nsk1
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2011
- Posts
- 100
- Likes
- 14
Tell me name of the motherboard, what PSU do you have and do you need upsampling, and also what is you DAC?
Tell me name of the motherboard, what PSU do you have and do you need upsampling, and also what is you DAC?
<snip>
Are there any difference in sound quality if rigs are connect the following ways?
1. Desktop computer ► USB to S/PDIF converter (no brand, cheap one, or on-board sound card with S/PDIF out) ► DAC ► Head-Amp ► Headphone
2. Desktop computer ► costly USB to S/PDIF converter (say M2tech hiFACE) ► DAC ► Head-amp ► Headphone.
Assumptions:
1. same track of music being played in both cases (say 24b/48k)
2. the cheap USB to S/PDIF converter support the sampling rate and depth of the music being played without upsampling. (i.e. native 24b/48k in this example)
3. DAC, Head-amp and headphone are the same in both cases.
The converter sounds noticeably better to my dac than the optical out on a laptop designed for multi-media. Both sound better than the RCA outs of the docking station. Computers are multitasking machines that gives a taste of everything but nothing perfect.
Sorry to not put IMO in my statement. Fact is based on proof, I've made my statement based on my/me/mine.
........
My question is as follow if I didn't make it clear enough.
Are there any difference in sound quality if rigs are connect the following ways?
1. Desktop computer ► USB to S/PDIF converter (no brand, cheap one, or on-board sound card with S/PDIF out) ► DAC ► Head-Amp ► Headphone
2. Desktop computer ► costly USB to S/PDIF converter (say M2tech hiFACE) ► DAC ► Head-amp ► Headphone.
Assumptions:
1. same track of music being played in both cases (say 24b/48k)
2. the cheap USB to S/PDIF converter support the sampling rate and depth of the music being played without upsampling. (i.e. native 24b/48k in this example)
3. DAC, Head-amp and headphone are the same in both cases.
I have a universal player as a meet source.(maybe $200) I was trying some 701s vs 702s on the same gear. When we put the player through my DAC, the sound was better to all listening to the comparisons. If digital is the same, why so many stand alone DACs and soundcards on the market? The analog output implementation will have an impact on the sonic characteristics. So will the filtering, power supply used, quality of components, materials etc. It isn't about the 1s & 0s, it's about how it's produced to the amp. Cheaper circuits will have a bad sound compared to well designed, quality outputs.
I have a universal player as a meet source.(maybe $200) I was trying some 701s vs 702s on the same gear. When we put the player through my DAC, the sound was better to all listening to the comparisons. If digital is the same, why so many stand alone DACs and soundcards on the market? The analog output implementation will have an impact on the sonic characteristics. So will the filtering, power supply used, quality of components, materials etc. It isn't about the 1s & 0s, it's about how it's produced to the amp. Cheaper circuits will have a bad sound compared to well designed, quality output
Mate, I think you have misunderstood my question.
I understand why and believe that better DACs and better standalone sound card could product better sound quality. The example you used is entirely different matter that I am raising up here.
My concern is the lying in the digital signal before going into the DAC/standalone soundcard. The digital converters that convert 1s & 0s output from USB or whatever interface to another DIGITAL output, such as optical output (which is another 1s & 0s, not analog)
There isn't a whole lot of science behind a lot of claims for digital sources and how they improve audio.
Jitter is a pretty big red herring. No semi-competent piece of digital gear (incompetent gear including pieces such as certain Nuforce CD players and the HifiMan DAPs) has anything approaching amounts of jitter that should be audible. Besides, as mentioned earlier DACs use all kinds of tricks to "dispose" of jitter anyway.
Aside from that, there isn't a huge amount to get wrong with digital transmission - assuming there is not such a problem with the signal, from either the digital source or originating during transmission, that the receiver cannot actually reconstruct data with any certainty (which would involve truly terribly designed equipment or cables that don't come within a thousand miles of the relevant specification).
The only other thing I can think of that might occasionally be useful is galvanic isolation - achieved with fibre-optic connections as opposed to standard coax (glass obviously being not known for its conductive properties)