I need some help picking out a budget DAC - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayzei 

Yes, sorry, i didn't mention noise and interference, thankyou.

 

But, this whole thread isn't a plausible explanation? 

 

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/449885/usb-to-spdif-converters-shoot-out-emu-0404-usb-vs-musiland-monitor-01-usd-vs-teralink-x-vs-m2tech-hiface

 

Tom.

 

Quite the opposite.  The length of that thread and the hostility it caused supports my opinion.  I remember following that thread at the time, and IIRC it's chock full of claims based on listening impressions, but silent as to why that was happening.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by terriblepaulz 

Quite the opposite.  The length of that thread and the hostility it caused supports my opinion.  I remember following that thread at the time, and IIRC it's chock full of claims based on listening impressions, but silent as to why that was happening.
 

biting the bullet here, but isn't the whole audiophile world based somewhat on listening impressions. It boils down to the same point that everyone has different hearing sensory perceptions and no one person is built the same. that being said, the important bit which will always be unknown, is weeding out placebo effects.

technical explanations are good for those who understand and it helps quantify a claim, I definitely agree. But sound comes out differently though each device e.g. putting the HD800 driver in a Grado headphone shell, etc.

I haven't followed that thread all the way, but I'm just trying to say that a lot of what people are saying on almost every thread is based on listening impressions, especially reviews. Technical frequencies can be chartered, but how many people's ears are trained for the minute differences?

Read it to understand. I'm not having a go at you by the way. just stating an opinion as well :) no offence meant in any way whatsoever

Quote:

Originally Posted by cravenz 

biting the bullet here, but isn't the whole audiophile world based somewhat on listening impressions. It boils down to the same point that everyone has different hearing sensory perceptions and no one person is built the same. that being said, the important bit which will always be unknown, is weeding out placebo effects.

 

technical explanations are good for those who understand and it helps quantify a claim, I definitely agree. But sound comes out differently though each device e.g. putting the HD800 driver in a Grado headphone shell, etc.

 

I haven't followed that thread all the way, but I'm just trying to say that a lot of what people are saying on almost every thread is based on listening impressions, especially reviews. Technical frequencies can be chartered, but how many people's ears are trained for the minute differences?

 

Read it to understand. I'm not having a go at you by the way. just stating an opinion as well :) no offence meant in any way whatsoever

Yes, the audiophile world is based largely on reporting of subjective impressions.  IMO, that's a bug, not a feature.  My point was specifically about that thread reviewing different usb to spdif converters - I don't recall any definitive statement that one device produces a different digital signal than another, and my simplistic understanding of digital audio leads me to then conclude that one device could not possibly produce a different sound from another (presuming of course that all other elements of the playback chain are constant).  

So, the listening impressions in that thread could not carry a lot of weight with me because I could not understand how they could have occurred.  The same would not be true when it comes to impressions of other types of equipment.  In a different context (e.g. headphones or speakers) my (admittedly simplistic) understanding of the relevant principles involved allows for the possibility that different impressions are attributable to actual differences in the equipment.  In that context, listening impressions are valuable.

Speaking of subjective impressions, I just posted a collection of them regarding nine different budget DACs that I have owned here (shameless plug); hopefully you will find it somewhat helpful. Price range was from $60 to $409, including shipping.

Under what circumstances is the above statement always true?

I'm running Vista 64 with a MOTU Ultralite on USB and have absolutely no problem outputting 96/24 or higher with both ASIO and windows drivers?

The ZERO DAC/PRE AMP/HP AMP @usb/optical/coax input, opamp627.

My friend bought one on a recommendation and this thing is ridiculous for the money. Plently of reviews on head-fi. Ebay around $125usd new.

Heaps of power, amazing bass, almost tube/hybrid sounding. Only digital in and lineout/hp out but I was floored by it value and performance/$.

For under $150usd, I would be astonished if anything beat it. (apart from DIY of course.)

Good luck

BTW it's 24/192 through coax and optical and 16/44 through usb.

I believe 16/48 is the maximum sample/bit rate output for adaptive USB audio, without a custom driver and/or a very expensive asynchronous DAC.

Edit: But I could be wrong about that, maybe things have changed since I last read a USB audio primer. I was just checking out Audiophilleo's product comparison of USB to SPDIF transports, and they state, "Standard Windows driver only supports 96/24. The OSX and Linux standard drivers and our Windows custom driver support 192/24"

I knew that the Mac at least can natively support the higher rates through optical, but now I'm not sure about USB, which is what Audiophilleo must be referring to considering to considering the context. Anyone have a better handle on this? This is what Computer Audiophile has to say on the subject:

"Most USB capable DACs today use adaptive mode USB. This is commonly done using a PCM270x chip from TI and to a lessor extent the PCM290x or CMedia parts. The big plus for DAC Manufacturers when using this chip is that no programming is required. The chip can be "popped" into place without extensive R&D, USB audio programming skills, a lengthy time to market, and a substantial amount of money. Big drawbacks to this method are very limited sample rate support (32, 44.1 & 48k), maximum of 16 bit audio, and sound quality."

I may be one of the lucky few, but I do not get any interference through USB. I have checked this by pausing the music and turning the volume all the way up. No hum or anything. :D If this isn't the way to test this, please do tell. :)

Thanks for the replies on this topic. I think I understand the situation correctly now. Which I will restate as a point of information.

"Neither Windows nor USB in themselves impose a 44/16 limit on the sampling or bit rates of audio files.

Even an old, cheap sub ~$100 USB 1.1 device from the likes of Berhinger and M-Audio will happily transfer stereo at up to 192/24. Slightly more sophisticated USB 2.0 devices from RME, MOTU, Focusrite etc will happily transfer over 8 channels @ 192/24 all day. I know this as I do it every day.

The reason this fallacy has gained traction appears to lie in the design of many older DACs still popular in the audiophile community. They use a previous generation of DAC chip which is what places the limitation on the transfer rate. These chips were designed for use in stand alone CD players and since they are cheap, easy to use units - effectively plug and play - and it was not forseen the average audiophile would want anything more they are still in common use today.

The lesson being. Do not avoid USB audio interfaces because of their limited transfer rates. That is a fallacy. Rather you should avoid DACs which do not permit transfer rates above 44/16. Incidentally you are probably better off buying a half decent USB 2.0 or Firewire audio interface new rather than wasting the same money and cluttering up your signal chain with unnecessary S/PDIF convertors simply to retain an obsolete DAC. Although I suspect it might be a while before the penny drops.

All the units based on the TE7022L Tenor chip can do 24/96 over USB w/o drivers, like the Teradak X2 for instance.