1748. : http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm1748.pdf : Seems like it has CD quality dynamic range, and bandwidth figuratively : coming out of its ears. Why would anyone want more? A related question. I have a squeezebox, and just updated my receiver to an Onkyo TX-SR706. I believe the Onkyo has a Cirrus Logic DAC. I'm assuming there's no real difference between using the DAC in the Squeezebox, and feeding the signal to the receiver's amp with analog cables, vs. sending the feed out from the SB to the receiver over a digital optical cable and using the receiver's DAC. Am I corect in making this assumption? -- Andy Barss |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message I have a Squeezebox and believe it has a burr brown PCM1748. http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm1748.pdf Seems like it has CD quality dynamic range, and bandwidth figuratively coming out of its ears. Why would anyone want more? Well, I would say the SNR is nothing to brag about. My 20 yr old Sony X779ES with Sony DACs offers 119dB SNR vs the 106bD of the 1748. Clearly, not all DACs are created equal, but their overall contribution to the sound quality may be less than other parts of the system. In other words, there are probably better ways to spend your money to improve the sound. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
On Feb 25, 7:53*pm, dave a wrote:
snip Well, I would say the SNR is nothing to brag about. *My 20 yr old Sony X779ES with Sony DACs offers 119dB SNR vs the 106bD of the 1748. The SNR difference here is really unimportant. Recorded music rarely has a dynamic range that exceeds 70 dB. Even with the "low" SNR of 106 dB, the noise in the recording is nearly 4 orders of magnitude greater. CDs "only" have a dynamic range of 96 dB which again is significantly lower than the noise floor in a recording. Clearly, not all DACs are created equal, but their overall contribution to the sound quality may be less than other parts of the system. *In other words, there are probably better ways to spend your money to improve the sound. With modern chips, that is very true. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
In article ,
Andrew Barss writes: Arny Krueger wrote: : "Steve" wrote in message : : I have a Squeezebox and believe it has a burr brown : PCM1748. : http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm1748.pdf : Seems like it has CD quality dynamic range, and bandwidth figuratively : coming out of its ears. Why would anyone want more? A related question. I have a squeezebox, and just updated my receiver to an Onkyo TX-SR706. I believe the Onkyo has a Cirrus Logic DAC. I'm assuming there's no real difference between using the DAC in the Squeezebox, and feeding the signal to the receiver's amp with analog cables, vs. sending the feed out from the SB to the receiver over a digital optical cable and using the receiver's DAC. Am I corect in making this assumption? I found that I preferred connecting my CD player digitally to my Yamaha receiver rather than analog. But the Yamaha has 24bit/96KHz DACs while my CD player does not, so that could be why. Also, I'm pretty sure the Yamaha digitizes the analog inputs so I am skipping a DAC/ADC step by using the digital connection if true. -- David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for a GREAT DAC at a reasonable price
On Feb 25, 7:49*pm, wrote:
On Feb 25, 11:09 am, Steve wrote: I have a Squeezebox and believe it has a burr brown PCM1748. Are Dpierce and Arny telling me that I am wasting my time if I try and improve its sound via an external DAC? Care to show me where I made any such statement? My apologies if I misrepresented you. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Really Nice Reverb? (at a reasonable price) | Pro Audio | |||
What's a reasonable selling price on a TECHNICS SL1700 TT? | Marketplace | |||
Whats a reasonable price for a matched pair of Schoeps? | Pro Audio | |||
Whats a reasonable price for a matched pair of Schoeps? | Pro Audio |