[fjf]

Check out you get a 44.1 KHz output (CD quality) and listen to it. Resampling from CD quality to 48 KHz (the usual) is to be avoided, because it usually sounds worst. Whatever you get, if you like it, then it's good. I've used the chaintech av710 (a 25$ card) and now use my mobo spdif out, and I find them very good.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Quote:

Just please don't say digital audio is just 1's and 0's Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Reddit!Facebook it! Reply With Quote

Fair enough: Digital data is just zeros and ones, and at the point at which it leaves the computer on its way to a DAC, it is just data, there is no audio. Is there the chance that a copper wire may carry RF with the data? Yes; use toslink. Is the timing of the data important? Yes again. But I have yet to come across an engineer without a financial stake in it who believes that those timing errors (jitter) make it through a competent, modern DAC at levels that are significant. And I've looked. I've also listened, and not heard jitter in quite a few DACs, at a broad range of price points, through very resolving systems.

Jitter is an (expensive) solution going around looking for a problem. There's one POV.

P

 

[stew1234]

I haven't really been able to tell a difference between the spdif out on my mobo and my presumably better esi juli@ card. That being said there I do think the spdif out on the juli@ sounds better than the optical out on my mobo.

 

[Shike]

The only real difference known is jitter which comes down to timing. A good reclocking DAC should fix most of the problem (if not near all depending on type), and whether you or anyone is able to pick it up is questionable. Let's not forget the insane amount of love some of the original Playstation units got with their insane amounts of jitter too.

More or less look the most important thing to examine are the features offered or problems associated. On some cards you get ability to interface with DAC clocks directly for the best reclocking accuracy or media centric features like Dolby Digital Live. In terms of things to watch out for forced resampling is considered a no-no as many use lower quality resampling algorithms.

Beyond that there's the advantage of lowering CPU usage which is good for those running tons of stressful apps.

 

[LingLing1337]

I don't have mobo optical or coax, my dad's computer however has a sound card with coax out. Really the only reason I want a sound card is so that I don't have to deal with the resolution limitations of USB- a lot of my music is high-rez.

 

[JamesL]

In that case, theres a cheap av710 in the FS forum.

 

[Roseval]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phelonious Ponk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Fair enough: Digital data is just zeros and ones, and at the point at which it leaves the computer on its way to a DAC, it is just data, there is no audio.

I’m afraid this is not completely true.
If the protocol used is SPDIF (and that where this topic is about), you not only deal with the data but with the sample rate as well. This is simply the rate (well the double rate as it is bi-phased encoded) the sender is using. That is typical for the SPDIF protocol, the values (the signal) are digital, the timing is analogue.
In the digital domain this is not a problem, as long as the receiver can sync to the sender, the sender might jitter to its hearts content as the rate is used only as a method of transport.
In case of hybrid protocols like SPDIF the jitter of the sender is a problem because the rate is not only used as a method to transport data but also as information, the sample rate

 

[fjf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LingLing1337 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't have mobo optical or coax, my dad's computer however has a sound card with coax out. Really the only reason I want a sound card is so that I don't have to deal with the resolution limitations of USB- a lot of my music is high-rez.

Define Hi-rez. USB does fine with CD quality.

 

[ironmine]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LingLing1337 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi all, basically I'm looking for a digital-out solution for my computer so that I can play my high-rez FLACs that USB can't handle. First, am I correct in saying that if I use digital-out then I won't need to resample, as the digital-in on my DAC handles 24/96, whereas the USB only handles 16/48? And second, does the sound card (I'm looking for a PCI slot solution, I'm leaning heavily towards this) matter if it's of decent quality at least? It seems like all cards should output the same digital signal, no? Thanks for the help. Oh, and if you'd like to suggest a card or usb-to-digital, I'm looking for sub-$30 solutions.

Can this card which you have chosen send 24/96 thought its digital output? If not, I would keep on looking. If a card can output 24/96 and if your DAC can accept it, you will have a choice how to unsample your signal. There are many Foobar DSP-components and also VST-plugins which can probable unsample the signal better than the inbuilt unsampler in your DAC. If your card can send only 16/44 though its digital output, you are pretty much stuck with doing the unsampling in your DAC. I don't know about you, but I always like to have a choice and be as flexible as possible.

I have Stello DA100 DAC and I feed it now through USB, so it can accept 16/48 maximum. I want to buy a PCI card, because I want to feed my DAC with 24/96 through the soundcard's optical output. In my opinion, 24/96 (upsampled in Foobar with SSRC) sounds the best - at least better (to my ears) than either 16/44 (i.e. non-upsampled) or 16/48 (i.e. upsampled in PC) or 24/192 (upsampled in Stello).

 

[JamesL]

Wait what?
I'm by no means an expert on this topic, but why in gods name would you want to do that? Upsample.. downsample.. and upsample again?
You can encode and decode a signal without losing information, but theres no such thing as "un-sampling". You downsample, and you're just throwing away information.

Also, I thought the preferred/ideal transport was one that put out a bitperfect signal without any kind of sampling.

As for reclocking and upsampling done by the DAC, its generally thought of as a good thing, but maybe some prefer NOS dacs. I read an article that interviewed Dan Lavry, and he thinks upsampling up to 96khz is ideal, while 192khz has no upsides.

 

[ironmine]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesL /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wait what? why in gods name would you want to do that? Upsample.. downsample.. and upsample again?

I don't do any "unsampling-downsampling-unsampling again", you misunderstand me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesL /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also, I thought the preferred/ideal transport was one that put out a bitperfect signal without any kind of sampling.

I prefer an upsampled signal. However, 24/96 sounds a way better to me than 24/192. So, I agree with Dan Lavry here

Currently, choosing between NOS 16/44 and 24/192 is like choosing between two evils for me (Stello cannot upsample to any format other than 24/192). 16/44 handles the bass better, but in terms of other aspects (3D, sense of space, localization of instruments, feeling and depth of soundstage) 24/192 is much better. For me, 24/96 combines the best of the both worlds.

 

[uraflit]

usb can handle flacs just fine if thats what youre trying to get at

 

[ironmine]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesL /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wait what? I'm by no means an expert on this topic, but why in gods name would you want to do that? Upsample.. downsample.. and upsample again?

By the way, JamesL, "upsample-process-downsample" is exactly how the best equalizers work: Refined Audiometrics Laboratory
"For audio streams at sample rates below 80 kHz the DSP engine internally upsamples with high-quality Sinc interpolation, applies its filtering, and then downsamples back to your system sample rate."
This plugin costs $1000.

 

[ironmine]

Quote:

Originally Posted by uraflit /img/forum/go_quote.gif usb can handle flacs just fine if thats what youre trying to get at

I don't think you understand what we are talking about

 

[JamesL]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironmine /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't do any "unsampling-downsampling-unsampling again", you misunderstand me.

I said up-sampling.. you said un-sampling. Care to explain?